The consequences of
an end to mass immigration
The Liberal Internationalists tell us that the woes of the world would come upon
us should we end mass immigration, although, like Lear
threatening retribution, (“I will do such things– What they are,
yet I know not: but they shall be the terrors of the earth.”) they are unable to say exactly what the
woes will be. In fact, I cannot recall ever having seen an article
in the “mainstream” media which goes beyond lazy generalisation about
“competing in a global market” or “driving private enterprise
abroad”. Let me see if I can make a better fist of analysing
what would happen.
To stop mass immigration would require withdrawal from
the EU, the repudiation of other treaties such as the UN Convention
on Refugees (UNCR) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),
the repeal of the Human Rights Act (HRA) and the ending of the
rules which make it easy for new immigrants to settle here for the purpose of
joining relatives already here, for marriage and on compassionate
grounds. Consequently, the consideration of the effects of mass
immigration has to take in both the practical effects of its cessation
on our labour market and its international repercussions.
The effects on the
labour market
There would be greatly improved employment
opportunities for the English. The labour market would tighten and
wages would rise. That would place extra costs on employers but they could be
offset by a reduction in taxation due to millions of people being employed who
are currently unemployed. Nor would wages rise uniformly.
Labour would move
into those occupations which are
essential and which cannot be
provided at a distance, for
example healthcare
and education. We would discover
how occupations rank in terms of utility.
Wages would rise in those occupations which had most
utility to attract staff from elsewhere. This could have surprising
results. We might find that vital jobs considered menial now would pay much
more once cheap labour could no longer be brought in. This would be
justice for the many who have seen their jobs undervalued because of the
ability of employers to use cheap immigrant labour.
Employers
would respond to labour tightening by
using labour more efficiently.
Automation
would increase and employers would change their
attitude to the employment of the long-term unemployed,
older people and the disabled. Both employers and
government would take vocational training more seriously.
Government would provide incentives to employers to
train their staff and increase the training
of public service professionals such as
doctors and dentists. Government would also be forced
to tackle the mess which is our public education to ensure an
adequately educated workforce.
Employers who could not find the labour to run their
business in this country would have to accept they could not do
so. No one has a right to engage in an enterprise regardless of the
effects on the welfare of the community as a whole which is effectively
the present position. Capital which cannot be used in this country can be
invested abroad. The balance of payments would be improved by
a reduction in money being remitted abroad by immigrants.
The increase in employment of the English would be an
immense social good beyond reducing the cost to the Exchequer
of the unemployed, for people are generally happier and
responsible when employed .
The pressure on public
services, transport and housing would be lessened
making access to them easier for the English.
In particular, reduced demand for housing would reduce the cost of purchasing,
leasing or renting property for private individuals, public bodies,
charities and private companies. An ending of mass
immigration would also curtail the substantial cost of providing
the benefits of the welfare state to immigrants as soon as they gain the
right to legal long term residence here.
Fewer legal immigrants would allow much greater supervision
of visitors to England – a significant minority of whom are health tourists
or who are here for criminal purposes – and a proper control and
investigation of illegal immigrants. No more sending suspected illegals to the
Croydon reception office under their own speed or leaving ports and airfields
with an inadequate or completely absent Borders Agency presence.
The repeal of the HRA, our departure from the EU and the
repudiation of the ECHR and the UNCHR would allow our authorities to
deport people at will. We could then not only refuse new immigrants but
start removing the illegal immigrants who are already here.
Would there be an
unmanageable labour shortage?
The idea that England is short
of labour for most purposes is
demonstrably absurd. The official figure
for those of working age who are economically inactive in the UK is
approximately 9.5 million, or nearly a quarter of the age group. Home - Office for National Statistics. Clearly
not all of those would be able or willing to work, but equally
clearly a large proportion would be able and willing to work
if the conditions were right, for example,
wages rose, employers became more
accommodating and the benefits system was tightened as the
number of opportunities for work rose.
The
claim that the indigenous
population will not do the jobs
immigrants take is also demonstrably false. In areas of the
country with few immigrants, natives do them willingly.
In many instances where foreign workers are employed it is not
because natives will not
work. Take the case of the cockle-pickers who died in Morecombe
Bay several years ago it was widely
reported in the media that
the Chinese cockle pickers clashed
with English
cockle pickers who resented them invading
their territory. These Chinese were
not
filling
jobs which were unfilled by the
English but competing with the English for the work.
More generally, one of the great
lies of modern British politics is that employers are unable to recruit from
the native population, especially for unskilled labour. Vast swathes of work
have been effectively denied to the native population by collusion
between employers and those who supply labour. This happens both within
the ethnic minorities who only employ from their own ethnic group and within
immigrant labour which commonly works through gangmasters who are immigrants
themselves. This does not just work in areas such as fruit picking and
factory assembly work but in areas such as the NHS where we have the absurdity
of doctors and nurses trained in the UK at our expense having to go abroad to
find jobs because immigrants are employed here.
The other thing which prevents the native English taking
jobs in some parts of the country is the fact that the native English does not
want to work for employers whose workforce is predominantly formed of
immigrants or native-born ethnic minorities. Like every other people,
native English do not wish to be forced to work in their own
land in an employment where they are in the minority, especially
where they could find themselves in a situation where the workplace language is
not English.
It is also important to understand that the
menial jobs immigrants take are worth far more to them than to a native
Englishman. If you earn as little as £200 a week net – many immigrants
work cash in hand – and live in accommodation
either supplied by an employer
or in crowded accommodation for very little rent –
you will probably still be able to save a substantial amount,
say, £2,000 pa.
If you come from China where wages even in
the big cities are 50 pence an hour, you would earn £1,,000
pa for a 40 hour week. Working at a menial job in England allows
you to save double the average Chinese big city annual wage in a
year. That money remitted to China takes on the local purchasing
power. The multiplier for Eastern Europeans is less,
but even there £2,000 saved in a year would be a good professional salary
in places such as Poland. Give the native English the chance to save the
equivalent of a British professional’s salary in a year doing
a menial job and they will flock to the work and put up with basic living
conditions. Of course, no such employments are on offer to the
English.
As for skilled workers, there are few skills which
cannot either be taught in a relatively short time or purchased from people
working abroad. There are far fewer absolutely indispensible skills.
In addition, many skilled English might decide to return because
the ending of mass immigration would signal that there
was once again a clear distinction between the rights of the
English and the rights of foreigner. This would alter radically the moral
climate in England which could have a profound effect on the way in which
English émigrés view their homeland.
The international
effect
There would almost certainly be a great uproar if we ended
mass immigration. But the roar would come from a paper tiger because
those most affected would come from the Third World with which we have little
trade and where our national interest is rarely, if ever, at risk.
As a permanent member of the security council of the
UN the UK can veto any UN sanctions or even attempts to pass motions to
censure her. England is also an important member of institutions such as
the IMF and World Bank and could cause a good deal of trouble for the
nations most likely to need the aid of such organisations.
Then there is the inconvenient fact for critics
that no government in the world is officially for uncontrolled
immigration. Even more embarrassing, most of the members of the UN
have immigration regimes incomparably harsher than Britain has at present.
A phrase including glass houses and stones comes to mind.
As for international trade there is no reason to
imagine that England would suffer. The vast majority of our trade is with the
developed world. It is in the self-interest of our trading
partners to prevent action against England because England is not only an
important importer but an important exporter. To take just one
example, and a very potent one, England’s arms industry is one of the largest
in the world. The willingness to sell arms is a strong bargaining
card with every country on the planet. England is also tied into the
economies of the developed world through joint projects such as Airbus
and the supply of parts to industries such as car-making (a great deal is
supplied to German makes believe it or not). The developed
world, including the EU, would simply cut off their noses to spite their faces
if they took action against England. There are also the rules of the WTO
agreements which would prevent such behaviour.
What of the English who are living abroad? It is unlikely
their host countries would act against them for the simple reason there are
substantial communities of citizens from those host countries resident in
England. It is also true that most English living abroad do so in the developed
world, the countries of which are much less likely to expel those legally
resident en masse than a third world dictatorship. Moreover, in most
cases England would have more foreigners of a particular nationality living in
England than any foreign country has of English living in their country. The
balance of trade would be very much in England’s favour if reciprocal mass
expulsions resulted.
Do the English want
an end to mass immigration?
In these politically correct times where people have learnt
that to speak against pc orthodoxy is a dangerous thing which can result in the
loss of your job or criminal prosecution, it is difficult to get an
honest answer to a polling question such as “Do you think post-war immigration
has been a good or bad thing?” or “Do you think immigration should be
reduced?”, although even with such questions a healthy minority give the
non-pc answer.. To get at the truth one has to look at the responses to
questions such as “Do you think we should be tougher on illegal immigrants?”.
These type of questions invariably produces the sort of answer which would have
brought a smile to a Soviet apparatchik, commonly being above 80%
for tougher action, which is pretty astounding when around 10% of the UK
population is comprised of immigrants.
It is also noteworthy that concern about immigration has
been at the top of issues concerning the English for years; this despite the
fact that every mainstream British political party has, with the willing
collusion of the British mainstream media, done everything they can to
suppress public debate about the issue.
Anyone who believes that the English people welcomed the
post-war immigration and want more of it is self-deluding to the point of
imbecility.
Robert Henderson has kindly let me edit this article.
