scm ad2scm ad

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Freedom of Speech Should Never Become the Victim of Individual Action.


We would never support or condone the murder of a mother of 2 children regardless of political differences. Not only does it deprive 2 children of a loving mother, but it only gives the media cause to demonise the Nationalist message. Violence only emboldens our enemies and elevates their deceit to the moral high ground where they present truth and freedom of speech as being hate speech. When the opportunity arises then they define the narrative to fit their own agenda. The Nationalist message does not need violence or acts of terror to validate it, it stands alone in the climate of lies fostered by the left and their globalist sponsors.

The toxicity of the political debate in the UK and across the West is a result of what political leaders have done with impunity to Western nations. Take Tony Blair for example, the war criminal and individual responsible for purposefully opening British borders to mass immigration. Does he not shoulder a huge responsibility for the anger and tension in Britain today? Does not a woman like Angela Merkel have blood on her hands for opening German borders to over a million migrants? Does not George Soros come in for condemnation for his funding of the demographic invasion of European nations? The narrative is not confined to what the media and politicians tell us is morally acceptable. Europe is being destroyed and political leaders are allowing it to happen and in many cases are actively enabling it. That doesn’t justify murder or acts of terror, but it does highlight the fact that there is more than one argument to be had. It never seems to be the case that politicians are held accountable for their political decisions, people who oppose those decisions are labeled as haters and racists without any consideration for the opposing point of view.

Jo Cox was a victim of the very same agenda that is currently engaged in demographically destroying Britain and the West. The killer is a product of that failed diversity experiment as are the Islamic terrorists and all others who kill in the name of ideology or religion. Forcing different groups together will never work, it will always be a source of conflict and tension because it is an unnatural state of the human condition. We are a tribal species as mother nature created us, you cannot change what is (reality) with what you would like it to be (utopia). Mrs Cox was probably a woman who genuinely thought that what she was doing was right, moral and just, but what is occurring across Europe and the West has sinister roots and is not right, moral and just.

We condemn the use of violence and terror to achieve political aims, it serves no purpose and leads to many innocent people being killed. However the biggest terrorists are the political leaders who make the decisions in the interests of the globalist agenda. It is they who should be held accountable for their crimes in a court of law with suitable punishment available.

How can the fact that thousands of terrorists are said to have entered Europe as a result of Angela Merkels insane policy not be a criminal act of extreme political negligence? Why hasn’t Tony Blair been arrested for his war crimes and genocidal open door policy of mass immigration? Has not Europe and the European people been put in danger and have they not become victims of their own politicians decisions? We can’t allow the debate to be swung in the favour of those who scream ‘hate’ at people who disagree with them. In Communist Russia political dissidents were diagnosed as being mentally unwell and put into mental institutions. This was not because they were sick, but because they did not conform to the agenda of the Communist state.

The spate of Islamic terrorist attacks across the West would not have been possible or at the very least less likely to occur if mass Islamic immigration had not been allowed into European nations. There will be more attacks in the future for the very same reason, yet Europeans are supposed to just accept and put up with it. The mass Islamic immigration came about as part of a political decision to allow it, Islamic terrorism is a consequence of those political decisions. Politicians by their actions declare themselves enemies of the British people and the European people as a whole. When scores of people die at the hands of Islamic terrorists then politicians who allowed, facilitated and support Islamic immigration and enforced multiculturalism in which Islamic terrorism thrives, should be held accountable for it, because it is their decisions that endanger our people.

If we were to collect the statistics of the amount of white British people who have become victims of diversity crime ie crime that occurs as a result of state enforced multiculturalism, then the figures would be truly shocking. We are talking about every single type of crime including rape, murder and paedophilia. One prime and infamous example is the grooming and mass rape of young white girls in Rotherham at the hands of Islamic grooming gangs. The local Labour council, the police and social services all tried to cover up what was happening and allowed it to continue. Politicians should have been arrested and held accountable, again because it is the political (state) enforced multiculturalism that allows diversity crime to flourish and which leads to our people becoming victims. Where is the accountability? Are we supposed to just continue to allow our daughters to be targeted and our nation to be destroyed by politicians?

Never can it be the case that a corrupt government is allowed to silence opposition to their agenda and use the death of a young woman to justify it. We can’t go down the road of not speaking our mind for fear of some individual taking matters into his own hands. He is responsible for his own actions and freedom of speech should not become a victim of individual action. Illegal wars have been fought and hundreds of thousands killed at the behest of an odious individual like Tony Blair, yet he goes unpunished and nobody suggests that everybody be held responsible for his decisions.

The British people have a momentous decision to make in the coming week about whether to vote to remain in or to leave the EU. The momentum which was with the leave campaign before the attack has almost come to a halt. This one incident cannot become a reason to vote to stay in the EU, it cannot be allowed to derail the most important decision since the calamitous decision to take us into a completely avoidable and fratricidal war in 1939. The very future of our nation and our children depends on getting Britain out of that nation destroying Globalist/Marxist Institute in Brussels. We can’t allow what happened in Yorkshire to detract from the importance of this upcoming decision. The British people i hope are not so gullible as to be swayed by an emotive media campaign designed to undermine the Vote Leave campaign and to influence the result of the referendum.

If Britain votes to leave the EU it will begin the process of deconstructing the EU in its entirety as other nations decide that they also want out. It will be a political earthquake that will reverberate around the world if Britain votes to leave. Generations of British people have failed their offspring by continuing to vote for political party’s controlled by international finance who have created the Britain we see today. This generation has the opportunity to do something that will benefit our future generations in the long run by handing down national sovereignty and national independence to their children and grandchildren. Don’t let this opportunity pass you by, don’t continue to fail your own people and country by doing what the enemies of your people and nation want which would be to stay in the EU.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Oswald Mosley Against Jewish Behaviour


The message from Sir Oswald Mosley regarding Jews was straightforward. They opposed those Jews who put Jewish interests ahead of British interests. They opposed the Jewish interests prominent in International finance that used Britain for its own agenda. They opposed those Jews who identified as Communists and who attacked their meetings. They were against those Jews who were determined to drag Britain into a war with Germany not in the British interest, but in the Jewish interest. They opposed Jews for their behaviour not because they were Jews.

It is much the same today, it is the undeniable predominance of Jewish interests being at the core of everything detrimental to Europe and to Western civilisation that leads people to oppose them. This centuries old conflict exists for a reason, not because Gentiles are inherently ‘anti-semitic’ as they would have us believe. The Jews are not blameless. The conflict arises out of a conflict of interests and a persistent and familiar pattern of infiltration and subversion being used against European societies.

The conflicts of interest are many, a few examples would be the Israel issue. Jews want Western nations to prop up Israel and to support everything they do, they also put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of whatever nation they are in. Another example would be multiculturalism, they support it because they feel safer in multiracial, multicultural societies and they support it because they have an historic animosity and revengeful attitude against white Christian Europe and the West due to centuries of conflict in which they want you to believe that they were the victims of Christian ‘anti-semitism’ just because they were Jews. They would never accept or consider Jewish behaviour as a motivating factor.

When they pursue their own interests as Jews and work against our interests as Europeans to achieve those Jewish goals, then conflict and hostility will manifest itself. In the mind of Mosley it wasn’t their Jewish identity that was the issue, it was their behaviour.

(Admin 1)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Smash Cultural Marxism on VK



If you haven’t got an account on VK then we highly recommend that you create one and move over to a new platform less likely to censor the truth.

We will be doing a post about the censorship on Facebook soon.

Our VK page.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Race and Ethnicity


‘The traditional definition of race and ethnicity is related to biological and sociological factors respectively. Race refers to a person’s physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color. Ethnicity, however, refers to cultural factors, including nationality, regional culture, ancestry, and language.’

Ethnicity is linked to race in the sense that before mass immigration and the imposition of multiculturalism/multiracialism, cultural traditions were linked to race. Culture is a product of the race that creates it. Race is not a social construct, society and by extension culture is a racial construct. If multiculturalism did not exist as we know it today, then the term ‘ethnicity’ wouldn’t be so shrouded in confusion because people would understand that it is just an extension of the racial identity. Our ancestors never felt the need to understand the ‘differences’ between the terms because they knew that they were undeniably linked to each other. Only now are our people questioning the differences because we no longer live in homogenous nations and are being poisoned with multiracial propaganda.

In a society being destroyed by state enforced multiculturalism, the ethnic identity of the population is no longer linked to a singular racial identity, it becomes linked to a multiracial identity in which anybody can be ‘whatever they want to be’. A Muslim from Africa living in Britain for example, in a state enforced multiracial society, would claim that he is British because the new multicultural definition of ethnicity has changed to accommodate the new society and racial groups that are forming it. It doesn’t matter to him that his cultural traditions are alien to Europe and in this example Britain, because the definition of ethnicity has changed to fit the multicultural/multiracial agenda. When you have an African say that he is ‘ethnically British,’ it is said in the multiracialist interpretation of the term. It would be like a European going to Kenya and claiming to be ethnically Kenyan because he wore the local dress and jumped up and down on the spot. The Kenyans would laugh such a fool out of the country.

Multiculturalism is imposed from the top down, and in a ‘multicultural’ society the very realities of race and culture are redefined to fit a globalist narrative that encourages people to identify ethnically with a nation and its culture, but only as part of the ‘multicultural’ or ‘multiracial’ society they have engineered and not as part of the singular racially homogenous group who see their culture as being a product of their race and therefore indistinguishable from each other.

Racial homogeneity creates a culture and therefore an ethnic identity rooted in that racial homogeneity. A heterogeneous society creates a mishmash of different races and cultures where people are encouraged to identify as whatever they want to be. An Asian man can identify as ‘ethnically German’ ONLY in a multiracial society that distorts the true meaning of the term. He would be identifying with a multiculturalist definition of what German is, but not with the true racial definition of what German is. He would also describe himself as being ethnically Chinese because he also embraces his own cultural traditions rooted in his racial homeland. So he gets to pick and choose his ‘ethnic identity’ depending on whatever environment he is in. Amongst his Asian friends he is ethnically and racially Asian, but when he is identifying with the multiculturalist definition of ethnicity he claims to be German. Germans however don’t claim to be ethnically Chinese, just because they eat a Sui Mai every now and then.

The new and redefined multiracial definition of ‘ethnicity’ is not in our interests as Europeans. This new definition has been distorted so as to accommodate, enable and facilitate the racial and cultural destruction of our European heritage. We don’t need to use the term ‘ethnicity’ as Nationalists, the only term we need to use when advocating our interests is race.

Without racial ancestry there would be no cultural identity or traditions unique to different parts of the world. You can’t just assume an ethnic identity, i wouldn’t go to Japan and claim to be ethnically Japanese nor would i expect them to regard me as such.

Race comes first, then culture, then ethnic identity. In a multiracial society anybody from anywhere in the world can identify with whatever ethnic identity they like so it becomes meaningless. Ethnicity and ethnic identity only means something when tied to the race that created it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Diversity DESTROYS Social Cohesion in the West


The first quote that comes up on this video (below) which is attributed to Hitler, is a reference to what Hitler called the ‘Big Lie,’ he was referring to the use of the ‘Big Lie’ by our enemies. This tactic of using the ‘Big Lie’ is still very prevelant today. We are lied to by the media, politicians and the regressive degenerative left. We are lied to about the so called benefits of mass immigration, we are lied to about the supposed enrichment of ‘diversity,’ we are lied to about the ‘inevitability’ of our non-white future and we are lied to about the wars our nations have been embroiled in. Hitler wasn’t endorsing the use of the ‘Big Lie,’ in fact a high ranking member of his National Socialist Movement said:

“Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run.” – Joseph Goebbels.

We have spoken often about the fact that when the ‘enrichers’ tip the demographic scales in their own favour becoming the demographic majority in European and Western nations, and our towns and cities are no longer European in appearance, then they won’t be crying out for more ‘racial diversity’ because of a lack of white people. It is a mendacious fallacy that ‘diversity benefits us all’ and is ‘our strength’. No. ‘Diversity’ benefits immigrants, it benefits politicians, it benefits Jews, it benefits big business, it benefits bankers, it benefits the regressive destructive left but it DOES NOT benefit Europeans in any way whatsoever. ‘Diversity’ is our biggest weakness and the biggest source of social, racial and cultural conflict that there is. It is not in our interests and was never meant to be, it is designed to purposefully work against our interests for the benefit of the unmentionable few.

For those of you who fail understand this fact, and who are blinded to the reality of situation, then it will be YOUR children who suffer as a result of YOUR stupidity. Not only that, but our children and future generations will also suffer and for that there can be no forgiveness. Apathy is the biggest weapon of mass self destruction.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Jewish Power is the Ability to Stop People Talking About Jewish Power


A Muslim Labour MP has been suspended from her position as a result of suggesting that Israel and its Jewish population should move to America thereby resolving the Palestinian issue. The controlled media have gone into a frenzy about ‘anti-semitism’ within the Labour party demanding that Commissar Corbyn crack down on those troublesome ‘anti-semites’.

First off, nothing in the meme posted in 2014 by Naz Shah could be construed as ‘anti-semitic’ as they define it. It merely suggested that a country as big as America who openly supports Israel not only financially but militarily, could easily accommodate a small country the size of Israel. America stands by saying and doing absolutely nothing as Israel repeatedly massacres men women and children in Palestine and even provides the weaponry used. Any other nation would have had sanctions placed upon them long ago and probably would have faced military action for their treatment of the Palestinians.

America is a country absolutely controlled by pro Israel lobbying groups such as AIPAC who dictate American foreign policy by their providing of campaign funding. They are Israel first and Israel last, there is no in between and they wield unbelievable power in the US.

Let us not forget that the Jews with help from Britain and America imposed themselves upon the Palestinians ethnically cleansing them from their homes of hundreds of years in the process. Not only that, but WWI was extended as a result which led to the deaths of millions more Europeans.

Basically what the meme suggested was that if America, with its all powerful Israel first lobbying groups supports what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and what they have been doing for decades, then they should provide a 51st state in which the Jews of Israel could live leaving the Palestinians to repair the damage done over the last 60 odd years. America is basically an Israeli outpost anyway, its politics, media and financial institutions are dominated by Israel firsters.

We have said it a couple of times recently, the controlled media was very pro Labour when under Blair and Brown because they were doing what they were supposed to do ie invading Middle Eastern nations enforcing regime change for Israel under the mask of moral interventionism. Not only that, but Blairs Labour were busily engaged in opening the borders to millions from the Third World. Now Labour is being led by somebody who is not pro Israel and they have gone into full attack mode.

This isn’t support for the Labour party or Muslim MP’s, it is simply to show the blatantly obvious Jewish agenda at play. And it isn’t an endorsement of moving Israel to America. I’m not sure the Jew wise Americans would be very happy about that. It is just to show that America is controlled by Jews who are staunchly pro Israel and are motivated absolutely by Israel first goals.

Some people may ask why the concern for Palestine. The answer to that, is what has happened to the Palestinians is happening to us, just like them, we are being displaced in our own homelands. The Palestinians protested against mass Jewish immigration into their land, and warned what the future would be for them, nobody listened, just as nobody is listening to us now. The creation of the state of Israel was built on the blood and bones of our European ancestors who were hoodwinked into fighting pointless and fratricidal wars in which ONLY Jews benefitted whilst Europe has never recovered. Shady dealings between Jews in America, Britain and Germany extended WWI so that Palestine could be delivered over to the Jews after the defeat of Germany and the Ottomans. Palestine is also important because the wars that have been waged in the early years of the 21st century have been to topple regimes that supported the Palestinian cause thereby solidifying Israeli control over the region militarily and geographically. Our soldiers were used to fight these wars, our tax money was used and our people lied to and manipulated into supporting illegal wars in the interests of a foreign state. The world is the way it is today as a direct consequence of the Israeli Palestine conflict and when you realise the extent to which our nations have been used in the service of Jewish interests then you should understand why understanding the Palestinian issue is very important.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Jewish Agenda is Clear


The goal is clear. Not only in the words of Jews themselves, but in the visual reality we see in European and Western nations every day. If you have ever asked yourself why your country is being destroyed then here is your answer.

When we and others say that the engineering of Multicultural, Multiracial and Multifaith societies has been by design and has been no accident then this is why we say it. It isn’t about the economy, it isn’t about diversity, it isn’t about enrichment, it is about the weakening of the once European majority in the interests of one specific group.

How do they achieve this? Despite being an extreme minority they achieve this very easily. They influence politicians by lobbying and providing campaign finance and who then proceed to do their bidding. They use academia to indoctrinate our youth into thinking they don’t exist as a group with interests. They use the media to attack and demonise any opposition to their agenda as ‘nazis’ and at the same time use the film industry to portray a narrative of WWII that fits their agenda. What they want is for the public to think that any identification with ones own racial group and the interests specific to them, will lead to the ‘gas chambers.’

‘a tenacious minority will beat down the resistance of a disorganised majority,’ in other words they use a divide and conquer strategy to weaken us thereby strengthening their own position and dominance. They can operate more freely as a cohesive ethno-religious group when they live in a society with many different ethnic and religious groups and when they don’t stand out so easily as a corrosive force as they have done in the past.

Essentially what we have is an alien element within society that uses our institutions against us for their own benefit. Everything that we see as an obvious negative in the West they describe as being progress, but progess for them not us. They are a criminal element, an enemy of our people and are determined to achieve the irreversible ruination of our nations and people.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

An admission of the Cultural Marxist agenda and strategy to be employed


‘If as part of their alienation, workers cannot react to their conditions no matter how bad they get, in a rational manner, then all efforts to attain widespread class consciousness are doomed to failure. They are, that is, unless some manner can be found to affect their character structure during its formative years, to make sure that the behaviour patterns internalised there never develop, or, more to the point, never aquire the degree of durability they now have. Looked at in this way, the focal point of a socialist strategy must be those conditions which most affect the young. For it is possible to alter the character structure of workers by fighting against its construction, by counteracting the disorientating influence of the family, school, and church, whatever in fact makes it difficult for the individual once he/she becomes an adult to make an objective assessment of his/her oppression and to act against it.

‘The concrete aims of radical activity, on the basis of this analysis, are to get teenage and even younger members of the working class to question the existing order along with all its symbols and leaders, to loosen generalised habits of respect and obedience, to oppose whatever doesn’t make sense in terms of their needs as individuals and as members of a group, to concieve of the enemy as the capitalist system and the small group of men who control it, to articulate their hopes for a better life, to participate in successful protest actions no matter how small the immediate objective, and to create a sense of community and solidarity of all those in revolt. The purpose is to overturn (or, more accurately to undermine) the specific barriers that have kept past generations of workers from becoming class conscious’.

– Bertell Ollman, Jewish author and professor of politics ‘Social and Sexual Revolution, Essays on Marx and Reich’ p27.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

20 Bogus Arguments for Mass Immigration into Britain


1. Introduction

This paper outlines the many myths that are put forward by the mass immigration lobby in support of the current levels of immigration and dispels each myth in turn.

2. ‘Immigration provides great economic benefit’

For many years the Labour government claimed that immigration added £6 billion a year to GDP.  However, the  House  of  Lords  Economic  Affairs  Committee, reporting in April 2008, said that what mattered was GDP per head.  They concluded that:

“We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population”

In January 2012 the Migration Advisory  Committee  went further. They said that even GDP per head exaggerated the benefit of immigration because:

“It is the immigrants themselves rather than the extant residents who are the main gainers”

They suggested that the GDP of residents should be the main focus. They recognised that the resident population  would gain via any “dynamic effects” of  skilled immigration on productivity and  innovation, remarking that “these exist and may be large, but they are elusive to measure”. 

In their annual Fiscal Sustainability  Report, the Office for Budgetary  Responsibility concluded in August 2013:

“In our attempt to summarise the vast literature on the impact of immigration on the labour market and productivity we have not found definitive evidence on the impact of immigrants on productivity and GDP. Most of the literature seems to indicate that immigrants have a positive, although not significant, impact on productivity and GDP”

As regards EU migration, a study by the NIESR in 2011 found that the potential long-run impact of EU8 migration (Poland et al) on GDP per head was expected to be “negligible”4  ranging from 0.17% to -0.17%. However, this result relied upon an upward ‘age adjustment’ on the assumption that migrants tended to be of working age and thus to be “net contributors to the government coffers”. Subsequent research on the fiscal contribution of migrants to the UK suggests that this assumption may well be unsound (see 3. below)

3. ‘Immigrants are not a problem as they work hard and pay tax’

Some of the limited research in this area  had found that there might be a small  positive fiscal impact to immigration.  Nonetheless, according to the House of  Lords Economic Committee “the fiscal  impact [of immigration] is small compared to GDP and cannot be used to justify large-scale immigration”.

However, the presumption of even a small fiscal  benefit has been comprehensively  overturned by a UCL study published in  2014 which found the fiscal impact of  migrants in the UK between 1995 and  2011 was in fact a net cost of between £115 and £160 billion that is between £19 and £26 million per day.

The same study claimed that East  European migrants contributed £5 billion  to the Exchequer between 2001 and 2011.  However that  calculation  was  based on the assumption that they paid, from the moment of their arrival, corporate and  business taxes at the same rate as  lifelong UK residents. Correcting for this brought the contribution close to zero.

4. ‘Migrants are less likely to claim benefits’

Figures from the DWP show that  migrants to the UK are less likely to  claim out-of-work benefits. But large amounts of the total benefits bill are  paid to people in work, in particular tax  credits and housing benefit. Research  shows that some migrant groups are  much more likely to be claiming these  key benefits than the general population.

5. ‘Britain is only the 39th most crowded country in the world’

93% of immigrants go to England so England is what matters in this context. England is the second most densely populated country in the EU with 417 people per square kilometre, after the Netherlands (with 500 people per square kilometre) and excluding islands such as Malta.

Excluding island states and city states like Singapore, England is the eighth most crowded country in the world, just behind India and nearly twice as crowded as Germany and three and a half times as crowded as France.

6. ‘The public are not really as opposed to immigration as they seem’

The British Social Attitudes Survey has found that 77% of the public wish to see immigration reduced, 56% by a lot.
The majority of first and second generation migrants agree, with 60% answering that migration to the UK should be reduced. The public are not, of course, opposed to immigrants but they are opposed to immigration on the present scale. Public opinion is exceptionally clear on this issue, despite repeated efforts by the immigration lobby to obscure it.

7. ‘Population projections are unreliable’

Projections become less reliable as the length of the projection period increases. However, over the last 50 years, the ONS have been accurate to +/- 2½% in their projections over a 25 year period.

In 2014, the UK population was recorded at 64.6 million. The ONS project that if net migration runs at 165,000 per year the population will rise to 74.3 million by 2039 and about 68% of the projected increase in the population over the period mid-2014 to mid-2039 is due to immigration either directly or indirectly i.e. the children of future migrants.9

However net migration is currently around twice that level. Over the last 10 years it has averaged 240,000 a year; if it continues at that level the UK population will reach 70 million in 2023 and 80 million by 2046.

8. ‘The government should abandon the immigration target because EU and British migration cannot be controlled’

The net migration target was an extremely useful tool for focusing government policy without which net migration today would be considerably higher. The government have retained the target although as an ambition rather than a promise.

The failure to meet the target was largely due to EU migration which doubled over the course of the Parliament and now represents nearly half of net foreign migration. This makes it imperative that the government seeks some practical solution to EU migration in any future renegotiation.

9. Immigration is an unstoppable global phenomenon so it’s futile to try and control it

Some commentators argue that population pressures in Africa and the Middle East mean mass migration is an unstoppable force and so governments should just get out of the way and let it happen. It is argued that  because of increasing global conflict, economic migration trends and the right of family reunion, governments which pledge to reduce immigration have found it very hard to deliver on their promises. But migration isn’t an irresistible force like the tides. It can be deliberately promoted as an act of policy, as happened especially under the Labour governments between 1997 and 2010, or  it can be controlled, given the right  enforcement infrastructure, investment and political will. Many nations around the world show that it is possible to control frontiers effectively while also benefiting from immigration policies that both favour skills and promote integration. 

 10. ‘The NHS would collapse without immigrants’

It is surely obvious that no one is suggesting that they should be expelled. In fact, even at the peak of arrivals, medical staff were never more than 5% of immigration. The reason they were needed is that we failed to train our own staff. Other countries in Europe have only 5% (Italy), 10.5% (Germany) and 15% (France) of foreign qualified doctors, while the UK has 35%, according to the OECD.

11. ‘Migrants do not take social housing’

It is often said that migrants do not significantly occupy social housing. However, priority for social housing is given to those considered most in ‘need’. So whilst most migrants do live in private rentals, official data shows almost 10% of social housing in England is occupied by non-UK nationals. In London this figure is around 20%. These are migrants who have not been here long enough to become British citizens or who have chosen not to do so.

12. ‘Immigrants are needed to pay our pensions’

This is a ludicrous argument which even the Labour government dropped. The reality is that immigrants themselves grow older so that there would have to be a continuing and increasing inflow of immigrants to have any long-term effect. The Turner Commission on pensions put it like this:

Only high immigration can produce more than a trivial reduction in the projected dependency ratio over the next 50 years”

They calculated that even net migration of 300,000 a year (net migration is presently even higher) would produce only a temporary effect unless still higher levels of immigration continued in later years.

13. ‘Immigration will help pay off Britain’s debt’

The claim is that without immigration public sector net debt will rise to 187% of GDP by the middle of the century, up from 74% today. This is based on the misleading Office for Budget Responsibility’s Fiscal Sustainability Report of 2013 in which they compare the impossible scenario of ‘natural change’ (which would require no movement in or out of the country), against more reasonable estimates of migration over time.

But the OBR conclusions are based on the false assumption that migrants outperform the UK born because they are more likely to be of working age. This assumption ignores the fact that migrant groups have very different outcomes in the labour market. In fact, our analysis shows that the numbers of non-UK born in the labour market with relatively weak economic characteristics compared with the UK-born outnumber those with stronger economic characteristics by around two to one.

Moreover, the OBR fails to take into account the cost of additional infrastructure spending for the larger population and, in any case, the OBR admit themselves that immigration only delays the problem of debt since immigrants also grow old. It is well recognised that immigration is not a sustainable solution to an ageing society unless immigration is allowed to continue indefinitely and, indeed, increase continuously.

14. ‘Immigration has no effect on jobs’

The Migration Advisory Committee reported in January 2012 that 100 additional non-EU migrants might be associated with a reduction in employment of 23 native workers over the period 1995-2010.19 (This faded over 5 years; for EU workers the coefficients were similar but the results were not statistically significant). There is considerable anecdotal evidence of job displacement in key sectors such as construction, transport, hospitality and retail.

15. ‘Immigration makes no difference to wages’

A report by the Bank of England, published in December 201520, found that increasing migration caused downward pressure on wages and had particularly driven down pay in sectors already experiencing low wages, including catering, hotels and social care. In this semi/unskilled services sector, a ten percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants was associated with a two percent reduction in pay. 

The report’s findings were contrary to claims of many academics and commentators who have argued that there was not any real evidence that immigration had a negative effect on wages overall and that if there were any negative impact, it was on the wages of previous migrant workers or concentrated at lower pay levels and outweighed by a positive impact elsewhere. 

16. ‘Britain is a nation of immigrants’

Census data shows that in 1851 the UK had a very small foreign born population, with just 100,000 people (1.5% of the population) born overseas. By 1951 this figure had reached 4.3% of the population. Then, in just ten years from 2001 to 2011, the foreign born population of England and Wales increased by nearly three million to 7.5 million or from 9% to 13% of the population.

17. ‘Curbing immigration would prevent the Nobel winners of the future migrating to the UK’

There is no evidence to back this up. The first Nobel prizes were awarded in 1901 with the first Nobel Prize being awarded to a Briton the following year. Since the inception of the Nobel Prize, there have been 97 winners from Britain. Of those 97, 20 were born abroad, of which seven had British heritage i.e. their parents were British. Of the remaining 13, five came to the UK as refugees and the remaining eight came to the UK to continue with their academic careers with the exception of one who came to study his undergraduate degree in the UK. Therefore, not one Nobel Laureate would have conceivably have been prevented from coming to the UK as a result of the kind of immigration controls implemented since 2010.

18. ‘Immigration is vital for our economic recovery’

Yes. But this need not conflict with immigration control. International companies are free to post senior staff in and out of Britain as they choose and there are plenty of routes for high net worth individuals such as entrepreneurs and investors to come to Britain. Companies can also apply for work permits for skilled workers although this number is capped at 20,700. There is also a labour market of 500 million EU citizens from whom companies can recruit with no restriction.

19. ‘Foreign students are an important sector of the economy’

Yes, provided they are genuine. The government has placed no restriction on the number of genuine students that can come to the UK for study. Genuine students will usually go home at the end of their course and will not add to net migration. Bogus students do not go home that is why strong are being taken to tighten up the issue of student visas. The latest immigration figures suggest that the number of non-EU students leaving Britain is only about one third of the average number who arrived in the previous five years.

20. ‘Foreign students are being deterred from studying in the UK’

Applications for study at University have increased by 18% between 2010 and 2014. What has fallen is the number coming to study at below degree level. This is to be expected since the government has cracked down on widespread abuse, largely in this sector. Interviews have been rolled out, deterring bogus applicants, and 750 bogus colleges have so far been closed down. EU students have fallen but these students are not subject to immigration control, rather they have been deterred by an increase in tuition fees to a maximum of £9,000 per year.

2nd February 2016

Source: Migration Watch

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment