Wednesday, 30 November 2011

Reading through old newspaper archives, it becomes obvious that it was in the 70s that the sky fell in: that it became virtually impossible to talk about the unfolding genocide as the mechanisms of dissent suppression gradually became institutionalised. The Age of Unreason began.

There was, of course, one exception, one far-sighted man amongst the many:
A public policy of repatriating immigrants from Britain Would cost £200m a year over five years, Mr Enoch Powell, United Ulster Unionist Coalition MP for Down, South, said last night.

He told Surrey Branch of the Conservative Monday Club at Croydon any imaginable expenditure would be a cheap option to the gravity of the alternative. He said:
The magnitudes involved are far from astronomic: one million at £1,000 per head, I have scaled up my 1969 hypothesis of £2,000 per family, represents over five years no more than £200m a year; and you could double that figure without producing more than a ripple on the surface of recent budgets.

Not only in financial terms but in the much more significant terms of human skills, experience and qualifications, the outlay would represent "development aid" of a size and effectiveness which current expenditures on aid could not match; and in both human and material terms the future savings would be incalculable.

They take upon themselves a fearful responsibility who scoff at policies of repatriation and insist that the people of this country, all of them, must accept the inevitability of the prospect which the inadvertence or timidity of a few years have created. All round, people are calling for "a stop to immigration"; and parties and politicians are pledging themselves' to formulae which they hope will be mistaken for the equivalent of that.

Whether they all fully realize it or not, the whole thing is an irrelevance and a deception. Twenty years ago, when the Government shelved for the second time a measure to distinguish between British subjects belonging and not belonging to the United Kingdom," stopping immigration "still had a practical meaning, and would in fact have averted all that has followed and is to come. But as long as 10 years ago, "stopping immigration" has already become largely meaningless as a policy prescription.

With each year that has passed, the foreseeable future of our urban areas has depended less and less upon the net annual addition from outside and more and more upon the consequences of the size, distribution and age-structure of the already resident coloured population. Those who, like Lord Brooke of Hampstead, were talking in the middle 1960s about cities one-third coloured were not dolng so because they assumed or even dreamt that in the early 70s the net annual intake would be nearer 100,000 a year than 50,000. The prospect rested already upon what existed then.

Yet even this is not the principal reason for what I have called the irrelevance of "stopping immigration". The principal reason is that, once given, a massive alien population accepted as permanently resident, especially if that population is predominantly Asian, immigration has become a consequence and not a cause in its own right. If a person is accepted as permanently resident, it is impracticable to refuse admission to his wife and children or, within a reasonable interpretaton, to his closely related and genuine dependants.

What is more, it is impossible to deny him the right to marry whom he will, here or overseas, and to Introduce that spouse into this country to reside with him. Where a resident population has a strongly rooted propensity, even from generation to generation, to marry among its own kind, it follows that there can in real life be no limit upon future immigration; and the larger and therefore the more self-conscious and closely-knit is that resident population, the more certain and the more extensive will that unlimited future immigration be.

A resident Asian and African population rising from two to three to four millions in the course of the next two decades also means continuing Asian and African immigration to which no limit can be placed and which must in turn accelerate the growth of the total. The question upon which the future of this country hangs is not, as so many fondly suppose, whether immigration is to be "stopped" or not. It is whether we shall or can continue to accept a resident African and Asian population of the present or prospective size as a fait accompli, as a permanent and irreversible fact.

In posing this question, we turn from confronting the escapism of levity to confront the escapism of despair: for Instantly comes the reaction from high. and low, from every point of the compass: "What is done cannot be undone; we must accept and suffer the consequences of this fact, whatever they are going to be". What is certain is that whatever the consequences may he, they cannot be bought off by public expenditure and environmental or economic contrivances.

The idea that this is possible is an extension of the cruel and hoary fallacy that crime and violence are caused by what is nowadays fashionably called "deprivation", and that they can therefore be, reduced or prevented by raising the standards of housing, of education, of amusement and of affluence generally. The catastrophe of widespread violence, entrenched in a divided community, can be averted only in the way that other apprehended catastrophes can be averted: namely, by removing its root cause. That root cause is the existing magnitude of the Asian and African population and the certainty of the continuing future increase in that population, proportionately to the rest, which Is inherent in its present magnitude and composition.

It follows that there is no escape except by way of such a reduction of that existing population as will be sufficient at least to remove the prospect of future growth: in other words to limit to its present dimensions the "alien wedge" (I use a famous judicial phrase) in the cities and urban areas of England. Between 1965 and 1970 "assistance to all who wish to return home" was part of the official policy of the Conservative Party in Opposition. But though much emphasis was laid upon it before the general election of 1970, no attempt was made to implement it.

On the contrary, measures were taken actively to discourage even those below the supplementary benefit level from persisting in applying for repatriation. Since then it has become conventional practice thoughtlessly to repeat, as if it were self-evident, that repatriation is impracticable. Repatriation, and repatriation on the major scale which is necessary, is not impracticable. The only rational alternative to disaster can never be dismissed as impracticable.

The Asian and West Indian immigrants into this country and their children born here are in the overwhelming majority citizens of their countries of origin, acknowledging and professing themselves to be so and recognized and represented as such by the diplomatic and consular representatives of their respective nations.

The public recognition by authority that it is in the supreme interest of all that the current immigration and its consequences should be decisively reversed would produce results of which no conception can be formed as long as all conspire to treat the proposition as unreal and unmentionable.

If repatriation is public policy, then the natural claim of any family to be united can be met by assistance for those in Britain to rejoin their families in their countries of origin: the, present obligation to admit dependants is replaced by an obligation to facilitate the reunification of families in their own country.

If repatriation is public policy, the obligation to provide maintenance from public funds to those unemployed or disabled or destitute in Britain is replaced by an obligation to provide for their resettlement in their homelands.

If repatriation is public policy, there is no reason why tax relief should be given for dependants, real or fictitious, who are overseas.

At present every pressure, every inducement, every assumption is directed towards the permanence of New Commonwealth immigration. The situation would be transformed if the underlying presumption of public policy were reversed.
Source: The Times, October 5, 1976

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews