Wednesday, 27 August 2014

The truth about immigration

With growing problems around the western world, from Mexicans flooding across the American border to Muslims declaring Islamic cities in Britain, it is becoming clear something is very wrong across the world where large numbers of immigrants from poorer and less developed countries are welcomed into the most developed. Despite the left challenging any questioning of immigration of racist (although many who do are immigrants themselves) all that did was allow it to happen on such a scale and hold back any action to deal with it. But using what can only be commonsense and experience there are many solid reasons why mass immigration from entirely opposing cultures and economies is destined to end in tears, and must not be spread from the liberal west beyond as we have already begun to experience the inevitable issues almost guaranteed to happen when mixing such differing groups.

Besides the vast imbalances in population movement from poorer to richer, which is a practical issue of numbers which makes everything else worse, here are the unavoidable consequences of allowing in unrestricted populations from vastly differing areas:

The idea of diversity is a hollow and imaginary ideology. In fact the more people from any culture worldwide will wait till there are enough of them, form a community, and basically isolate themselves from the native culture and form a small pocket of their own. The larger it grows then the shops and religious institutions follow, and in the end as Britain has demonstrated, firms are set up employing only their own culture and often only speaking their own language. This is not the people's fault as the British or Americans would do exactly the same elsewhere, but inevitable human nature.

Economically of course allowing people from the poorest countries into the richest with few if any questions asked will be like putting fruit out and watching the ants congregate around it. None of my points relate to the immigrants, who do what everyone in their position would, if you open the cookie jar and leave the room then it will become plundered as you have invited it to be so. The two points here are firstly the rich countries have worked for centuries (OK, some through colonising the third world, but they were given free passage in return and not part of this equation as a result), and why should anyone purely for economic reasons be able to piggyback on the efforts of many generations of other people's hard work for nothing? Secondly, Britain was once a dictatorship and we sorted it out, as was Spain, and many other now developed countries at one point or another. Did the citizens start an exodus and simply cross many other countries to the Shangrila of their choice, or fight until they'd sorted out the government and economy? Every single country has to go through these growing pains, and why can't others go through their own instead of being allowed an easy way out to simply pick a country of their choice and be welcomed there for absolutely nothing in return?

In practical terms, numbers are obvious, but so is language. What is the point of having few or any rules about speaking the language properly before offering someone a job, and more so like Israel why not make everyone learn English as a condition of staying? The mistakes caused by people in responsible positions, especially medicine, by simple language errors can cost health and ultimately lives. I have seen it myself too many times and is guaranteed in every case as it's physically impossible for anyone to learn enough of a language in a few months or years to translate it well enough for a professional position.

Third world countries unfortunately represent a spread of historic development at the same point in time, meaning some countries live like 2014 while others 1514 and a few like the stone age. There are plenty of tribal fights and religious feuds going back hundreds of years, and like the stone age and dark ages they still believe in wiping out their enemies outside a formal war situation. It is bad enough that in a world where they are exposed directly to countries who stopped doing this hundreds of years ago they carry on doing it their way as that is what they do. That is part of the live and let live condition of the world, besides some marginal interventions the UN did sod all in Rwanda and Sudan and Ed Miliband made sure nothing took place when it happened recently in Syria. As in Star Trek's prime directive, technically there is no rule to intervene, as unless requested it can be better to allow other countries, like your own children, to learn by themselves, as whatever you do it will not teach them anything as they are determined their way is right regardless. When you then import these cultures, whether warlike, drug runners, credit card thieves, whatever, you are simply doing the equivalent of emptying another country's prison population into your own along with the good ones as absolutely no tests are carried out in Britain at least to filter out criminals, unlike Australia and the US. So once you allow in criminal gangs, whether organised or cultural in nature, you will import crime where none of its kind previously existed, not so different from bringing back diseases we wiped out long ago like TB and some strains of hepatitis which are now stretching the capabilities of our NHS as so many immigrants are of course bringing the 19th century illnesses with them and getting free treatment without the money to employ new staff to do so.

Possibly the worst on the list is importing cultures hostile to the local one. Extreme Islam is now creating gangs setting up Islamic areas in London and Birmingham, and although technically the police are partially dealing with them (as it is a crime to do so) it should never have been able to happen in the first place. At a lesser but far wider degree, every single foreign culture does things their own way. Many Asian cultures regardless of the religion use family honour as one of the highest values to them. That means whatever one family member does reflects on the others, and women can be ostracised if they divorce or their children commit a crime for example, and women in fact are often treated like servants as that is what they do where they come from. Why bring that back where it hasn't happened for a very long time?

However many advantages the opposing views will provide, I believe the inbuilt guaranteed problems are always going to be greater than the chance for cheap labour, freely available curry and the chance to experience other cultures first hand without going abroad. And by calling me or anyone like me racist, why not ask immigrants from the 50s or 60s to comment, as they do regularly on the radio, and say in many cases exactly the same as me, as they have come from times when the country was more selective, the numbers were such it was easier to mix with everyone local as well as your own groups, and they are now third generation and have a combination of their own and the national culture to feel just as challenged as anyone else. And anyone working in such a mixed environment will soon discover every new race who arrives feels at least as hostile to the British or other natives as some do to them, often far more so. If you don't believe me set up an experiment where an Asian woman brings home a black or white man. Fifty years ago many British parents would have objected initially but many accept them after a while. Now few would care at all. Try it the other way and see what happens in maybe a hundred cases and note the average responses.

Again, this antipathy is not our fault or their fault, it is human nature and perfectly normal. It can be softened over time, but in the countries currently at war with their own people clearly not always. You can't and shouldn't simply force the new arrivals to assimilate or go, as why should they (unless they are criminals in which case they shouldn't be there in the first place), as one thing the left do get right is every culture is equal unless they commit atrocities like FGM and killing family members who break their rules. Which again are serious crimes. You can't simply regiment people and make them British or American or anything else, they are who they are and if they want little Afghanistans or Italies forever in other countries there is no reason why they shouldn't as that is who they are. Neither is it practical for any more than little Pakistans or Punjabs to grow up in other cities worldwide, as without any controls they will grow and grow and eventually become lesser Pakistan or Punjab, and then North Pakistan and Punjab. Of course then we cross to the personal opinion that some believe being able to drive through five countries in ten miles is a wonderful thing to some people and a disaster for others. That part of it will always be personal preference but my point is that it is likelier for the majority of immigrant communities to become closeknit isolated bunches of their own countries, with marginal interaction with the local and other communities. Many do not even need to learn the national language as they spend their whole time within their own enclaves from family life, shopping, cultural life and work. Just using my personal opinion I cannot see this as a good thing. Why? Because it is little different from being exiled and dropped into a random country and being forced to survive. When the random country comes to you and you are (rightly or wrongly) perceiving you do not belong in parts of where you grew up, from funny looks to people speaking in shops in their own languages, why would anyone feel comfortable like that? Fantastic if you can and do, but why should anyone have to with absolutely no say in it?

No comments:

Post a Comment