(27/9/20)

In the first of a series of short posts on immigration, our branch member Ian Cooper muses about the rightness of stopping uncontrolled immigration. The views of the author are his and not necessarily representative of the branch.

It’s no secret that UKIP wants to severely restrict immigration. Why? Is it just prejudice, a dislike of difference, or preference - a love of the familiar? Or is it a recognition that the multi-racial / multi-cultural society experiment has failed? Or perhaps is it that are there real problems and valid objections associated with immigration, especially in light of the current scale and pace? I’m thinking of the impact on our finances, our NHS, schools, housing, and infrastructure.

Other UKIP members can state their reasons but for me it is the sheer impact of the scale of recent immigration on our country. The immigrants themselves are not primarily responsible – like every human being they simply seek a better life. The real blame must be heaped on our (white) liberal elite – who run all the three main political parties.

There is a lot of pent up anger amongst a large section of the population. Much of this ire not only arises from the actual and amount of immigration but also from the open criticism and smears that any objection, however reasoned, must be racist.

But there’s a hypocrisy within the liberal elite. Take Japan which is an advanced, rich country with a low birth rate and aging population. Historically, it has limited immigration and not embraced the multi-racial and multi-cultural ideal that the West has. It has remained Japanese. London is only half White British, not so Tokyo. Japan allows some immigration but it’s strongly controlled and it’s very difficult to get Japanese citizenship. Not so the UK.

Now, has the BBC or The Guardian called Japan racist? Why haven’t they called for a boycott of Japanese goods, or sanctions, or questioned why we allow Honda to manufacture in Swindon or Nissan in Sunderland? One would have thought that the current woke climate of statue destruction and the rise of the BLM movement – encouraged by much of the MSM – would have brought about a scrutiny of Japan’s policy. Why no demonstrations outside the Japanese embassy?

So if Japan’s reasons for strict immigration control – social cohesion, low crime rates, and a strong national identity – are valid, then perhaps other countries, like the UK, can re-think their policy.

Poorly-controlled immigration has changed the face of post-war Britain. I argue that the benefits have been completely outweighed by the drawbacks. There has to be an open, honest and careful discussion which is genuinely objective and has the interests of a good society at its heart.

Read Part 2 - Diversity or Disunity: the binary choice