In last week’s Daily Mail, (19/2/09) David Cameron MP pledged to cut immigration by 50,000 per year.
On ConservativeHome , Nicholas Soames MP asks the question: what are we going to do to stop the population figures reaching 70 million by 2028?
I strongly recommend reading both articles. Of the 10 million increase by 2028, 7 million will be due to immigration; the equivalent in size to a further seven cities the size of Birmingham.
We live in difficult times. We live on an island. The NFU estimate that we are capable of supplying/growing 60% of what we need to eat, today.
If immigration continues to grow at this rate, we will need to build more homes; and that means concreting over more green fields, many of which are arable and supply us with crops today.
Dairy herds are disappearing from this country at a rapid rate. We are down to twelve in Mid Bedfordshire. The average age of a farmer is 60.
World peace does not exist. Peace in the Middle East at best estimates is some way off. What would happen if each country had some form of import restrictions for whatever reason, and needed to become ‘food secure’?
If we are only food sufficient to the point of 60% today, where would we be once immigration has grown by a further 10 million?
We are the most densely populated country in Europe; and as I said, we are an island.
Is Britain already full?
First blog I read after wakeup from sleep today!
—————————-
Are you tension? panic?
Yes!
My beauiful valley has been designated an area of prime urban growth, I read recently. Oddly there has never been a city here before just a market town on the river. It is beyond words the folly of the destruction of our standard of living and environement and ancient patterns of settlement in order to turn the country into a giant housign estate to settle people who have no claims on living here.
Immigration is utterly irration and simply evil. It is in no way being taken seriously enough. “Balanced” immigration is unacceptable – how is it reasonable to drive our population to emigrate and replace them with foreigners. If we want to no have children at replacement rate or some people want to emigrate to join their family or have a bettre standard of living somewhere less crowded this should mean a positive benfit for british people allowing us to have larger houses, bigger gardens, cheaper houses and not to have to build over our countryside. We ougth to only be building in order to improve our limited stock of nice houses not continuing to build small characterless ones. We ought not be haveing the benefits of population decrease taken away, just being left with the downsides. We ought to be able to feel secure that while our numbers dwindle gradually we are safe within our own national home and that we are not in demographic competition.
No immigration is acceptable unless it is our kith and kin for whom it ougth to be easier or on agreed terms with say France or Spain with whom it migth be legitimately agreed to be mutually advatageous.
Of course numbers matter and are a good way to start to approch the issue but its not the only aspect that matters. What is Britain without a British nation? In the past identity has been starightforward with state citizenship, geographical inhabitaion, ethnic identity, socail citizenship overlapping. This sense of a common identity and a common past matter and is being systematically destroyed. This will have profound consequences for the future as we are starting to see with the problems of islamism. It is no longer possible to ignore as it was in the past the issues around ethnic identity. It is folly to assume it does not matter. With ever greater amounts of the population not being ethncially British this will ahve serious consequences for “social cohesion”. It needs to be thought thorugh when ethnicity matters and when it doesnt. Awareness of ehtnic identity is not intrinsically “racist” and no one would ever imply it was for anyone who wasnt white. The idea of a common kinship group is natural and something there is nothing necessarily wrong with. It may indeed be necessary for a functioning nation state (no one know what the future hold for the US – it maybe the idea of a identifiable european, christian people has been more important than hitherto acknowledged). Certainly this idea of a kinship group underlies Britain’s historical identity. For me Britain and “Anglo-Celtism” (as I call it) it a key party of my identity and what constitutes the sense of “us” that make a nation state function where it is possible to think of the national group rather than just indiviudual, family or group interests. The future we are heading for may well be of competing ethnic groups – a Balkanisation of Britain, with teh country collapsing as the spoils are competed for. It is the majoirty sense of kinship that means that Britain currently works. Until now this has just been weakened but future trends imply the desstruction of this. Acknowledgement of the importance of ethnic identity does not mean those who are ethnically cant belong but means there must be a correlation. This is one of the reasons numbers matter. 1% minorites dont matter much, larger number increasingly weaken, then destroy the sense of group identity.
It si worth noting that no one is suggesting any positive alternative to the Britain that has existed in the past.
The British as an ethnic group have “rights” – they are owed soem justice. I believe that it is only fair that (amongst other things perhaps) Britain should be an ethnci homeland fro those whose ancestors have dwelt here back into the mists of time. If it were any other ethnic group it would be viewed with outrage that they should be supplanted in their homeland and have their country taken away. Whatever future is envisaged, whether as just one ethnic group amongst others, or merged into a new race, pushed out or absorbed, it is unneccessary irrational, unfair and quite probably genocidal. And for what? For an urbanized, socialist, fragmented society? The best that is possible is for a society that is no worse and even then it is cruel to those of us for whom it is our ancestral home – even if the new Britain that is built on the ruins of the old is no worse, it wont be ours, where we belong, and feel safe and at home.
There are so many difficult issues and no one wants to confront them as they are such a minefield however it is no longer possible to avoid them unless one doesnt care about the future of Britain. Putting the interests of the ethnic British first is the only reasonable and fair approach – anyhting else would be racist against the British. Yet no one seems to be giving any thoguht to the future of the country. The idea of balanced migration is jsut not taking the issue seriously. Avoiding thinking about the future doesnt make it go away.
I am very well aware, however, how difficult it si to talk about immigration at all. Do decribe this situation as unhealthy is a great understatement.
That last sentence should have been “To describe…”
Goodness knows how many other spelling mistakes and grammitical failings there were in that comment.