British politicians and the mainstream media have been excitedly pointing to what they describe as the great generosity of the British public in offering to take immigrants into their homes. The reality is rather different for the number of people living in Britain who have offered a home to immigrants is meagre, a few thousand out of a British population of approximately 64 million.
Even this small number is highly suspect because these are merely people who have offered to take refugees without being tested by the reality of having people in their home. Moreover, many of those who have offered have not done so in an open ended fashion. Instead they have put their hands up for a few weeks or months or perhaps even a year, although the reality of assessing asylum claims is several years and conceivably much longer-term.
Much of the enthusiasm for taking in immigrants has been expressed not by offering to lodge them in private homes but in lobbying councils to find accommodation for immigrants. This is unlikely to cost those lobbying anything because such people will most probably not be in need of social housing or live in an area which will be flooded with immigrants. Nor are they likely to be sending their children to schools which boast "there are 93 languages spoken here" or be unable to get an appointment with their GP or a hospital consultant quickly because the population of their area has suddenly soared. It is also improbable that they or their children will lose their chance of a decent job to an immigrant or have their pay reduced because immigrants are willing to work for less. The people who will lose out are the poorer members of society. They will find themselves competing with immigrants for housing, jobs, schools and medical care.
The stark reality of mass immigration is that those who advocate taking in immigrants, most of them from the Third and Second Worlds, are stealing from the poorer of their own people. Let me list what they steal:
1. Employment, both by taking jobs and by reducing wages.
2. Housing, both by taking housing (including large amounts of social housing) and by forcing up house prices and private rents.
3. School opportunities, by both taking places and reducing the quality of the schooling available to the British children through larger classes and the extra time and money devoted to dealing with children who speak inadequate English.
4. University opportunities, both by immigrants taking places (especially in subjects such as medicine) and by the reduction in the quality of the education offered through immigrant students having poor English or by being simply intellectually inadequate. There is a strong venal incentive for universities to take large numbers of such people because, unlike British and EU students, students from outside the EU pay the full cost of their courses. A large part of the university learning experience depends on student interaction both inside and outside the classroom. The poorer the quality of students, the less opportunity for the able student to learn because of the inability of inadequate students to express themselves intelligently.
5. Healthcare. GPs surgeries are being swamped in many areas because of immigration and anyone who has visited a NHS hospital recently in places such as London will have been astonished at the number of foreign patients there are (I speak from personal experience).
More generally, when immigrants arise in large numbers they invariably form ghettoes. This means that Britons who live in areas anywhere such ghettoes form rapidly find that the place with which they are familiar becomes somewhere alien.
If those who advocated mass immigration had to pay a real price for their parading of their conscience you may be assured that their enthusiasm would vanish as quickly as the morning dew. What should be the price? Here are a couple of scenarios:
1. If someone advocates taking in more immigrants they should have to take responsibility for that person permanently. By that I mean not only house them but meet all their reasonable needs such as food, clothing medical and educational costs. They should have no choice about who they are allocated, so there will be no choosing a westernised, well-educated immigrant or two who speak good English.
2. Another scenario could be the immigration advocate and their immediate family experiencing the conditions that poorer Britons experience. This would require that their family home be requisitioned and the advocate and his or her family moved to basic accommodation in an area absolutely brimming over with the diversity such people religiously extol as being so desirable. The income of the adults involved would be reduced to the bare minimum which the British state says is needed to live. Where there are children of school age, these would be sent to state-funded schools which boast "93 languages spoken here". If healthcare is required they would have to use a local GP and the nearest appropriate NHS hospital.
Would it be unfair to include the immediate family in the penalty? Well, consider this: all of the disadvantages which I suggest putting onto those who advocate Britain takes in huge numbers of immigrants have never had the slightest qualms in condemning the poor of their own nation to such conditions. They would simply be experiencing that which they have not only placed on the white working class but that which they have claimed is positively beneficial to those unfortunate to experience the joy of diversity in its most invasive condition. Moreover, how could children not be included in any punishment meted out to the parents? If a father or mother is sent to prison or a family lose their breadwinner because their job disappears as the result of criminal behaviour the children suffer. Of course, if either scenario I have outlined were the penalty for advocating mass immigration there would be precious few if any advocating it.
There should be a stiff price for the exercise of a liberal conscience when it comes to immigration. Sadly, at present the price is paid not by the eager propagandists for mass immigration but the poorer members of our society.
First published at Robert Henderson's England calling blog. To see more articles by this author, search for Robert Henderson using the search box at top-right.