Robert Henderson

The  British media has been  excitedly  pointing what they describe  as the great generosity of the British public  or variations on that theme,  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 into their homes  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. 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 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 on the lists of GPs who  suddenly  have huge numbers of immigrants on their lists. It is also pretty unlikely 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 NHS care.  The reality is 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 taking places and  by reducing the quality of the schooling  available to the British children through larger classes and   the  extra time and money   devoted to dealing with so many 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  immigrants having poor English and from inadequate students from  outside the EU being admitted simply because they are  cash cows for universities as they pay the full cost of their courses.  Students who cannot speak fluent English or who are simply intellectually inadequate  diminish the quality of the education for the British students.
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 formed rapidly find that the place with which they are familiar becomes somewhere alien .

If those who advocated mass immigration had to pay a price for their parading  of their conscience you may rest 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 having their family home requisitioned and the advocate and his or her family moved to basic  accommodation in an area absolutely brimming over with the diversity such people always 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”.

Would it be unfair to include the immediate family including children 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 experience 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.

That should be the price of a liberal conscience. Sadly, at present the price is paid not by the eager propagandists for mass immigration but the poorer members of our society.