The Mass Immigration Scam

Britain is floundering, there’s no getting away from it. As to why, you could write an encyclopaedia on the subject. The criminal absence of conservatism since Thatcher, to the extent that a third of the electorate mistook Keir Starmer for a viable political option outside of North Korea; insane virtue-signals like Net Zero, which sees Britain playing ‘Save the Planet’ while the rest of the world wisely gives Greta the finger, and laughs all the way to the bank; an Exchequer bankrupt to the tune of three trillion quid, while the Chancellor dithers over rounding errors like the Winter Fuel Allowance; the world’s worst exodus of millionaires – aka taxpayers, courtesy of the highest tax burden since the Blitz (notably lacking the light entertainment provided by the Luftwaffe); a criminal amnesty excused as ‘diversity’, because any deeper analysis would prove to be ‘racist’; the wilful destruction of everything British, in favour of absolutely anything else - no matter how repugnant; two-tier policing, justice and indeed society - where White Brits are persona non grata in their own homeland etc, etc. A smorgasbord if ever there was one, but at its heart the fall of Britain can be distilled to one single word: Immigration. 

I don’t mean selective immigration, which most countries take advantage of according to need. By all means, let's have the debate about the flow-rate and precise form such policies ought to take; no issue there. But mass, unchecked, illegal immigration (or ‘invasion’ as it was referred to prior to 1997) has been the grim reality sovereign nations have honestly negotiated for millennia. In the case of Britain herself, the English Channel and the North Sea have long-proved a sufficient deterrent to all but the most persistent forces; the majority of whom soon changed their minds once introduced to the persuasive qualities of the stiff upper lip, and the even more persuasive bayonet at the end of it. The idea that in 2024, the capacity to enforce our borders is suddenly beyond us, is so moronic a lie, it should have been laughed out of court on its first outing. 

And yet, Britain it seems can no longer defend her honour against the sperm-like dinghy ejaculations emanating from Calais; at least, according to Westminster. As disgusting a charade as this is, it’s not the worst part. Infinitely more egregious is the connivance that has sprung up, in order to justify the obvious invasion as an unquestionable civic ‘benefit’. ‘If anyone needs to integrate, it’s the far-right’, claims race-baiter extraordinaire David Lammy; ‘If white Britons learned more from the Muslim community the UK would be a better country’ wrote a particularly gin-sodden Anna Soubry, who has never fully regained her sobriety after the trauma of Brexit; ‘We keep hearing about ‘legitimate concerns’ over immigration. The truth is, there are none’ writes The Guardian with its customary balance; the establishment is nothing if not united in their calumny. If the topic of unchecked, mass immigration must be broached, the emphasis is always on the requirement of the racist, White population to adapt to their own replacement; which of course Liberals simultaneously deny is happening and approve of in the same breath. As media outlets grudgingly acknowledge the Birmingham walls daubed with astute political commentary such as ‘No Whites’ and ‘No Whites Allowed’ , Britain is now so anti-British, it could just as easily be the BBC mission statement or Labour Party slogan, rather than mere unedifying graffiti. 

It’s time to put this farce to bed once and for all: principally, the nature of who precisely is in the boats. They’re not women and children, despite what Unicef claims, neither are they ‘refugees’, ‘asylum seekers’ nor fleeing ‘warzones’ (although granted, Gay Paris ain’t what it once was). Even the Home Office admits that 90% of the small boat arrivals are male. That fact alone is game, set and match for the pearl-clutchers and the left-wing NGOs. The implication that warzones are so bad only women and children can be expected to brave them, would not pass muster in a kindergarten. At best, the illegals flocking to Britain are on the cadge - courtesy of successive governments, three times more likely to grant their ‘asylum’ claims than the rest of Europe, while simultaneously furnishing them with a wealth of social security benefits. At worst, they’re here for nefarious purposes - which is why two-thirds of unaccompanied ‘minors’ when questioned about their age, turn out to be adults; why 98% of Channel migrants mysteriously lose their passports en route, and why Britain will soon boast a higher Albanian prison population than Albania itself. Britain is the softest of soft touches, and everyone inside Westminster (with precious few exceptions) knows and denies it.

Given that the scam of mass immigration is so self-evidently ridiculous, every government since Blair has felt the need to talk tough (while wilfully delivering net zero in terms of border security). In order to explain their ineptitude, they have cited everything from the intricacies of international law, the ECHR, the need to maintain the goodwill of the French (how much more ‘goodwill’ do we need after half a billion quid’s worth?), and even the moral obligation of Britain as an excuse. The solution of course is simple, vouchsafed not just by history but by Tony Abbott in Australia. For me, the first 24-hours of a genuinely conservative administration would look something like this: install the Navy in the Channel, and tow any stray dinghies back to France. Who cares whether the French like it – what are they going to do, invade us honestly?! All illegals in Britain would start being returned to their country of origin as a matter of urgency, no ifs no buts. If the ECHR doesn’t like it, they can kick us out – we’re inevitably going to leave anyway. Anyone within the chain of command who refuses to enact the will of the people, can simply be replaced by those who will. Naturally such action would be anathema to a Starmer administration, but they could comfort themselves by pretending the illegals had committed serious crimes like espousing the wrong opinions on FaceBook, shouting at the Old Bill, or attending a Tommy Robinson rally, (rather than merely breaking international law, raping the elderly or butchering little girls).

The great question re mass immigration is not whether it is deliberate, but why? It’s also the question we’re least likely to ever get an answer for. In Tony Blair’s day, we knew the answer: ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity’. But with immigration so out of control even Blair is criticising it, you might need another explanation. Whatever truly lurks behind the unstoppable dinghies (imported voter base, white replacement, an attempt to influence the birth rate, or the simple destruction of Britain), we are going to require an explanation - because this lie is utterly unsustainable. Until such time as the government of the day, or at the very least the ‘opposition’ A) acknowledges the issue of mass immigration honestly, B) outlines and adopts the simple solution or C) comes clean on precisely what outside interference is being exerted on them, Britain cannot be classified as a sovereign nation, leaving its people bereft of a homeland.

Being forced to fund your own destruction on the basis of a stupid lie is damning in so many ways. Not only does it make fools of us all, it makes all-out civil war inevitable. Thus far, (short-lived riots notwithstanding) the public response has in no way been commensurate with the scale of the crime committed against them. That dam will not hold forever, and even an ideologue like Starmer should have the wit to realise it.

Frank Haviland is the Editor of The New Conservative, and the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West.

This piece was first published in The American Spectator, and is reproduced by kind permission.

If you enjoy my work, please consider buying me a coffee - it would really help to keep me going. Thank you!