So-called 'anti-racists': vile bunch of haters

Calling people who oppose immigration 'racist' doesn't work anymore, writes Christopher Goff.

Speaking out against immigration comes with its risks. It is not for the cowardly. And it matters not even if you speak out against the immigration of people of the same race as you – a great many of the recent immigrants into the UK, it should be noted, are fellow Europeans – dare speak out and you are by default a 'racist'. Nowadays, 'racist' is a term which is ubiquitously dispensed by the deeply pathetic, the unhinged and the plain hateful.

On being called a 'racist', it amuses me no end how I during my time spent in like-minded circles have actually come to know lots of people who have had ethnic minority friends, and on a number of occasions also ethnic minority family members, but whom have nevertheless been called 'racist'. How is it that I, for example, could possibly be 'racist' when my best friend is Oriental and my employer is Asian? If it was the case that I hated people of a different race to mine – like 'anti-racists' no doubt think of a person with my beliefs – do these people not think that by now I might have found a different best friend or might have been altogether less inclined to work long hours for not that much pay?

What of immigration? Well, I do not actually believe there is any element of racism or hate towards migrants in the case of the vast majority of Europeans who oppose large-scale immigration into Europe, but instead common sense concern at the speed and scale of change in many host communities. In addition, lots of people across Europe just think it plain unfair that an immigrant or an asylum seeker or call them what you want can travel across the continent of Europe looking for the 'best deal', can fill out a few papers, and then after just a short wait can begin to enjoy all the benefits that citizenship of a country like Britain, Germany or Sweden might have to offer, including access to social housing, welfare benefits, and free healthcare and education.

Unsurprisingly, lots of people think the current situation to be wholly unsustainable. In the case of the recent arrival in Europe of hundreds of thousands of Syrians, many just do not realize that a man who might, for example, be granted asylum in Germany is then in just 12 months time also allowed to relocate his wife and children from Syria. And while the relocation of dependents from the Middle East might in the short-term be impracticable, in a post-conflict Syria we can expect the further emptying of that country of even more of its people.

Europeans are only right to question why huge numbers of immigrants should be granted full rights of citizenship of a country when they have contributed nothing to that country, and it matters not what the level of hardship these people might or might not have fled from. In this age of economic austerity, to attempt to offer that same level of care and support to new arrivals as is offered to existing citizens who have for the most part contributed to the wealth of their country represents a betrayal of the people by the state. And of course, what this betrayal points to is the simple fact that the existing system of asylum is no longer fit for purpose, originating as it does in the early 1950s and when the United Nations created it. Where perhaps the people who originally thought-up the system of asylum did so against a background of hundreds of asylum claims, in more recent times the reality of asylum has gone from hundreds of claims, to thousands of claims, to hundreds of thousands of claims a year. In 2015, Germany received an astonishing 1.1 million claims for asylum.

The current system of asylum needs to be scrapped. Under a new set of rules, European nations should only be obliged to offer temporary refuge to those fleeing conflict, and that only for the duration of the period during which a refugee's home country is deemed unsafe. Once these countries in question are considered safe, then generous relocation grants should be given to anyone returning home voluntarily, while those not wishing to return through their own volition should be forcibly sent back. And as for those economic migrants coming from safe countries, well they should be sent to detention centres the minute they set foot on European soil and then returned to their country of origin as soon as military logistics allow.

Alongside those previously mentioned measures aimed at tackling the problem of non-Europeans entering Europe illegally, only by withdrawing from the European Union can Britain hope to regain control of its own borders and limit the numbers of Europeans settling here. Immigrants from poorer European Union countries deprive people born in the UK of employment opportunities and drive down wages, they take much needed homes, including those provided by Registered Social Landlords, and their numbers in certain districts can place a huge strain on systems of healthcare and education. Come the day when there are thousands of unfilled job vacancies in the UK, thousands of homes sitting empty, and lots of doctors, midwifes and teachers sitting around doing nothing, well then that is perhaps the time to open our doors to migrants from other European countries.

There is nothing wrong with British people exerting their group interest and voicing their concerns on the issue of immigration, and the claim that anyone doing so is somehow 'racist' when large numbers of recent immigrants to the UK are fellow Europeans is clearly as much a stupid remark as it is a hateful one. The ethnicity or race of immigrants doesn't much matter; what does is the fact that the UK is full up.

Copyright © Christopher Goff
Tag: Migration
Uploaded: 14 July, 2016.