TheAtlantic: CLACTON-ON-SEA, England—In 1964, as Britain experienced an influx of Asian and African post-colonial immigrants, Conservative Party member Peter Griffiths was controversially elected to parliament, winning on the slogan, “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour.” It was a virulently racist campaign that shocked the British establishment, leading Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson to brand Griffiths a “leper,” jumpstarting the Birmingham division of the Ku Klux Klan, and evoking ire—and a whistle-stop visit—from Malcolm X.
Comments:
* How is advocating Australia’s system, limiting immigration to the economic needs of the nation “anti-immigrant”? The problem is folks like you want western countries to open themselves up to unlimited immigration from areas that don’t share the same language, culture, and identity. Why is is so important that immigration must be unlimited? It sounds to me that you want to answer white privilege with forcing whites into minority status. That’s racism.
* This reads more like a hit piece though at least some of the articles the author links to do give the context.
“his unabashed dislike of Romanians”
This whole interview was in the obvious context of Romanian criminal gangs (which Met figures show to be overrepresented in crime figures), not Romanian families, a point which Farage was at pains to make except that the interviewer continually tried to browbeat and try to trip Farage up by constant interruption and twisting words until he made a statement that could be lifted out of context. Of course, the interviewer and the media jumped on it. Oh, and if anyone doesn’t know the difference between living next door to a “group of Romanian men” and “a group of German children” (note: *children* – I am not even sure why the interview used children instead of men) then they aren’t playing with a full deck of cards.
“he recently theorized that women who have children are “worth less” to employers”
Again, in context this was by way of explaining gender wage disparity in the City, not by way of condoning or justifying it.
“and suggested that businesses ask women to “sit in a corner” when breastfeeding”
In context again, Farage said he did not personally have a problem with women breastfeeding in public but understood that some people and establishments do and, therefore, suggested one possible compromise that he hoped would be OK with most people (though not something he personally would require).
* This article failed to mention certain “incidents” like Muslims attacking an English solider in broad daylight, then cutting off his head.
Everything isn’t about “economics” and theories of elite London School of economics professors.
Regular people in not so Merry Old England have legitimate concerns about crime, terrorism and also preserving their unique English/British culture.
English people, British people had/have a unique English/British culture that they have every right to preserve.
Steve Sailer: Immigration restrictionism is winning all over the world in sophisticated countries like Norway, Israel, Australia, and, soon, France and Britain. The U.S. is so controlled by billionaires that the it seems foreign, but it will eventually break through here, too.
* There is nothing wrong with wanting controls on immigration – including the ability to choose the right people with skills. This is not racism.
In one lifetime, Britain’s demographics have changed entirely and irrevocably.
I don’t know if that’s good or not, but people shouldn’t be surprised if some British citizens are a bit displeased by this. All the major parties have, in the end, allowed this situation to go on for too long, during which time, individuals who had expressed doubts of allowing so many foreigners into the UK had their opinions dismissed, or in some cases, were accused as racists. In other words, during the last 60 years (and in particular the last 2 decades), the British public were not appropriately consulted in respect of the large number of immigrants entering and settling in Britain.
UKIP on the other hand, are a little more serious about this topic. So no-one should be surprised that there are people voting for them.
If you are an actual ill-mannered and ignorant froth-mouthed bigot, you’re probably going to vote BNP, but if you are someone who just wants some more controls on immigration becuase you may think that this has (probably more negative than positive effects) on British society by way of
– competition for housing and jobs
– overuse of public resources
– rapid demographic changes and the inability for some foreign communities to assimilate properly
– immigrants with little or no skills and/or unable to speak English adequately
then you might consider voting for UKIP.
Having said all this, they are still an unelectable party since they have little governing experience and their other policies are a bit weak!!
On another note, I also suspect that a lot of the sceptism of the British public towards immigration in general is due to the bad behaviour of British muslims. It seems that among all the different groups, countries, cultures, and peoples that moved to the UK, the muslims unfortunately appear to be the ones having most trouble assimilating.
I think most people are aware of how this has manifested itself so there’s no need to go through the rather tedious and lenghty list of problems.
* In a world of sovereign independent nation states you can’t simply have free flow of labor across borders. That would be anarchy. Also, there is nothing wrong with ethnic nations like Britain, Norway, or Japan wanting to preserve their ethnic identity.
* At some point highly developed countries are going to decide that they have had enough of being the safety valve for less successful nations. In America, we have a large and growing underclass whose current prospects are dim and getting worse as more low-skill jobs are headed for automation. Admitting hundreds of thousands of low skill/low education (legal or otherwise) each year is just insanely stupid when we could have the pick of the litter from just about any other country. The current mania for amnesty is rank political opportunism without regard to the long-term costs: Democrats get to import future voters who historically have not climbed the economic ladder much once here to replace the whites that are fleeing the party, and GOPers get a pat on the head from corporations that are guaranteed decades of dirt cheap labor for jobs that are not yet replaced by machines.
