A GLOBALIST IMMIGRATION POLICY

Suella Braverman, the UK’s Home Secretary, made a speech at the American Economic Institute this week that was stronger on analysis than it was on offering solutions. Even the analysis was wanting.

Suella Braverman rightly pointed out that ‘it is a basic rule of history that nations which cannot defend their borders will not long survive’, and that ‘it is a basic rule of politics that political systems which cannot control their borders will not maintain the consent of the people, and thus not long endure’.

Suella Braverman cited the invasion of the Italian island of Lampedusa, where the 6,000 population was overrun by 11,000 illegal immigrants within 48 hours. She pointed out that, according to the UN, there were ‘over108 million forcibly displaced people globally’ and the UNHCR estimated that there were 29 million refugees. Importantly, she further pointed out that a Gallup Poll found that 16 per cent of adults worldwide (900 million) wanted to permanently leave their countries. This included 37 per cent of people living in sub-Saharan Africa (481 million), and 27 per cent of those living in the Middle East and North Africa (156 million). As many as 4 per cent of those polled (40 million) wanted to move to the UK (in practice this means England).

Suella Braverman said: ‘There are four core arguments in opposition to uncontrolled and illegal migration: the civic argument; the practical argument; the security argument; and the democratic argument.’ She proceeded to detail her arguments. The civic argument was flawed. She said:

‘The nation state … creates a shared identity and a shared purpose. And that does not need to have a racial component – typically, it binds people of different racial backgrounds together.

Far from being an ugly emotion, patriotism stirs people to heroism and to kindness. It is the belief that we have specific obligations to others precisely because they are our fellow countrymen. And in order for nationality to be sustainable – economically, culturally, and in terms of public support – it needs to encompass everyone.’

This is a statist view and is historically inaccurate. States are founded by a people – mostly a Staatsvolk (an academic term). Uri Ra’anan, an Austrian/American political scientist, defined the Staatsvolk as ‘the ethnic group that created the state, is largely identified with it, constitutes the bulk of its elite, and is responsible for the predominant culture’. For example, the English are the Staatsvolk of England. The nation which comprises the Staatsvolk confers upon the state the culture of the nation, as is reflected by the religion, the holidays, and the history. In this way, the civic institutions of the state reflect the culture of the nation.

The North American continent was colonised by White Europeans, but, initially, by the British. The indigenous birthrate of the colonists was the primary factor in population growth for many decades. Yet Suella Braverman skips over this. It is the shared kinship that holds nations together and nations found countries. For a country to be stable the Staatsvolk needs to comprise a critical mass to ensure the kinship remains and that the national culture thrives. This provides an environment into which immigrants might fit into.

The existence of the Staatsvolk does not preclude immigration nor does it constitute racial purity. There will always be some movement across borders. The existence of an ethnic minority does not constitute multiculturalism.

Suella Braverman continued: ‘Integration inevitably takes time. If immigration is uncontrolled, it makes it harder for society to adapt and accommodate new cultures and customs, and for communities to meld together. Uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration, and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven a toxic combination for Europe over the last few decades.’

This assertion assumes that integration is possible. It further assumes that it is the responsibility of society to ‘adapt and accommodate new cultures and customs’ – that is a cultural Marxist viewpoint. With respect, it is the responsibility of immigrants to fit into the country to which they have moved. Those unlikely to do so should not be allowed to immigrate and those who refuse to do so should be asked to leave and deported if necessary.

Suella Braverman was correct to comment: ‘National identity is not something invented in an ivory tower or by advertising executives.’ (Nor is it created simply by issuing passports). She was further correct when saying: ‘If cultural change is too rapid and too big, then what was already there is diluted. Eventually it will disappear.’ However she did not examine the response to that reality.

The total costs of immigration were far larger than set out in the speech. Even so, the multiplying immediate costs of the asylum seekers is huge both in the UK and the USA. As the speech set out: ‘Accommodation cannot be magicked up out of thin air. Nor can new schools, improved roads, extra police officers, additional healthcare, or any of the other public services upon which people rely.’

Tellingly, Suella Braverman also said: ‘Who we allow to come into our country and become one of us is a fundamental issue. Without public consent, immigration is illegitimate. Dismissing as idiots or bigots those members of the public who express legitimate concerns, is not merely unfair, it is dangerous.’ The present ongoing surge of immigration does not have public consent and is illegitimate. Furthermore, those immigrants from the Third World are encouraged into a grievance culture hostile towards the indigenous population.

Suella Braverman then reached the purpose of her speech, referring to the ‘global asylum framework’, she said: ‘By this I mean the various well intentioned legal conventions and treaties that say in effect: if you are fleeing persecution somewhere, you are entitled to make a claim for asylum anywhere; and irrespective of whether you arrived illegally, or passed through multiple safe countries along the way, a country must consider it.’ And: ‘This legal framework is rooted in the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. It was created to help resettle people fleeing persecution, following the horrors of World War Two and the Holocaust, and was – initially at least – centred around Europe.’

The speech then set out the manner in which the interpretation of the 1951 UN Convention had been corrupted by lawyers and judges into being something that was never intended, especially in a very different world. Things have changed since 1951. It is now the 21^st century. There was now a conflict between some national governments and NGOs, including the UN Refugee Agency, as to who constitutes being a genuine refugee and where they should seek that status: ‘The status quo, where people are able to travel through multiple safe countries, and even reside in safe countries for years, while they pick their preferred destination to claim asylum, is absurd and unsustainable.’

Suella Braverman did not properly explain the history of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. The second paragraph of Article 1 of the treaty states that the convention only applies to those who were refugees ‘as a result of events occurring before 1^st January 1951’. This meant that the convention would only have a temporary effect to deal with a specific problem in Europe following WWII. However, in the 1960s, wars in Africa caused large numbers of refugees. This led to the resurrection of the 1951 convention and the introduction of the 1967 protocol, which simply removed half the sentence with the date limitation. The UN convention was never intended to be used indefinitely in the way it has been, nor was it intended to be used to facilitate mass and illegal immigration.

According to Suella Braverman changing the treaties was difficult as there were a large number of countries that would need to agree, also there was: ‘The fear of being branded a racist or illiberal. Any attempt to reform the refugee convention will see you smeared as anti-refugee. Similar epithets are hurled at anyone who suggests reform of the ECHR or its court in Strasbourg.’

However, despite the problems with negotiating changes to the 1951 UN Convention and other treaties at an international level, Suella Braverman adopted a globalist policy. Although she said that ‘multilateral cooperation’ did not rule out unilateral and bilateral arrangements, she opted for globalisation. She owned up: ‘As Home Secretary, Theresa May called for Britain to leave the ECHR. And it was Conservative party policy under Michael Howard to leave the Refugee Convention – I’m merely advocating for reform.’ That remark demonstrates the feebleness of the Tory party and how tame Suella Braverman’s proposals are.

In the Brexit referendum, the UK voted to take back control – especially control of our borders. Presently, there are no controls. Legal immigration is running at around 1.5 million annually and rising, compared to previous centuries when between 1066 and 1950, immigration had only been around 250,000 in total, mostly Hugeunots and Jews. The borders are wide open. Illegal immigrants can invade and know that they will stay irrespective of the validity of any stories they might tell the authorities. They can even stay if they are convicted criminals – including rapists and murderers. Suella Braverman is the minister responsible.