Multiculturalist Ideology (Part One): A Rationale For Race War Politics
An Examination Of The Logic of Multiculturalism
An Examination Of The Logic of Multiculturalism
In her recent speech to address the immigration issue, Kemi Badenoch admitted ‘the fact is immigration, both legal and illegal, is too high’. She recognised:
‘Millions want to come here, but we as politicians have to do right by the citizens of this country, before anyone else. Our country cannot sustain the numbers we have seen. We are reducing the quality of life for people already here. Because immigration is at a pace too fast to maintain public services, and at a rate, where it is next to impossible to integrate those from radically different cultures … For decades the entire political class in this country has presided over mass migration. Since 1994, every year has seen more people arrive in this country than leave. Numbers climbed and climbed.’
Badenoch set out three issues. First, ‘if immigration is too quick, there is no integration … When people come here they must buy into the values, customs, and institutions that attracted them here in the first place.’ Second, ‘the political class cannot pretend that immigration comes only with benefits and no costs when we can all see the pressure on housing, roads, GPs, and wages.’ Third, ‘we can no longer be naïve. It’s nonsense that we have allowed a situation where judges deem safe countries to be unsafe. Where loopholes are wilfully exploited by opportunists. Where the latest legal ruses and wheezes are sent around the world on social media.’
Badenoch recognised: ‘People know that if they can make it to the UK, they will be able to stay. We must end that.’ She also recognised that people do not want to see changes that mean we lose ‘what’s good about our country’.
However: ‘the system is broken, and until you accept that, any politician, all politicians, are doomed to fail … So we will review every policy, treaty and part of our legal framework – including the ECHR and the Human Rights Act.’
The part the media picked up on was that Badenoch pointed out: ‘We can argue about the effects of migration on the economy. We can discuss the impact on public services and housing, and we haven’t done that enough. But fundamentally – this country is not a dormitory or a hotel, it is our home. We need to look after it.’
As far as it goes, this was good stuff. Badenoch acknowledged that there was a major problem on the eve that the latest immigration figures were about to be produced. But that acknowledgement was basic and offered nothing beyond what most members of the general public already knew.
Going forward, Badenoch was less adventurous. She promised ‘detailed policies’, including ‘a strict numerical cap’, more selective visas, more transparency, and ‘a reconsidered approach to citizenship and settlement’ in which ‘the path to a British passport a privilege to be earned not an automatic right’. Foreign criminals would not be allowed to remain in the UK and there would be ‘an effective deterrent for illegal migration’.
The proposed future ‘detailed policies’ would therefore entail ongoing large scale immigration and measures to do what should be the obvious. There was no commitment to end mass immigration. Nor any commitment to deport those already here illegally.
The immigration figures published the following day showed, dramatically, that there was a revision in the estimated immigration in the year to June 2023, and that the immigration total was now 1.32 million and net migration was no less than 906,000. This was due to the previous Tory government.
Mass immigration poses an existential threat. To state the obvious, if you are running a bath and the bath is overflowing, then the first thing to do is to turn off the tap.
Kemi Badenoch’s speech did not offer any certainty that a future Tory government would be any different from previous ones. There would be no end to mass immigration, but only, at best, a more responsible management of it.