Debate about the costs of mass immigration in mainstream politics and media concentrate overwhelmingly on the economic costs. Indeed, public debate is very often solely about the economics, whether that be the difference between tax paid and benefits drawn by immigrants or the supposed need for immigrants because of their alleged superior skills or work ethic.
These costs are important â€“ although never honestly calculated â€“ but the more damaging costs are the non-economic ones which change the tenor of a society. That is not to say that the non-economic costs do not have economic implications â€“ for example, the 2011 riots in England did â€“ but what I am considering here are the psychological and sociological costs. I concentrate on Britain, but the vast majority of the points listed apply to any First World society with a large immigrant population, and many of the points apply to any society, rich or poor, which has suffered a large influx of immigrants. The non-economic costs to Britain are:
1. The colonisation of parts of the UK, especially in England, for example much of inner London, Leicester, Birmingham and Bradford, by immigrants who create separate worlds in which to live with next to no attempt at integration. This makes living in such areas for native Britons very problematic, because not only will they feel they are a minority in their own land â€“ a severe psychological burden â€“, but those native Britons who are parents will have a very real concern that the state schools (where the large majority of British pupils are educated) in their area will be Towers of Babel in which their children will be neglected, taught more of the cultures of immigrants than their own culture and quite probably bullied simply for being native Britons. The poorer native Britons in such areas will often not have the option of moving â€“ as white liberals frequently do â€“ to an area where there are few immigrants, because of the cost of moving, especially the cost of housing. It is also much more difficult for someone in an unskilled or low-skilled occupation to find such work in areas without a large immigrant component.
2. The damaging effect on the morale of the native British population of seeing parts of their country colonised with the connivance of their elites.
3. The damaging effect on the morale of the native British population of employers and politicians claiming that immigrants are more able and possessed of a superior work ethic than the native Briton.
4. Immigrant ghettoes. Their formation is a natural tendency amongst immigrants, which was given a great deal of added energy by the British elite's adoption of multiculturalism in the 1970s. This was both a consequence of the left-liberal internationalist terminally naÃ¯ve happy-clappy 'we are all one big human family' ideology and an attempt to ameliorate when it became clear that assimilation/ integration had not taken place amongst the black and Asian immigrants of the fifties and sixties after several generations had been born in Britain. The effect has been to create long-lasting ghettoes which are not only separate from the British mainstream but hostile to Britain, its native population and its culture
5. Censorship. The need by the British elite to suppress dissent amongst the native population at the invasion of their country has resulted in a gross diminution of free speech. They have done this through legislation, for example, the Race Relations Act 1976, Public Order Act 1986 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000; by creating a willingness amongst the police to intimidate by pouncing with the greatest zeal on those who dare to be any other than rigidly politically correct in the matter of race and immigration (this done frequently with no intention of bringing charges because no law on the statute book will fit the PC 'crime' but simply to frighten); and through the complicity of those in the media and employers (especially public sector and large private employers) to punish the politically incorrect heretics with media hate campaigns or the loss of jobs.
6. Double standards in law enforcement. As mentioned above, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service show great eagerness in investigating and prosecuting cases when a white person (especially a white Briton) is accused of being racist on the flimsiest of evidence and a remarkable sloth where someone from a racial or ethnic minority group has been blatantly racist. The case of Rhea Page is an especially fine example of the latter behaviour whereby a vicious indubitably racist attack by Somali girls on a white English girl and her boyfriend did not result in a custodial sentence. The strong reluctance of the British state to act against crimes specific to ethnic and racial minorities can be particularly seen in the cases of 'honour killings', female genital mutilation and the clearly racist grooming of white girls by Asian men.
7. The general privileging of racial and ethnic minorities over the native British population. The incontinent pandering to immigrant cultures, especially Muslims, by politicians, public service organisations, large private businesses and much of the mainstream media. The pandering ranges from such material advantages as housing associations which cater only for specific ethnic and racial minorities and a toleration of customs and morals which would be unreservedly declared to be wrong if practised by the native population, for example, the ritual slaughter of animals.
8. The incessant PC propagandising in schools and universities, even in subjects which do not seem to readily lend themselves to PC manipulation such as economics and geography. The most pernicious effect of this ideological corruption of schooling is to effectively rob native British (and especially English) children of their history. This occurs because the general history of Britain (and especially that of England) is not taught (there is no meaningful chronology of British or any other history delivered to children because themes rather than periods are the order of the day) and the history which is covered is heavily slanted towards portraying the British as pantomime villains forever oppressing subject peoples and growing rich on the wealth extracted from them. The upshot is the creation of several generations of native British (and especially English) children who have (1) no meaningful understanding of their history and general culture and (2) have acquired a sense that any praise of or pride in their own land, culture and history is dangerous and that the only safe way to get through school is to repeat the politically correct mantras of their teachers.
9. The piggy-backing on 'anti-discrimination' laws to do with race of the other politically correct mainstays of sexual and gender equality and lesser entrants to the equality game such as age and disability. Racism is undoubtedly the most potent of all PC voodoo words and without it the present gigantic edifice of the 'diversity and equality' religion would in all probability not exist, or would at least exist in much less potent form.
10. The claustrophobia of diversity. A sense of paranoid claustrophobia (something common to totalitarian states) has been created amongst the native British population by the suppression of dissent about mass immigration and its consequences, by the imposition of the multiculturalist creed and by the ceaseless extolling of the 'joy of diversity' by white liberals who take great care to live well insulated against the 'joy'. The effect of this claustrophobia is to generally reduce the native British population to an ersatz acceptance of the PC message, but the discontent every now and then bubbles over into public outbursts such as those of Emma West. Such outbursts, which are a basic form of political protest, are increasingly visited with criminal charges and jail sentences.
11. The enemy within. The creation of large communities of those who are ethnically and racially different from the native British in Britain produces de facto fifth columns. We are already seeing how countries such as India and China respond to any attempt to restrict future immigration for these countries by making veiled threats about what will happen if Britain does this. At a less direct level of foreign threat, British foreign policy is increasingly shaped by the fact that there are large ethnic and racial minorities in Britain. There is also the growing numbers, especially amongst Muslims in Britain, of those who are actively hostile to the very idea of Britain and are willing to resort to extreme violence to express their hatred, actions such as the 7/7 bombings in London and the recent murder of the soldier Lee Rigby.
12. Violence based on ethnicity and behaviours peculiar to immigrant groups such as 'honour killings', street gangs and riots. Every self-initiated British riot since 1945 â€“ that is a riot started by rioters, not violence in response to police action against a crowd of demonstrators â€“ has its roots in immigration. The Notting Hill riots of 1958 were the white response to large-scale Caribbean immigration; every riot in Britain since then has been instigated and led by blacks or Asians. This includes the riots of 2011 in England which the politically correct British media have tried desperately to present as a riot which in its personnel was representative of modern England. In fact, it began with the shooting of a mixed-race man in North London by police and even the official statistics on the race and ethnicity of those convicted of crimes in the riots show that blacks and Asians comprised more than fifty percent of those brought to book.
13. Uncontrolled immigration. The larger the number of immigrants, the louder voice they have, the greater the electoral power. This in practice means ever more immigration as politicians pander to immigrant groups by allowing them to bring in their relatives or even simply more from their ethnic group. This trait has been amplified by the British political elite signing treaties since 1945 which obligate Britain to take large numbers of asylum seekers and give hundreds of millions of people in Europe the right to reside and work in Britain through Britain's membership of the EU. Britain cannot even deport illegal immigrants with any ease because either the originating countries will not take them or British courts grant them rights to remain because of Britain's membership of the European Convention of Human Rights. The overall effect is to create de facto open borders immigration to the UK.
14. The introduction of ethnic-based voting. This is phenomenon which is in its infancy as a serious threat, but it can already be found in areas with a large population of Asians. This is a recipe for eventual racial and ethnic strife.
15. The corruption of the British electoral system. Voter fraud had been rare in Britain for more than a hundred years before the Blair government was formed in 1997. This was partly because of the general culture of the country and partly because of the way elections were conducted (with the vast majority of votes having to be cast in person), which made fraudulent voting difficult. The scope for postal voting was extended from special cases such as the disabled and the old to any elector by the Representation of the People Act 2000. The frauds which have been discovered since the extension of the postal vote have been disproportionately amongst Asians. The influence of fraudulent voting could be substantial because around 20% of votes cast in the 2010 General Election were postal.
All of these things gradually erode the fundamentals of British society including immensely valuable and rare values and behaviours such as respect for the law, trust between the population at large, mutual regard and a large degree of tolerance for others. Most fundamentally, the native British, and especially the English, have been seriously deracinated. They no longer know their history and worrying many seem to view their nationality as merely one ethnicity competing with many others. That is a dangerous mentality because no people will survive if it does not have an innate sense of its own worth and fellow feeling for those sharing the same territory. In short, patriotism is not an optional extra.
The British elite since 1945 has been programmed to attack the very idea of nations. Mass immigration has been the tool they have chosen to attain that end in Britain. We have the word of Andrew Neather, a special adviser to the Blair government that the massive immigration (over 3 million net) during the Blair years was a deliberate policy to dilute the native culture of the UK:
"I [Neather] wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls. It marked a major shift from the policy of previous governments: from 1971 onwards, only foreigners joining relatives already in the UK had been permitted to settle here.
"That speech was based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, Tony Blair's Cabinet Office think-tank.
"The PIU's reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.
"Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.
"Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled 'RDS Occasional Paper No 67, Migration: an economic and social analysis' focused heavily on the labour market case.
"But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended â€“ even if this wasn't its main purpose â€“ to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.
"Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche's keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote.
"This shone through even in the published report: the 'social outcomes' it talks about are solely those for immigrants.
"And this first-term immigration policy got no mention among the platitudes on the subject in Labour's 1997 manifesto, headed Faster, Firmer, Fairer.
"The results were dramatic. In 1995, 55,000 foreigners were granted the right to settle in the UK. By 2005 that had risen to 179,000; last year, with immigration falling thanks to the recession, it was 148,000.
"In addition, hundreds of thousands of migrants have come from the new EU member states since 2004, most requiring neither visas nor permission to work or settle. The UK welcomed an estimated net 1.5 million immigrants in the decade to 2008.
"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom."
That should be seen for what it was, the most fundamental form of treason, because it is far more damaging than selling a nation out to a foreign invader arriving by military means. Such invaders can be eventually driven out or the invaders assimilated because the numbers are not massive. Mass immigration totalling millions of those determined to retain their own culture can never be undone by such means.