Immigration: let me count the ways
RICHARD NORTH
“We must find out what unites us to avoid divisions… “, says the fatuous independent commission on community cohesion. Well, I can only speak of what I know, but when it comes to divisions, this got me thinking as to what is happening on my doorstep.
Let me count the ways in which division is apparent.
The Bradford “Pakistani” community is made up overwhelmingly of the Mirpuri diaspora, which occupies self-sustaining ghettoes where they mostly form the majority. The denizens do not mix with outsiders at a social level; they have their own social structures (baradari) which serve to provide a framework for their own governance, independent of the host nation structures.
Many retain their home languages, which are often spoken in their homes – where many wives don’t speak English at all – and increasingly in the streets and public buildings, often demanding state-funded interpreters if English is required. They expect to be provided with translations of official forms and documents.
Almost all females wear the hijab (headscarf), many wear full-length robes (abaya) and an increasing number don religious dress, including the burka and nikab – which is not the traditional dress of their region. Most older males wear the traditional garb of their home country, the shalwar kameez and the takiyah skullcap and sport full-length, untrimmed beards. Increasingly, younger men and boys are adopting this traditional dress, even third generation immigrants.
The baradari members are all Muslims. They practice their religion in their own distinctive buildings (mosques), and ostentatiously celebrate their religious festivals, often with banners and street decorations supplied at public expense. They demand public facilities for prayer and have secured exemption from humane slaughter rules on religious grounds, to produce “Halal” meat.
The religion is intensely misogynistic, where women are treated as second class citizens, with offensive behaviour spilling over into the broader society, where males will ostentatiously refuse to shake hands with females, and demand adherence to their own dress code.
Religious rituals are associated with some questionable personal hygiene habits, particularly those associated with defecation, which have been directly responsible for at least one serious outbreak of communicable disease (dysentery).
And, although blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008, and in Scotland in 2021, there is an active Muslim lobby campaigning for an Islamophobia law which, if enacted, will effectively re-introduce a blasphemy law, applicable solely to Islam, giving the religion a unique, privileged position in the UK.
Notwithstanding the current absence of any specific blasphemy law, communities are known to react violently to perceived slights to their religion, as in the Salman Rushdie affair, the “Lady of Heaven” film protests and the Batley teacher incident, where the teacher in question was forced into hiding.
While demanding tolerance of their own religion, and multiple concessions to their religions sensibilities, they are intolerant of other religions and aggressively anti-Semitic.
Despite being treated as places of worship for tax purposes (to which effect they are exempted from Council Tax), their mosques also act as community hubs and, effectively, their “town halls”, as well as often housing their religious schools, or madrassas. The communities have their own religious courts, which they treat as superior to the host nation courts, especially in terms of divorce and domestic disputes.
The communities support their own micro-economies which operate on a trans-national basis. They have their own banks and financial institutions, and their own financial systems for loans and transferring money, none of which are compatible with Western systems.
Individuals and businesses transfer surplus funds to their home country as remittances, rather than retaining them in the host country, supporting family interests and investments overseas. A substantial number retain dual citizenship and finance elaborate villas in the Mirpur district, to which they retire, so much so that the city of Mirpur is known as “little England”.
Equivalent areas in the British ghettoes lack investment and often present a down-at-heel appearance. Properties are often poorly maintained and untidy, with highly visible litter and refuse accumulations. Gardens are rarely tended, and more often treated as junkyards. Noise is endemic. Shops are cheaply fitted and dirty, their paved areas unswept and weed infested. Council tax default is higher in Mirpuri areas than in stable, white residential areas.
Substantial numbers of Mirpuris moving into a white area can depress property prices by as much as 60 percent. Repairs and alterations to Mirpuri-owned properties are rarely carried out in accordance with building codes and regulations – which are poorly enforced by the local authority.
This does not hamper the sale of properties within the immigrant community but, unless subjected to expensive refurbishment, they are unsaleable on the open property market. This effect means that once properties are acquired by immigrants, that change tends to become irreversible and thus permanent.
Members of the baradari communities are disproportionately represented in certain types of crime, particularly group-based child sexual exploitation (grooming gangs), Class A drug dealing (specifically heroin) and money laundering. Individuals also make up a higher than average proportion of the prison system, and are disproportionately associated with terrorism.
Baradaris themselves, in some instances, are directly linked to organised crime, with involvement not only in child grooming, Class A drug dealing and money laundering, but also in prostitution, large-scale cigarette smuggling, counterfeit goods and immigration fraud. These have assumed the characteristics of crime syndicates not dissimilar to Mafia families.
The communities have their own ethnic shops, where goods are often labelled in their home (foreign) languages, in contravention of UK law. They frequently resort to unlicensed street markets, which also operate outside UK laws. They eat the foods of their home nation, do not drink alcohol, or eat many of the traditional foods of their host nation.
Increasingly, they have their own schools, where religious dress is enforced and religious teaching form a large part of the curriculum. They are taught their own customs and traditions, with scant regard for their host nation, the history and traditions of which they are largely unaware.
They do not patronise the host nation social and entertainment venues, and have little interest in local sporting events, with very few supporting the city’s football team, despite the stadium being located in a high-density Mirpuri-immigrant area.
They have their own cinemas with films shot in their home languages, their own books, newspapers and magazines, their own radio and TV stations, and their own music. They are more interested in their home nation politics than they are those of the host nation, except where sectarian interests are involved.
Within baradaris, intermarriage is forbidden (not uncommonly, on pain of death, as in honour-killing). Despite the known adverse medical effect, and the drain on NHS resources, consanguinity rates are the highest in the world, within the Mirpuri baradari. Furthermore, despite decades of adverse publicity, rates seem to be marginally increasing.
Many of the marriages are arranged, with brides selected from the home country, “mirror” family, with which the immigrant baradari have close ties, and to which they owe their ultimate loyalty. Despite its illegality in the UK, they commonly practice female genital mutilation.
There is considerable evidence that the inflexible nature of endogamy and consanguineous marriage have adverse economic effects on the communities that practice them, hampering institutional development, suppressing female education, discouraging innovative free enquiry, and entrenching economic deprivation.
The wards occupied by the Bradford Mirpuri diaspora are amongst the most economically deprived areas in Britain yet, rather than address one of the more obvious causes (another being the siphoning of potential investment funds into home country remittances), communities prefer to blame racism and other extraneous factors for their misfortune, exploiting a carefully nurtured victim status.
As groups, they form alliances with others of the same ilk, at clan level (quoms), to elect their own politicians (councillors and MPs) on a block vote principle, with the candidates being decided by the elders of the baradari – the selection often being brokered though their mosques.
Voting fraud is not uncommon and the postal ballot system is widely abused, with family heads casting the votes. Candidates are known to canvass and produce election materials in their home languages.
Communities expect successful candidates to act exclusively in their sectarian interests, disenfranchising the indigenous electorates. Local councillors tend to gravitate to licensing and planning committees, where they can control the issue (or refusal) of licences to pubs, night clubs and other places of entertainment, while influencing decisions on the grant of planning permission to commercial premises – and new mosques. Often, the development of a new mosque in an area is used as justifying the closure of pubs and other premises selling alcohol in the vicinity, paving the way for colonisation by the Mirpuris.
At the national level, MPs in the House of Commons tend to concern themselves disproportionately with issues of interest to their electorates, many focusing on Gaza to the exclusion of domestic concerns.
Not for nothing has Patrick Nash observed that Mirpuri baradari kinship groups, “represent one of the most underappreciated threats to democratic governments in the 21st century”. The Mirpuris have only a vague understanding of the notion of democracy and exploit its weaknesses for their own benefit.
Yet these people are in our midst. It would be hard to imagine a more disagreeable community, one which makes few if any concessions to the host nation. And yet, we are supposed to craft “a shared vision of how we want to live together” with these people.
But for those of us on the edge of these ghettoes, who watch with dismay their steady encroachment into the white enclaves, the differences are too great. The is no question of a shared vision – only rejection of these alien communities which have next to nothing in common with us.
And the worst of it is the gaslighting where we are told that “The UK is a thriving, multi-ethnic and multi-faith democracy where most people in towns, cities, and rural areas get on with each other”. When, through bitter experience, we disagree, we are branded “racist” and told to change our ways.
If this continues, and these communities continue to be forced on us, many believe that our destiny will be measurable in the precise metric terms of 7.62mm, multiplied many times.
See Related Article Below
The Great Mass Immigration Scam
.
FRANK HAVILAND
Mass immigration, the Blairite Ponzi Scheme no successive British government has been willing to dismantle, is firmly back on the agenda. According to YouGov polling, only the economy is considered a more pressing issue for most voters. And that’s hardly surprising, given that we have Rachel Reeves’ steady hand on the fiscal tiller; shoring up the Exchequer to the tune of £150 Billion, thanks to the highest tax rises since records began.
The ‘Uniparty’ of Labour and Conservative are a busted flush on the issue of immigration. For a thousand years, the English Channel has served us well as a sufficient deterrent to all but the most persistent forces. Alas, Britain it seems can no longer defend her honour against the sperm-like dinghy ejaculations emanating from Calais; at least, if we are to believe those representing our interests at Westminster.
When forced to explain their inertia, Britain’s politicians can think of nothing better to blame than their own population. “If anyone needs to integrate, it’s the far-right” says our Home Secretary, David Lammy. Former colleague and EU fanatic, Anna Soubry concurred, arguing that Muslims could “teach white British people many a good thing”. Even former Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, couldn’t resist labelling concerned UKIP voters “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”.
Come election time however, and the rhetoric on immigration ramps up. In the run-up to the 2025 local elections, the bulldog spirit among MPs was palpable – albeit bereft of sincerity. Prime Minister Starmer wanted you to know how “angry” he was at the number of migrants crossing the English Channel – although you won’t know he’s really angry of course, until he starts jailing people for tweeting about it. “We desperately need to end mass migration” agreed former Conservative Minister for Immigration, Robert Jenrick – the man set to replace Kemi Badenoch. Certainly Badenoch has failed to impress, but then Jenrick’s tenure as Immigration Minister was hardly a stellar performance either.
Britain’s last hope almost certainly lies in Nigel Farage’s most recent incarnation, Reform UK. Many of the key indicators are positive: having smashed it in the local elections, Farage is current favourite to be the next Prime Minister. As you’d expect, he pitched his pre-election addresses heavily in terms of immigration. Multiculturalism was a “huge error” he said; we need a ‘Minister for Deportation’; and most tellingly, “We must discriminate when it comes to who can come into our country. We must choose who the right people are, regardless of race, religion or geography.”
Farage certainly talks a good game. His Achilles’ heel however, appears to be Islam, as a recent interview worryingly revealed:
“There is a growing number of young Muslim males who loathe who we are, but the vast majority live peacefully, even if their sympathies lie in a slightly different direction – and we all have sympathies in terms of our own tribe, our own family when at times it may not be rational. I am concerned about the Hamas stuff of course I am, but the nub of it is we have a Muslim population in Britain growing by about 75% every 10 years right, that’s just where we are. If we politically alienate the whole of Islam, we will lose; we’ll lose. By 2050, goodness knows what kind of a terrible state we’re going to be in… we have to try everything we can to bring the majority with us. They will have private observance, they will have slightly different ways of how they live their lives perhaps to you and me, but they will be part of the club overall. That is what we have to strive for.”
I must confess, I am less pragmatic than Farage on this matter. I’m not interested in ‘bringing the majority with us’. My objection to mass immigration is far simpler: it’s dangerous; it’s morally wrong; and, in particular, the lies used to justify it are so pathetic, they would not pass muster in a kindergarten. Not only therefore do they shame their employers, but also the electorate which tolerates them:
The asylum / warzone argument
UNICEF may bluster all it wants that the majority of migrants and refugees are women and children, but when even the Home Office admits 90% of those crossing the Channel are men, that argument is dead. Anyone insisting that warzones are so bad only women and children should be asked to tolerate them, should be shown nothing but the contempt they deserve.
The NHS would collapse without immigration
An interesting point of view, although I suppose we could always take the radical step of training our own doctors and nurses. Besides which, that 8 million-long NHS waiting list might have something to do with the 7.2 million immigrants registered with GPs during the last ten years. Just a thought.
Immigration makes us richer
Simply not true. While naturally more workers may raise a nation’s overall GDP, in terms of GDP per capita (the only measure that matters) Britain has fallen in six out of the last eight quarters. This of course says nothing about the strain large numbers coming to Britain puts on resources and infrastructure, nor the fact that immigrants are a net cost to the economy. We’re not talking small beer either. The Centre for Policy Studies estimates the immigration cost to Britain at around a quarter of a trillion pounds; £400,000 per migrant over their lifetime, if you prefer Robert Jenrick’s analysis. And that replacement Muslim population? Well, only a shocking one in five Muslims in currently employed in Britain – how’s that going to work out in terms of funding pensions?
Diversity is our strength
Naturally, it’s great to see immigrants keen to integrate into British society. Except, with a million migrants unable to speak English, with Whites now minorities in their own major cities (and with ‘No Whites’ a regular feature of the graffiti in such areas), perhaps the atrocity in Southport and the grooming gangs still operating the length and breadth of the country are not ‘random’ events, but symptomatic of a deeper malaise?
Britain ‘must rely on immigration’ to compensate for the falling birth rate
This is perhaps the worst immigration trope, and was pushed recently in The Telegraph of all places. According to Sarah Harper, professor of gerontology at Oxford University, the replacement birth rate of 2.1 children per mother is unlikely to ever return:
“We have to accept that we are going to be in low-fertility societies. And the only way we can compensate for that is by looking at migration. We have a growing group of women who want to have children later, and they maybe only want to have one child. The idea that we are going to be able to replace ourselves by births alone, I really cannot see that coming back.”
Far be it from me to question the wisdom of gerontologists, but importing third world savages en masse to ‘solve’ a problem by providing us with 50 new ones isn’t much of a solution. Instead, we ought to be looking to mitigate the negative effects of recent mass immigration by shutting the scam down altogether. This would immediately obviate the need for billions spent on ‘asylum’, and relieve the enormous pressure across the public sector.
Furthermore, removing the problem of mass immigration might allow us to stop taxing ourselves into oblivion; thereby affording some sensible encouragement for women to have children. In Hungary for instance, Viktor Orban has capped mortgage rates at 5% and is giving lifetime tax exemption to mothers with two or more children. It’s not a miracle of course, but it’s a damn sight better than Starmer’s plan – do sod all, and hope Karachi picks up the slack!
Here’s the joke: solving the immigration problem would be child’s play, were there the slightest will present within the corridors of power. Step one: declare an emergency and deploy the Navy – properly, not as a taxi service. Turn back the boats like Australia did. Step two: ditch the hand-wringing and pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights. It’s a straitjacket tying us to every sob story crossing the Channel. Step three: deport anyone here illegally, no ifs, no buts – and yes, that includes the estimated 1 in 12 illegal ‘Londoners’. Step four: slash the pull factors. No hotels, no benefits, no ‘asylum’ for economic chancers – watch the queues vanish overnight.
The fact that not one of these steps has been implemented by successive governments who talked tough on immigration but did nothing, leads to one inescapable conclusion: mass immigration is a problem the powers that be don’t want to solve. Whether it’s big business’s addiction to cheap labour, the fluffing of the GDP figures, globalist brownie points or simply not wishing to be called ‘racist’, mass immigration is a choice – a choice they are making on our behalf. Even Keir Starmer has admitted it:
“This happened by design, not accident. Policies were reformed deliberately to liberalise immigration. Brexit was used for that purpose, to turn Britain into a one-nation experiment in open borders.”
Forcing the native population to fund its own destruction, while telling them they’re the problem is a stupid and unsustainable lie. Not only does it make fools of us all, but on the current trajectory it makes all-out civil war inevitable. Nigel Farage and Reform UK may be the last roll of the dice, and we’d better hope Farage intends to be more hardline in office than he lets on. Because if he doesn’t, Britain is likely lost forever.
Frank Haviland is the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West and The Frank Report, which you should probably subscribe to.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
(Photograph: Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)
This article (The Great Mass Immigration Scam) was created and published by The New Conservative and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author FrankHaviland
Featured image: corriere.it
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply