Robert Henderson, Living in a Madhouse, November 23, 2014

The think-tank British Future has recently published the report How to talk about immigration based on research conducted by ICM, Ipsos MORI and YouGov. The report purports to provide a blueprint for both the pros and antis in the immigration debate to manage the subject most effectively in public discussion. This is not something which they achieve because they have bought into the internationalist agenda, viz: “Some three or four generations on from Windrush, it is now a settled and irreversible fact that we are a multi-ethnic society. Managing immigration effectively and fairly in the public interest should and does matter to Britons from different ethnic backgrounds. We should be suspicious of approaches that sharply polarise British citizens along racial lines, in whatever direction”.

Nonetheless the research does have much of interest. One finding is truly startling. Faced with the question “The government should insist that all immigrants should return to the countries they came from, whether they’re here legally or illegally” the result was Agree 25%, disagree 52% and neither 23%. (P17 of the report). In addition, many of those who said no to forced repatriation were also firm supporters of strong border controls and restrictive immigration policies.

The fact that 25% of the population have overcome their fear of falling foul of the pc police and say that they do not merely want immigration stopped but sent into reverse is stunning. Moreover, because political correctness has taken such an intimidating place in British society it is reasonable to assume that a substantial number of those who said they disagreed did so simply out of fear of being accused of racism.

The obverse of the immigration coin was shown by the question “In an increasingly borderless world, we should welcome anyone who wants to come to Britain and not deter them with border controls” (P16 of the report). The results were 14% agree, 67% disagree and 19% don’t know.

That only 14% support such a policy compared to the 25% who wished for forced repatriation is striking in itself, but it is even better for the opponents of immigration than it looks for two reasons. First, the 14% of those who agreed with the question will be the honest figure because to say that you want open borders carries with it no penalties from the pc police and will gain the person brownie points amongst the politically correct elite and their auxiliaries. Second, as already mentioned, the 25% of those wanting forced repatriation of all immigrants will understate the true position because a significant proportion of those questioned with be lying out of fear.

The report also shows that older voters are more likely to be those who are most strongly opposed to immigration (P11 of the report). That is important because older voters are the most likely to vote.

Taking all that into account it is reasonable to assume that a referendum with the question “Do you wish to end mass immigration?” would result in a solid probably overwhelming YES vote.

These facts should persuade politicians that they would risk nothing if they move much further to restrict immigration than they have already done and in so doing would gain considerable extra electoral support.

This may well happen. Public rhetoric about immigration is rapidly hardening There will come a tipping point where the rhetoric has departed so far from the politically correct position that serious action to restrict immigration will occur because the stretch between rhetoric and action will become too great to sustain in a society where governments are elected.

A party political bidding process on the subject of immigration is already taking place and there will come a point where serious action has to follow or there will be a very real chance that either one or more of the mainstream parties will become irrelevant and be superseded, or members of the mainstream parties will wrest control of these parties from their pc indoctrinated leadership and adopt a policy on immigration closer to what the public wants.

The other important effect of greater political honesty in political utterances about immigration is that it makes it much easier for people generally to speak openly about their feelings on the subject and to lobby for radical action. In turn this will feed the desire of politicians to gain electoral credibility by being ever former in their immigration policies. Indeed, the only reason that the present immigration has been allowed to develop is because the subject has been effectively wiped off the public debate agenda since the 1970s.