The announcement by Planning Minister Nick Boles that immigration has accounted for almost half of all the new housing demand and that Britain’s Green Belt will be sacrificed to make way for the invasion, has refocused attention on the viability of the “voluntary repatriation” policy so long endorsed by nationalists.
According to Boles’s announcement, 100,000 new homes a year will be needed to accommodate the immigration invasion, which accounts to 43 percent of all new households.
He added that up to two million acres of green fields may have to be concreted over to deal with the housing shortage.
Sir Andrew Green, founder of the think-tank MigrationWatch, said the public would be shocked by the figures, which are significantly higher than the Government’s previous estimate on the issue, which suggested immigration accounted for 36 per cent of new households.
For many years now, nationalists in Britain have adhered to a “voluntary repatriation” policy to deal with the invasion. This has been regarded as a “softer” approach which would not only be able to deal with the immigration problem, but would also be more “sellable” to the general public.
Both of these assumptions need to be studied in greater detail.
Firstly, it is not widely known that there is already a voluntary repatriation programme in existence, officially run by the Home Office.
This is called the Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP) and its details can be found on the Home Office’s web site here.
Essentially, this programme offers individuals who are in the UK legally, financial assistance to return to their countries of origin.
This financial assistance amounts to £1,500 in direct aid for an individual (£500 in a cash card which can be drawn at the airport upon departure, and the remainder payable for living expenses in the returning person’s home country.
For someone returning with a family, the benefits are substantially higher: the Assistance Voluntary Return for Families and Children Programme (AVRFC) provides each family member with £2,000 (which would amount to a tidy sum for many of the high-reproduction rate Third Worlders.)
For illegal immigrants, the programme says it will “not usually” give any money (in other words it can and probably does, according to individual cases) but, “as with the other two programmes” it will pay for flights and arrange travel documents.
So, it appears that the first leg of the nationalist “solution” is in fact already in place as official government policy—which makes the policy platform slightly redundant, to say the least.
The logical question therefore follows: has the existence of this programme made any difference to the flooding of Britain by the Third World.
The answer is, of course, no.
The only logical conclusion to draw from that is that a policy of voluntary repatriation is a proven failure, and there is no point in pursuing it any further.
Simply put: if Britain is not to be overwhelmed by the Third World, then a policy of compulsory repatriation has to be put into place.
This must apply not only to new immigrants, but already existing ones, who are already present in large enough numbers that, left to natural reproduction rates, will inevitably outnumber of demographically displace indigenous white British people.
This leads on to the second premise: that of the “saleability” of such a policy.
This is, of course, a matter of debate. However, those with any understanding of how the pea-in-the-pod sham of modern democratic politics works, will know that it all runs on image, and not policy.
It is for example, widely believed by the general public that the BNP was to deport all non-white immigrants, even though that is not the party’s policy at all.
Nonetheless, nearly one million people voted for that party in June 2009 (this figure has, as the recent by-elections have shown, dropped due to other completely unrelated reasons) and that should tell observers all they need to know: namely that they might as well have the compulsory programme, as most people believe they have it anyway.
In any event, as the figures show, Britain cannot be saved from Third World destruction without it.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I think that the answer to the question posed in the heading to this question is no and yes.
No, because without compulsory repatriation we will never get all the way back to the population which we had before 1948.
Yes, because there is a great deal that can be done without compulsorily repatriating ALL foreigners. For example, all citizenships granted in (say) the last ten years should be revoked and re-granted only to persons of British descent and persons married to UK citizens. All non-UK citizens still resident in the country would be required to regularise their position by obtaining time-limited work or study permits if they do not already have them. If they were unable to do so they would have to leave. Benefits, social housing and the right to vote would be limited to UK citizens and non-UK citizens already enjoying them them would lose them.
Some specific cases;-
Illegal Immigrants. The question of compulsory repatriation does not apply in their case because they are not lawfully in the country anyway. The problem is smoking them out. This could be done with a carrot and stick approach. The stick would be applied to those who employ or house illegals, namely a mandatory term of imprisonment in respect of each illegal thus housed or employed. Their employers and landlords would rid themselves of them at a speed of knots. The carrot would be a free flight home and a cheque for a thousand pounds only cashable outside the UK. Yes,I know it goes against the grain to give these characters money, but the priority has to be getting them out of the country.
2/ Asylum seekers. No-one should be accepted as an asylum seeker unless they have suffered persecution in the two countries for which Britain is the closest i.e.Iceland and Ireland. All others already in the country should be sent home with the same package as illegals. If they fail to leave they become illegals themselves.
3/ Persons already granted refugee status should have their status re-examined, and if their countries are now safe,or if the grant was one which should not have been made, they must leave.
4/ Criminal foreigners. Immediate deportation for those guilty of minor offences, deportation after serving their sentences for more serious offenders. Non-white UK citizens should be stripped of their citizenship if they have another citizenship available, for example I believe that Indian citizenship is available to everyone of Indian descent. Non-white criminals who have no such alternative citizenship, or are of doubtful origin, could be granted citizenship by countries willing to accept UK aid (i.e. bribes) to take them e.g. I seem to remember that both Sierra Leone and Guyana have either been involved in similar schemes when colonies or have expressed interest in taking people from Britain.
These are a few ideas which could form part of a complete recasting of British immigration and citizenship law which I am quite sure would achieve a very considerable reduction in the population of alien origin in our country – and that’s even before we greatly beef up the existing repatriation scheme. All that’s lacking is a government with the will to do it, and there’s the rub.
By the way, do not imagine from this that I am against all immigration because it can be a win/win process. I believe that white people of good character and substantially British descent – and they alone – should have an automatic right to settle in Britain and thereafter become British citizens. Being of British descent makes them family and this is the family home.
On the other hand, with a white British population which is aging and dwindling, foreign labour – all imported on carefully controlled and supervised work permits – is probably essential to keep our society running at an acceptable level until such time as the population stabilises at a lower level and all essential parts of the national economy have a sufficient and capable local work force. Eastern Europe, particularly the parts outside the EU (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus) will provide an inexhaustible supply of such labour for the forseeable future, all of it white.