You will have seen that both of the pro-Brexit factions – the Tory dominated VoteLeave and the UKIP dominated Leave.eu – want to introduce what they call an “Australian-style points based immigration system” in the event that we leave the EU. That we should leave is profoundly to be desired for all sorts of reasons which have already been well rehearsed on Western Spring, but not least because a country which cannot control its borders is, as Donald Trump is said to have said, “not a proper country”. The Donald of course was speaking loosely, as is his way, for what he surely meant is that a country which cannot control its borders is not independent. Britain, then, is not an independent country and inferior in that respect (if no other) to Panama or Burkina Faso.
So what about this Australian points system? Someone has pointed out that Australia designed it to have exactly the opposite effect to that which we want – to increase immigration not to decrease it! That is just what happened when the then Labour government introduced a points system to Britain in 2008. As Migrationwatch pointed out, it had the perverse effect of removing immigration control from the hands of the British Secretary of State to the hands of the individual – anyone who could produce a degree certificate in something or other and could manage a passable smattering of English could enter, and they did just that in great numbers, particularly from India. The worst effects were curbed by the immigration “cap” brought in by the coalition government soon after it came to power in 2010.
If Brexit occurs we will have to wait and see what sort of points system we get. The omens are not good; Michael Gove (“Britain is one of the most successful multi-cultural, multi-racial societies in the world”) Gove has said that he wants a controlled immigration system which allows entry on merit in place of the present “racist” (his word) open door to Europeans. So fewer Poles but more Pakistanis? Perhaps, but while most of the EU citizens we have already received could be absorbed without racial damage, and might perhaps be viewed as a welcome addition to the White population of our country, it is – as the great Enoch once said – all a matter of numbers. If we continue indefinitely to receive immigration from continental Europe on the scale on which we are presently receiving it, our sense of who we are as a nation cannot remain unaffected.
What should our immigration policy really be? Well, “racist” of course! If you are a person of Indian descent, but not an Indian citizen, you can obtain an “Indian Overseas Citizenship” which operates like a standing visa – you can enter the country at any time, work, acquire property, and in due course become a fully fledged citizen. That is certainly what Mr. Gove would call a “racist” immigration policy because it favours people on the basis of their ancestry, but I have never heard that anyone – not even Mr. Gove – has denounced the Indian scheme for that reason.
Could we, or should we, have an Indian style policy for people of British descent? Of course we should, and it wouldn’t even be necessary to specify that they are White because that is what the vast majority of Anglo Americans, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, Rhodesians and South Africans naturally are. Why should they have this privilege denied to all others? Because they are family and this is the family home; their return here would be homecoming, not immigration. They are the only ones who should be admitted for permanent settlement. Gaps in the labour supply which cannot be met from local sources could be met by the admission of other Whites from continental Europe on temporary work permits; some of these people would get to stay by marriage to British citizens, hence the insistence that they be White. With minor and temporary exceptions – such as a senior executive for a Japanese bank with offices in the City of London – non Whites would not be admitted at all.
Of course we SHOULD have the policy which I have outlined in the last paragraph, but COULD we? Not a chance! Well, not as things stand, but remember that “it is not given to us to see the future”. So we should always have some such scheme in mind as the immigration policy for us to work towards. In the meantime, almost anything is better than the open borders we have now, so vote Leave!
By Frederick Dixon © 2016
# # # #
JOIN WESTERN SPRING
Western Spring is not just a website. We are a community of people dedicated to achieving the Six Prerequisites and thereby acquiring the wherewithal needed to win political power and through that secure the future survival, proliferation and advancement of the British people and other White peoples of European descent, wherever they may live. Please join us:
[contact-form-7 404 "Not Found"]# # # #
Albert
- Edit
Most immigrants into the UK are from outside the EU..and from the Third World mostly dependants and students..these people will never end coming..as Enoch Powell told us nearly 50 years ago.
SerpentSlayer
- Edit
Many of the merits for a point system (addressing a skills shortage etc.) can be fulfilled with temporary stay permits until such time as the skills shortage can be addressed, but with a preference for White English speakers in place. Besides that surely we should prefer white immigrants from Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Rhodesia over any others. All have similar standards of living, shared values, language and heritage.
Preferring Indians over Pakistanis would make sense to an extent also, but it would only add to the plight of our people (in arguably a worse way than the openly hostile Islamic immigrants are) and African and Carrinean christians from the former colonies are probably preferable to non Christian speakers of other languages, but again the same problem.
We must argue for not only a race based system, but one that prefers the children of these islands.
Daniel
- Edit
Slower non-White immigration just means turning down the heat before the frog realises it’s being boiled. Multi-Kult is a success in Britain from a globalist point of view because Whites are heading towards minority status by 2050, though I say sooner than that. If we had taken the number of non-Whites that we have in Britain sixty years ago it would have been an invasion and it is an invasion. The European Union won’t be around in 40 years because by then it will have collapsed under its own weight from the lies that support it’s foundations like pillars.
Stefan
- Edit
Yes I think the EU is like an empire, it’s expanding & eventually the competing demands, other factors & corruption will cause it to tear apart.
Maybe Brexit is the start of that, if we remain, it will limp on for awhile.
Max Musson
- Edit
Whether we reach minority status by 2050, or whether its sooner or later, very much depends upon what we do now and over the forthcoming years. Our fate is not entirely in the hands of our elected political elite and this is why we must act in the ways that are open to us. See: https://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-british-people-which-way-now/
Stefan
- Edit
The other point about Australia, is like America, immigration is skewed towards non Whites anyway, in particular Asia, a decision was made years ago to stop it being a majority White society.
So the same thing is happening here.
Troy Vilhelmsson
- Edit
Hate to say “i told you so”. As the author intimates, there is no point to the points system, unless that point is simply to continue to undermine the numerical dominance of the natives. We see counterfeit passports today (though there are hardly necessary, really); post-exit, we would no doubt see counterfeit degrees, diplomas and all sorts. But, that is irrelevant, just like the entire referendum. The WILL to ‘close the border’ is not there, and while our current ‘political class’ remain bipedal, that will is not going to manifest itself; not in our lifetime, neither our children’s.
Too many in ‘our circles’ get caught up in these kind’s of manufactured public-political debacles and in the process appear to forget entirely that the root of all our struggles from 1933 until we are physically annihilated to the last man is RACE – that is, the survival and our complete MONOPOLISATION of the demographics in our respective (formerly, respectable) nations. ‘Brexit’ (what an infantile turn of language) is not the catalyst for that. Neither is the status quo. You think we cannot gain ‘control over our borders until we are free from the shackles of the EU’? We cannot gain control of our borders until our political class are either living in such terror that they daren’t turn that faucet back on or until we have liquidated and replaced the lot of them!
I am almost saddened to state it, but not until the public services (particularly the state’s political enforcers – the Police) can no longer be funded to the level that enables their functioning to the ability required by the governing administration and it’s shadowy overlords, and not until media HQ’s and installations are worrying about the not unrealistic possibility of severe physical terror dished out to them by hardened British Aryan men who have rediscovered the Meaning of Life – not until these destinations are arrived at, will we see any kind of potential opening for our racial revolution, and, in turn, redemption. Of course, for the sake of space, I am radically simplifying a personal prophesy, but these are the essential prerequisites for establishing the climate in which we will redefine our boundaries. Nature knows no politics.
Max Musson
- Edit
The will to close our borders will not manifest itself during our lifetime or our children’s if we sit back and wait for our current political elite to be the drivers of that change. This is why we must take action ourselves and not leave our fate in that hands of those who would destroy us. see: https://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-british-people-which-way-now/
Daniel
- Edit
‘that will is not going to manifest itself; not in our lifetime, neither our children’s.’
We don’t have the luxury of time. We don’t have decades to overcome this, we have years.
Max Musson
- Edit
If we take action now, and follow the plans that we have set out in this website, we can buy ourselves time and extend our window of opportunity indefinitely if need be. There is no need for despair – have faith!
Byrhtnoth
- Edit
It seems that UKIP are unaware that the UK has had a points based immigration system since 2008, and there is no reason to suppose that the Australian version is any more restrictive. The UK system divides VISA applicants into categories called ‘tiers’ with sub categories with these tiers. For instance Tier 2 (General) is reserved for skilled workers with job offers and their position in the queue is determined based on points awarded according to educational qualifications, savings,future expected earnings, sponsorship, and English language skills. Since the Tories came into power the VISA regime has become more restrictive with a cap on Tier 2 VISAs and Tier 1 (General) and Tier 3 for unskilled workers being closed. I cannot reconcile this more restrictive VISA policy of the Tories and the huge numbers arriving every year, and therefore I have concluded that the points based immigration system is a charade intended to deceive the public, and that in reality the UK does not have a system for managing immigration.
.
The Australian points based immigration system is even more ineffective at balancing immigration and emigration with net immigration at 5.64 per thousand, which is more than twice the rate that exists in the UK. Consequently Australia has one of the fastest growing populations among developed countries at 1.07%. In my opinion this happening by design and not by accident. As in Britain all the establishment parties support the UN mandated policy of ‘replacement migration’, which is the jargon term for using high levels of net immigration to change or preserve the age structure of society. The desirable age structure being a smaller proportion of elderly dependents compared to working age population and thus a higher proportion of tax payers. The people of Australia have never been consulted about a proposal for a policy of replacement migration, and the government has not even officially acknowledged that such a policy exists, preferring instead to refer to it obliquely by stating that population growth is required for economic growth.