Am I the only person to be completely sick of all this ludicrous over-done fad for ultra-“xenophilia”, which some schools of thought seem to think passes for great virtue? Extreme Xenophiliacs may believe that all countries should become Public International Property, throw away their borders, throw away their nationalities, and that everything should belong to everyone from anywhere. I most certainly do not!

Low immigration rates are associated with a strong sense of national unity, a high level of social cohesion, a greater sense of social responsibility, loyalty to the best interests of the nation, and a lower crime rate. High immigration rates are associated with lower cohesion, a culture of ” If you can get away with it – do it!”, loyalty to nothing but one’s own personal wealth, lack of concern about compatibility with the native population and their values, and a higher crime rate. If anyone doubts this, look only at the USA with the worst crime rate in the Western World, the worst fire-arms problem – and one of the last of the wealthier countries to introduce social welfare support schemes.

Xenophiliacs then try to claim that anyone who does not agree with their views is a “Racist”. They will exploit every excuse to increase the flow of migrants to dilute the sense of national unity, and bury a strong sense of historic national identity. They refuse to agree that what they see as “Racism”, is what the British see as an issue of compatibility and vital protection of the single- nation principle.

The claim that Europe “needs” 40 million immigrants over the next 25 years ( expressed in a “Times” editorial on 19th April, 2000) is one of the silliest I have ever read. It’s nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse for running in cheap labour. That stupid, limp, lame excuse that we need more immigrants, because the care of the elderly needs more population, just will not do.(It’s complete trash!) More immigrants would give us nothing but a spiralling problem. What about the way we were all bombarded with endless instruction in  the 60s and 70s to keep the birth rate down – to an average of only 2 per couple – to maintain population equilibrium? – and that was at a time when huge, unrestricted immigrant influxes were freely going on.

You just can’t believe a word you hear in some of these trashy pro-economic-migrant arguments. How can we need outside labour with our unemployment? On top of that – nobody needs to be a “once and for all” immigrant any more just to take a job in another country. Anyone who thinks they do, is still living in the Dark Ages. A two / three year work permit, for carefully selected people, is all that is required; and sticking religiously to that system will save us from population problems in the future. We cannot allow a system – which allows selected bona fide career- orientated people from abroad, with good marketable skills, the opportunity ( in the spirit of international courtesy) to live and work in someone else’s country for a year or two – to become completely corrupted into one which allows hoards of unselected people to desert their own countries altogether and throw themselves, uninvited, on top of us for good or ill.( As happened in the 60s)

Now – if any extra labour is needed, we would only need to do what the Saudi – Arabians do. Take in hand-picked workers on a finite-term work / residence- permit basis only, and when they’re no longer needed, or if they cause any trouble, send them home again. None of them ever allowed to become once-and-for-all immigrants. Saudis say it is a threat to the inheritance of future generations. Would anyone dare to call up King Fahd and the Saudi government and try to call them “racist”? They have more sense than our government.

Evelyn Ward