Thursday, 3 April 2008

Big Business, the Driving Force behind Immigration

In Britain, the House of Lords has reported that the economic impact of immigration is minimal and has concluded that it ought to be capped. The report is seen as a decisive defeat for the government’s long-held view that immigration boosts the economy by increasing production.

The Lords have found that, while the total size of the economy does rise when there is high net immigration, this does not mean that prosperity as such rises. Per capita GDP remains the same. In other words, the size of the economy rises only to the extent that there are more people in the country than before. The economic benefit of mass immigration is zero.

The social costs, of course, are very considerable. The most significant of these is the impact on the cost of housing. The report finds, among other things, that if the present rate of immigration continues, then the average property will cost 10.5 times the average income in 2031. Eight years ago, the ratio was 4 and now it is 6.5.

The inflation of property prices causes immense social and economic damage, although Britain’s numerous property owners have for years deluded themselves that they are getting richer because their houses go up in price so spectacularly. When property rises in cost, the whole economy suffers since all businesses need premises from which to operate. Families suffer, too, because people have fewer children if they cannot afford enough bedrooms to put them in.

The Lords’ report is a huge vindication for the brave campaigning of Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch, and someone whom I have the honour to know personally. Since immigration exploded when New Labour came to power, this former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia has managed brilliantly to put immigration on the agenda without ever giving off so much as the slightest hint of racism. On the contrary, his measured tones and careful statistics have ensured that he is listened to with great respect. The report is nothing less than a total vindication of everything he has been saying for years.

Why, then, has there been such a firm lobby in favour of immigration for so long? The answer lies in one of the most arresting facts about modern politics – a fact which, in my view, even the most redoubtable experts like Andrew Green have perhaps not quite taken on board. I refer to the unlikely alliance between big business and the New Left.

This alliance reached its apogee under Tony Blair, who was known for his slavish admiration for rich people whose hospitality he so often enjoyed for free. But it extended throughout New Labour. Peter Hain, the onetime anti-apartheid campaigner, a man whose progressive credentials could hardly be more immaculate, had to resign in February because he had accepted £100,000 from a pharmaceutical magnate, one of whose companies is facing prosecution for the biggest fraud ever alleged in the United Kingdom.

The alliance between big business and the New Left is not, however, based merely on the greed, opportunism and venality of politicians, or on the desire of big companies to buy political influence. Instead, it is based on ideology. Specifically, big business is in favour of immigration not only because it drives down wages – allowing profits to remain high without companies actually having to sell more products – but also because it is culturally in favour of multiculturalism.

The entire ethic of post Cold War globalisation, indeed, is profoundly anti-national. The multinational corporation, like Marx’s worker, “has no country”: the modern international corporate executive is more at home in an airport departure lounge or a Hilton hotel than in a village pub. He scorns any notion that the legislative framework of a state should give preference to the fixed inhabitants of that state, and instead tells the government that he will simply re-locate, like some disembodied spirit, to another part of the world if the tax regime is not favourable to him. To put it bluntly, multinational companies are vehicles of cosmopolitanism, every bit as powerful and influential as the more intellectual proponents of multiculturalism and the end of the nation-state.

The big corporation likes immigration because immigrants drive down wages and are typically not unionised. Big companies do not care if immigrants do not pay taxes, or if they make extra demands on schools and hospitals, because the state picks up the bill for that. They do not care if there is general inflation, or sector-specific inflation such as in property, because they have their eye on next year’s bottom line, and on their Christmas bonus, not on what will happen a generation hence. Big companies operate on the principle “privatise the profits, socialise the losses”, demanding that policies be pursued which increase their income because the costs are passed onto the taxpayer and society at large.

As Pat Buchanan argued brilliantly in The Death of the West, economic history shows that periods of high immigration do not coincide with periods of high economic growth. Japan grew spectacularly in the period 1955 – 1993 but immigration over that time was zero. The periods when America’s prosperity has risen are those when immigration has been low; the economy stalls, by contrast, when it is high.

Ever since Mrs Thatcher, the predominant ethic in British politics has been pro-business. The slogan is “free trade”, but that is not the same thing. Of course it was necessary in the early 1980s to free Britain from the excessive shackles which the trades unions represented; but, in domestic politics as in diplomacy, there are no permanent victories, especially not if political parties stop thinking, as the Tory part did long ago. So deeply entrenched has “free trade” now become that it is a taboo which unites the whole political class. Any suggestion that the activities of business should be limited or directed by the state is dismissed as Luddite economics, reactionary thinking worthy of a flat-earther.

In fact, Britain and many other European states are themselves just as much in hock to the demands of big business now as they were to the labour movement a generation ago. The pendulum has now swung too far in the opposite direction. Let us hope that the breaking of the taboo of immigration will mark the moment at which it starts to swing slowly back.



Source
The Brussels Journal

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

And now where are the super rich spending their time waiting for British businesses to fail and houseS to be taken from the families before returning to cash in and buy even more up of our country?
Flown off to spend a few months on their exremely luxurious yachts purchased with the help of labours tax system.
I was amased to hear some super rich guy that bought up most of our high street stores BHS etc pays no taxes at all, he sends all the monies over to his wives account off shore bank where she lives the life of sickening luxury.
Everyone of these peoples wealth was in the £800 and more millions yet April Brown did away with the 10 pence start rate for tax that makes 5 million low paid workers worse off.
LESS THE £18.000 A YEAR YOUR STUFFED!
LABOUR THE PARTY FOR WORKERS?
Those that have gained from labour are Rich Indians who pay no taxes in India or here.
The Arabs that use our capitol city has one large brothel in their usual hypocritical ways.
Londons building rise up and streets cleaned daily for the scum to tread their way to send their wealth home, While the infrastructure of Britain is falling to pieces.
We pay for their gains.
AA. TRAVELODGE. ARABS BUYING UP SO MUCH OF THIS COUNTRY WHILE BROWN THE ONE EYED MARXIST SMILES THAT SICKLY GRIN.
AND NOW THEY WANT £25.000 WAGE INCREASE....LABOUR THE PARTY FOR WORKERS?
Zimbabwe. Brown offers a billion pounds to help them but can't afford drugs to help our own suffering many diseases where just a few pounds would ease their pain.
British politicians are OBSCENE CRUEL TRAITORS.
BACK PAIN SHOULD BECOME BRITS SAVIOUR HARD TO DETECT. STUFF WORKING TO PROVIDE LABOURS PETS THEIR LUXURIES. TWO CAN PLAY THAT GAME ..NO REPRESENTATION NO TAXATION.
TAXES ARE PAID TO PROTECT A COUNTRIES BORDERS OURS ARE WIDE OPEN THEREFORE WHAT ARE WE PAYING FOR?
This is just one of my own experiences i required a nightstand to hold a patients bag through the night while she slept a lady paralised after a massive stroke i begged and begged but nothing.
In the end i made a stand from a coat hanger which i placed on a chair.Her last few months a misery due to workers that spoke very litte English or ones she objected to.communication was one of her greatest requirement her speech having been taken by the srtoke.
This is where we are in the 21st century in England and they try to warn me off voting BNP because they say the BNP is racist.
Now i call allowing our own to be treated the way that i see some of our most needy treated. to me that is racist. anti white racist!
I REFUSE TO BURY MY HEAD OR TURN AWAY!
COME MAY VOTE BNP CAN THEY TRULY BE WORSE?

LIKE EMBRYO RESEARCH TO FIND CURES ABSOLUTE BULL.
WE HAVE MEDS NOW FOR M.S AND OTHER CRIPPLING DEGENERATE DISABILITIES BUT WE CAN'T AFFORD THEM!!

WAKE UP BRITAIN X MARKS THE SPOT BNP MAY 2008.
HELP OUR OWN SICK AND DYING DO IT WITH DIGNITY.
IT'S YOUR CALL.

Anonymous said...

Had a peek at what the upper crust are chatting about in the red tops seems they just realised that labour are Marxist and that Tories are cowards that just follow along too scared to oppose.
Someone stated that we deserve better than the BNP that started some interesting replies.

replies here.
Some people on this board have suggested that voting for the BNP would betray those men who fought against tyranny in WWI and WWII. From where I am sitting, things are starting to look and feel more and more like the video for ‘Another Brick in the Wall’. Let’s get one thing straight: those men have already been betrayed by the kakistocrats who have held office since 1945. Voting the three party cartel out en masse in favour of the BNP would be HONOURING their memory, not defiling it.
Posted by Jack Vickers on April 2, 2008 10:09 PM
Report this comment

I despise this government but let's try to remember that voting at general elections for any of the three main parties is just an electorate-mandated cabinet reshuffle. We can change the faces of the front-men but not the policies. Whichever of the three main parties you vote for, in the near future you will still be buying GM food, paying for it in Euros and having to produce an identity card at the road checkpoint on the way home. They may even go as far as putting a microchip in you and your children. Voting Conservative may even speed some of these things up. Do you remember being denied a referendum on Maastricht or the ruinous ERM policy they foisted on us all? I can and it was bloody awful.

Would the anti-EU/pro-British BNP ever be allowed to take office if we did vote them in? Almost certainly not is the answer. At least things would be flushed into the open and the pretence that we live in a democracy would evaporate.

Posted by Wing Attack Plan R on April 2, 2008 10:03 PM
Report this comment

Exactly i almost choke at the word DEMOCRACY.

Anonymous said...

1. Cultural Marxism is a means not an end. The aim is to destroy the obstacles to marxist ideology: national, cultural and religious. Zanu Labour's sucking up to the city or other such activities isn't relevant. The critical long-term areas are immigration, education and filling an octopus of quangos with their own people.

2. Labour turned into Zanu Labour from the early 80s onwards. The change occurred at the local level and much more in the south than the north/Scotland. That's what the SDP was all about.

3. It's not a monolith. It's still more Old Labour in the north and Scotland while the south is pure Gramsci. Labour party membership has crumbled because the normal people left. Most labour voters would be shocked if they heard how their councillors talk in private. Most of them can't say the word "England" without sneering.

4. Blair was all ego, Brown is more Old labour, but they are sitting on top of what has become a new age Communist party. They have to feed the party while trying to remain in power. Think of it as a circus act where someone is trying to ride two horses at once.

5. The cultural marxists are relatively few in number. Their inluence has been so huge because they colonized the areas where a small minority could wield the most influence: politics, the media and education.

6. The ideologies spawned by the cultural marxists have been taken on board by a much larger number of hippy dippy liberal types who genuinely believe that creating Yugoslavia in England won't lead to a Yugoslavian outcome.

7. They're incompetent as well but destroying things is easy, even for incompetents.

8. They could never have got away with any of this if it wasn't for the help of the BBC.

9. They could never have got away with it if there wasn't also a concurrent movement for globalization and transnational government which is also in favour of mass immigration.

10. The underlying reality is more psychological than political. Modern Marxists/Globalizers/Transnationalists are people who think they should have born the "Emperors of the Universe" and seek to rectify that mistake. They choose their respective ideologies as vehicles for that psychology depending on personal circumstances.
Mr Jones.

British Patriot said...

Big Business is the Puppeteer, our Parliament is a Charade, our MP's are simply paid Puppets who present the facade of Democracy.


http://www.wearechange.org/2007/11/we-are-change-uk-confronts-sir-richard.html