3 Million new ‘citizens’?

As most of us have probably read by now, Boris Johnson says he is prepared to welcome 3 million emigrants from Hong Kong.

This is the result of China’s proposed new security laws, which many Hong Kong residents fear as being too restrictive.

Under the proposed arrangement, these Hong Kong residents, or at least those with the appropriate passports would be allowed to enter and to work in the UK, ultimately being awarded UK citizenship in theory.

I can’t help asking why it is that whenever a country experiences some problem, such as war, economic problems, or in this case fears of new restrictions on liberties or rights, a Western country somehow ”owes” it to the people in question to provide a new home for them, along with valued citizenship? It used to always be said that the U.S. was too often the world’s policeman, but now our role is more like that of Santa Claus and somehow we feel obligated to provide for others — while many of our own folk are homeless or, in the wake of the ”pandemic”, unemployed or destitute. But never mind; we are still the rich uncle to the world, always room for one more. Or in the UK’s case, 3 million more.

Keeping in mind that Britain is a small island, very densely populated, and besieged by people attempting to enter the UK by any means, fair or foul — it makes little sense to add another few million to the already high total of immigrants.  Ever-increasing development is a problem. Yet the solution is always more immigration.

Years ago Andrew Neather made a statement (not intended to be heard by the citizenry) that there was a plan to increase immigration so as to ”rub the right’s noses in Diversity”, I suppose to punish those who were ‘xenophobic’ enough to wish to limit immigration. Even though the public eventually heard this conversation about the immigration agenda, and ostensibly those involved were supposedly chastened by the brouhaha,it seems as if the plan rolls on. Immigration in large numbers is an established, always-in-progress agenda, just as it is in just about all Western countries.

As for the Hong Kong immigrants, I expect not all will go to the UK. Parts of Canada have received many Hong Kong immigrants, and as a result places like Vancouver, B.C. have been transformed. I am sure the idea is to further ”fundamentally transform” the UK as well as Canada — and I’m certain the U.S.A. will be expected to welcome some of the 3 million. Now, it may be that they are quite Westernized because of being part of the British empire for those many years. It may be that they are educated and skilled and speak excellent English. Nonetheless is there no other solution than the predictable practice of setting them up somewhere in an Anglosphere country? Is there some kind of law that compels this?

The globalists, in quest of their ”utopian” One World anti-nation, seem determined that Britain is never to be the home of its historic population, but instead to be a polyglot nation, severed from its historical roots, and simply a place to plant any or all displaced people. That is an injustice to the indigenous people of Britain, and once that country is transformed completely the nations lose more of their true character.

 

 

A disappointment

Did Boris Johnson mean it when he made reference to getting immigration under control? It seems he didn’t mean it, as his recent statements contradicted what he was saying during all the Brexit confusion.

Even as he spoke about ‘getting the numbers down’ he made a deal with the EU that, for the foreseeable future, there will still be ‘Free Movement” between the UK and the EU, a policy which has guaranteed the entry of large numbers of immigrants.

The Labour Party has even more radical policy changes in mind:

The opposition Labour Party, for example, has voted at its most recent party conference to not just to allow Free Movement immigration from the European Union to continue, regardless of Brexit, but to extend Free Movement to other countries around the world, shut down all detention centres, and — perhaps not for unrelated reasons — extend the vote to all non-citizens resident in the country; moves Home Secretary Priti Patel believes could increase annual net immigration to an astonishing 840,000 a year.

Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) September 26, 2019

Imagine that many new arrivals in a small island nation like the UK. It seems that there is a housing shortage as it is. It seems as though there is some kind of mania compelling this obsession with importing immigrants en masse. And it’s the same in all parts of former Christendom. What will it take to bring some kind of common sense back before the situation is beyond repair?

The people make the place as I’ve said so often, and soon if the indigenous peoples of Britain and Northern Ireland are outnumbered and with their low birthrate, they may be headed for oblivion. This saddens me immensely; I think that the English or British have been people of high accomplishment, and they created a country that rightfully drew admiration for their achievements.

The one-world agenda has little to offer on the positive side, and it will mean a much less “diverse” world when everyone is thrown into the one-world ‘blender’, making for far less varied world than then one into which we were born.

And then the leaders of the leftist Welsh political party Plaid Cymru are saying they want to make their whole country, small as it is (population 3 million) into a ”sanctuary country” for the world. If that happens, Wales will slowly or quickly see the loss of their unique people and culture — and their country will be another overcrowded, overstressed country. But will there even be ”countries” in the former Christendom, or will we all be ”world citizens”, of no fixed character?

Or can a people preserve their ethnic identity in spite of no longer having a geographical territory to be themselves, and continue their culture, and their religion and folkways?

In considering that situation, which seems to be in the cards for so much of the Western world, I think of our Cajun people in Louisiana, who, having been colonists in Nova Scotia back in the 18th century, found themselves displaced, removed, and scattered. That event was in 1755, and it is still referred to as the ‘Grand Derangement‘. A good many of the displaced Acadian French people settled in Louisiana, as most Americans know. So many of the Acadians or ‘Cajuns’ maintain a strong sense of being who they are despite being a definite minority. But they and the local Anglo-American population of Louisiana are not at odds; they are not hopelessly disparate peoples. Most Cajuns are very loyal to America; there is not the sense of alienation, and no chips on shoulders or grievance mentality. For the most part there is little friction if any.

If only it would always work out that way. If.

Could this situation be replicated in Europe, or this country, as we head towards being minorities in our own native lands?

I ponder about this, and I have my own sense of what the future may hold.

I was just reading news commentary about the decline and ‘Grand Remplacement’ of ‘Old Stock Canadians’, which includes the French Canadian population, the Anglo-Celtic Canadians, and others (Ukrainians, Russsians, et al.) It seems as if we are all in the same boat, despite any ethnic or cultural differences among the European descendants. But can a culture and a sense of peoplehood survive in a “polyglot boarding house” as someone termed it?

It’s disappointing to witness Boris Johnson in his self-identified role as a ‘pro-immigration politician.’ But then I think few people expected anything different from him, with Brexit being the more pressing issue for many UK voters.

‘Britons Rediscovering themselves’

Though I haven’t had the time to put together a real post — sorry, I had hoped to — here’s a link to some commentary from the inactive Sarah, Maid of Albion blog. (Via Elliot Lake News & Views).

There are also a couple of videos worth watching at the link.

I waver between cautious optimism about England/the UK and discouragement, especially considering the less-than-ideal political situation there. As I’ve watched the unfolding situation with the new PM, Boris Johnson and his cabinet, things don’t look quite as promising as they might have. But still, if Brexit happens, that’s at least something.