How To Smash The 6 Anti Immigrant Arguments

Immigration will be a topic at the front and centre of the European Elections, as well as a salient issue in next year’s General Election. Opponents of immigration have six common arguments at their disposal, so here’s a cut-out-and-keep guide for countering them.

Q. “They leech off the system”

A. Immigrants are actually net contributors to tax coffers. They are twice as likely to start a new business as a native Brit, more likely to employ others than a native Brit, and far less likely to claim benefits than a native Brit. And if you want to ensure immigrants don’t claim benefits, then illegal immigrants are preferable to those who follow the rules.

Q. “We need to protect our culture”

A. Cultures change, it’s what they do. Britain 50 years ago was different to Britain 100 years ago, which in turn was different to Britain 150 years ago.

Secondly, it’s not the government’s job to ‘plan culture’. UKIP bristle at wasteful government agencies like Culture Media & Sport (and rightly so), yet also want faceless civil servants to manage national identity on our behalf. When government plans anything it soon succumbs to patronage, favoritism and corruption, and I for one don’t want my heritage tainted with the greased palms of politicians. Thirdly, the most culturally homogeneous nation on earth is…North Korea. Hardly a ringing endorsement for cultural stasis.

Q. “They take our jobs”

A. Nobody is entitled to a job. Jobs are not allocated to us because we happened to fall out of a vagina on a particular longitude and latitude. And where would you draw the line? I moved from London to Manchester, so did I ‘take’ a job from a local? Should I have been forbidden from leaving London? Why stop there? Should West London have been the limit of my job search? Would Kilburn or Greenwich been off limits?

Secondly, if ‘your’ job can be taken by a somebody who has just arrived, with no connections, no work history, and broken English, that says more about you than it does about the immigrant.

Thirdly, immigrants have (among other things) helped lower living costs; fruit picked by immigrants costs less in the supermarket, plumbers and mechanics are no longer a luxury for the affluent, affordable Eastern European day care workers enable British parents to get back into work, all things that help those on lower incomes.

Q. “We’re a small island, there’s no space”

A. Less than eleven percent of England has been built on, and the percentage is even lower for Britain as a whole. We’re not in danger of sinking just yet. Restrictive planning laws and greenbelt protection (the kind UKIP want to strengthen) is the reason teeming multitudes are crammed into cities while tens of thousands of acres go unused.

Q. “They’re a strain on public services”

A. In many parts of the country, it’s only immigrants that are keeping these services running, particularly nurses and midwives.

Secondly, if you want a pension, you’d better start accepting a lot more young immigrants; sixty years ago the ratio of wage earners to pensioners was 12:1. Today the ratio is 4:1. Within thirty years it’ll be 3:1. Add to that the fact that people are living longer, and you have an unsustainable system.

Children and pensioners are the greatest strain on public services, and its only immigrant labour and taxes that keep the ponzi scheme propped up.

Q. “We need to think about social cohesion”

A. This is generally code for “I only want to live near people who look like me”. Ignoring the fact that more diverse are actually safer than others, one needs to look at the effects of such a bold policy. Brits who’ve emigrated would need to be repatriated. Given that on average these tend to be disproportionately older people, good luck with your public services. And if we’re going to follow this trail of thought to its logical conclusion, the Anglo Saxon populations of the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada should return to the mother country, for they’re upsetting social cohesion where they are.

This is of course an absurd notion, but no less absurd than thinking that a monochrome, monocultural society would be morally superior. Lets not forget that it was lily-white, Christian Britain that refused to acknowledge rape within marriage, sent children to work in death trap factories, outlawed homosexuality, and turned a blind eye to endemic domestic abuse.

Not without irony, the traditional British values of church, family and thrift and discipline are now the preserve of immigrant communities, Brits having long since abandoned all four.


  1. “while tens of thousands of acres go unused.” In your curious world-view, land concreted over = ‘used’; fertile, agricultural land (just the sort that builders like) = ‘unused’.
    Where, sir, do you propose that we grow our food?

    “Children and pensioners are the greatest strain on public services,” But the immigrant population has a far higher birth-rate, therefore produces a greater strain. Greater numbers also requires more public services: it could be argued that the numbers of immigrants required to run them is due the numbers of immigrants.

    As for ‘social cohesion’: try selling that to a white working-class person in Tower Hamlets.

    • Oh, come on. Can’t you please give us some reasons for your opinion instead of just this?
      If you do, could you also address the recent item of news about the man arrested in Winchester for quoting Churchill on the problems posed by mohammedanism?
      I think that develiopment reinforces my point about the damaging effects on the UK resulting from mohammedan immigration; the growth of mohammedanism in this country has led to misguided people and agencies pandering to it.
      I challenge you to say fisk Churchill’s quote, and my comments here, and state your position if you think mohammedanism is NOT damaging to our country, society and culture.

  2. I would like to add to James’ points by pointing out that you provide no evidence for your first claim, however I suggest you’re looking at the CReaM report, which was substantially flawed as shown by migration watch.

    If this is so, the CReaM report only examined Eastern European Migrants, which you’re extrapolating to all migrants as James has pointed out below.

    Your point about jobs ignores unemployment. Clearly you think that unemployment is a worthy price for British people to pay. You might argue that our youth aren’t qualified to do the jobs but then if they were able to get these jobs they’d get the training and experience they need. I won’t go on about Labours absolute destruction of the education system here as I write about that on my site.

    Your point about immigrants keeping the NHS propped up is also a one sided argument as you fail to mention that immigrants also use the the NHS. IF you cancel out the two sides of the equation maybe those immigrants wouldn’t be needed.

    Your remedy for social cohesion seems to be to create more division. Interesting logic. All the main parties now agree that multiculturalism was a failure, you seem to be behind the curve on that one.

    As for North Korea, another very homogenised country is China where I currently live and work. I suggest you read my article here

    then, by your token tell me if I feel like I’m being discriminated against.

    • May be a waste of time to add to this blog at this stage but
      one finding of the CReaM paper was that recent EU migrants had contributed £22
      billion more to the UK economy in taxes than had been paid out in benefits,
      which is what lazy jouros like you are relying on to help prove your fanatical case
      for open-door immigration. That claim was headlined across the media without
      caveats but there’s a problem: the findings of the researchers relied on the
      false assumption that EU migrants possessed the same average savings, pensions,
      and property as the average of the UK population, and that they earned
      the same average wage, paid the same average taxes.
      The assumption was ridiculous because many were fleeing long-term unemployment or very low pay,poverty and dreadful living conditions. EU Construction workers are recruited
      by agencies outside the UK and work for a gangmaster on Polish-only sites etc which exclude British workers.They are prepared to work for low pay because in-work benefits make them better
      off than they have ever been in their lives, even if they were employed. Many
      of the much-lauded self-employed are semi-skilled at best, ill-educated and are
      ‘self-employed’ at selling the Big Issue or washing cars. Yes they are subject
      to tax, because they need a NI number to claim benefits, but the amount of
      benefits depends on how much income they declare: the less they declare, the
      higher their in-work benefits will be. A separate finding of the same CReaM
      paper was completely ignored by the media because it didn’t suit their
      narrative; it found that between 1995 and 2011, all migration cost the UK taxpayer
      in excess of £96 billion, much in excess if the £22 billion claim is ignored,
      which it should be. We seem to have reached the stage in the UK where the media believe it is ‘Immigrant good’ and British bad, especially if the British are retired. the retired are treated as pariahs and blamed for every conceivable ill, yet very many pay tax in excess of the amount
      they receive in government retirement pension to which they have contributed via NI and
      tax, whilst also contributing to private pensions, all their lives. They help out
      with grandchildren or even great-grandchildren, care for other family members,
      they do voluntary work, give to charity and are far more law-abiding than the
      average immigrant. The media, collectively, also seem to believe immigrants keee the NHS going: if you, or anyone you care for is ill, I would wish you no more than than that you are left in the care of some of our excellent, foreign agency nurses. That does not mean I wish you well!

  3. Not all your points are equally strong.
    You have written about immigrants in general terms, without distinguishing between them.
    First of all, your implied approval of illegal immigrants is dreadfully misguided. Illegal immigrants are criminals. There is a legal process to immigrate into the UK and it does society no good at all to treat criminals and the law-abiding in the same way.
    Your figure of less than 11% of England having been built on may well be accurate, but it is spurious accuracy. We need open spaces, and I think it is incumbent on you to offer a figure that you believe would be acceptable for built-up areas.
    Your argument about cultural change only stands up if you believe that all cultures are equally valid.
    I reject that notion very strongly.
    For this comment I’ll restrict myself to looking at mohammedanism, which I believe is an evil, oppressive belief system. Under mohammedanism non- members of the ruling group have fewer civil rights than members. And women have fewer civil rights than men. These are facts which you cannot deny. My judgment, which you might disagree with, is that the UK will deteriorate if the influence of mohammedanism and number or its adherents increase.
    You write that immigrants have lowered living costs. That may be true. They have also lowered the market-clearing price for low-skilled labour. In fact the market only clears one way, for the employer, not for the labourer.
    Entry level jobs are now more difficult to find for young people who have come through the education system with few or no qualifications. Not working leads to poverty, material poverty and poverty of aspiration.
    The idea of open-door immigration is little more than a pink fluffy ideal until it is reasonable to expect movement to be roughly equal in all directions.
    That is nowhere near being the case.
    I do not want rural goat-herders coming here in search of clean drinking water and reliable electricity supplies but still maintaining their previous lifestyles and cultures.
    I am in favour of managed immigration, probably on a points basis. If you have skills that we need, AND will make an effort to integrate then welcome. In the absence of either of those, stay away.
    And I would stop all mohammedan immigration now and for ever.
    Open-door immigration may make you feel virtuous, but it will lead to the end of many of your freedoms.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here