Margaret Thatcher Complained About Asian Immigration to Britain

Jon Swaine, Telegraph (London), December 30, 2009

Files released to the National Archives show that soon after becoming prime minister, Lady Thatcher privately complained that too many Asian immigrants were being allowed into Britain.

The documents, which are published today under the “30 year rule”, shed further light on Lady Thatcher’s attitudes on race and immigration, political issues that have remained controversial ever since.

They show that in July 1979, Lady Thatcher met Lord Carrington, her foreign secretary, and William Whitelaw, then home secretary, to discuss the plight of hundreds of thousands of “boat people” fleeing persecution in communist Vietnam.

The prime minister, who had publicly said that she sympathised with fears that Britain was being “swamped” by immigrant cultures, reacted sharply to the ministers’ suggestions that thousands of the Vietnamese refugees should be welcomed.

Lord Carrington, who had visited refugee camps in Hong Kong where some of the boat people were being held, gave a “vivid account” of the conditions there, the minutes show.

He suggested that Britain take 10,000 of them over two years. Failure to take a significant number would lead to a “damaging reaction” at home and abroad, he said, and anything less than 10,000 would be “difficult to sustain” on the world stage.

But Lady Thatcher said that there were already too many people coming into Britain, according to the minutes.

She said that “with some exceptions there had been no humanitarian case for accepting 1.5 million immigrants from south Asia and elsewhere. It was essential to draw a line somewhere”.

Mr Whitelaw entered the debate, suggesting to the prime minister that refugees were a different matter to immigrants in general.

He said that according to letters he had received, opinion favoured the accepting of more of the Vietnamese refugees.

Lady Thatcher responded that “in her view all those who wrote letters in this sense should be invited to accept one into their homes,” the minutes disclose.

“She thought it quite wrong that immigrants should be given council housing whereas white citizens were not.”

Lady Thatcher asked what the implications of such a move could be given that an exodus of the white population from Rhodesia – now Zimbabwe – was expected once majority rule was established.

She made clear, however, that she had “less objection to refugees such as Rhodesians, Poles and Hungarians, since they could more easily be assimilated into British society”.

The meeting was held about 18 months after Lady Thatcher made comments in a television interview that came to be seen as a watershed in mainstream politicians’ handling of race and immigration.

“People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture,” she told World In Action.

“If we do not want people to go to extremes we ourselves must talk about this problem and we must show that we are prepared to deal with it,” she added. “We are not in politics to ignore people’s worries. We are in politics to deal with them.”

The comments were held responsible for a collapse in support for the National Front, which had been gathering momentum in working class communities.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Bob Willard

    England’s riots, 7/7 bombing, and London becoming a white minority city proved Thatcher was right.

    • dd121

      And our Bantu president didn’t even send a delegation to her funeral. How small and petty.

      • The__Bobster

        Typical, actually. The Usurper hates the Brits because of what happened in Afreaka years ago.

      • fakeemail

        Not surprising. Obama grew up *hating* Reagan and Thatcher and believing that they were evil incarnate. To him, the USSR was the innocent widdle victim.

  • steve7789

    Whatever Thatcher might have thought privately is irrelevant. She did nothing about immigration while in power despite promising to when she was elected. She was also a majo rinfluence on the decline of South Africa

    • The__Bobster

      http://www.vdare.com/posts/a-really-cool-immigration-app

      An email friend with whom I was discussing Lady Thatcher’s passing asked me how sound she was on immigration. Not bad, I eventually replied; and got better across her career—sufficiently better for Simon Heffer, in his biography of Enoch Powell, to refer to “the Powellite-Thatcherite wing of the Conservative party” (p. 934).

      Doing some rudimentary fact-checking before giving that reply, I turned first to this very handy app on British immigration (and emigration): “Long-Term Migration into and out of the United Kingdom, 1964-2011.”

    • The__Bobster

      http://www.vdare.com/posts/the-queen-versus-the-rebel-regime-of-rhodesia

      The Queen Versus The “Rebel Regime” Of Rhodesia
      By James Fulford on May 29, 2012 at 2:36pm

      Sean Gabb mentions in his Diamond Jubilee piece that in 1979, the Queen ” bullied Margaret Thatcher to go back on her election promise not to hand Rhodesia over to a bunch of black Marxists.” Here’s the story(with emphasis added):

      “[Margaret Thatcher’s]deference played to Elizabeth H’s advantage in her very first cont acts with her new prime minister. A Commonwealth Conference was coming up in August 1979, with the status of white-controlled rebel Rhodesia at the top of the agenda. For nearly a decade and a half, the former colony of Southern Rhodesia had been an ongoing embarrassment to the British government. The Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) by Southern Rhodesia’s white settlers in 1965, and the obstinate survival of the white rebel regime, were deeply resented by the black nations of the Commonwealth. Economic sanctions had failed and freedom fighters operating from neighbouring black African countries had made no headway against the white government, headed by Ian Smith. In 1978, following pressure from America, Smith had even managed to broker an agreement with the less militant black politicians who stayed in the country to create an elected, black-dominated, hundred-seat assembly in which twenty-eight seats would be reserved for whites.

      Mrs. Thatcher was inclined to accept this compromise.” Monarch: The Life and Reign of Elizabeth II, by Robert Lacey, 2003

      • eduard

        It was also that whore to the Rothschild brigands, Lizzy II, who bulldozed Margaret Thatcher in imposing sanctions on South Africa due to the segregation laws.

      • ATBOTL

        That’s no point in Thatcher’s favor.

        One of our biggest problem is that our “conservative” leader are incredibly weak in their convictions and quick to capitulate The left’s leaders on the other hand, are very passionate and sincere in their anti-white beliefs

        • rebelcelt

          absolutely, the conservatives always cave

        • evola33

          I think it is a point in Thatcher’s favor that she at least showed her loyalty to her own race prior to the Houses of Windsor and Rothschild imposing their power. These are the powers that control all Western governments.

          • David Ashton

            Can you give serious references (other than say “Executive Intelligence Review” or David Icke) to the “power” of the Windsors, previously attacked by the Murdoch/Zionist media, with some support from the “right-wing” Daily Mail and porn-mogul-owned Daily Express?

      • Paleoconn

        Excellent clarification, Bobster, as usual. I believe under Thatcher’s tenure, immigration was at a 200,000 per annum pace, however. Multiplied by 11years, that’s 2.2mil, and when you consider there was a net outflow of inhabitants, the country became more and more third world (people leaving were primarily Whites, and the incoming masses were fast-multiplying third worlders).

  • Dirk_Pitt

    Guys London was known as Londonistan when she was in power. She did nothing to halt black and Asian immigration that started in the 60’s. My country changed when she was in power. Yes Labour continued but don’t for one minute think she was any different to Labour politicians.

    • Anon12

      Yep and her buddy Reagan set precedent in giving illegal mexicans in our country AMNESTY. I am quickly changing my attitude on these two. Seems they did not hold up their convictions of keeping our nations White..They helped to destroy our nations.

      • NYB

        The price of saving the country, i.e. halting immigration, is stagnant growth, voluntary austerity, and difficult restructuring.

        Are we ready for that? I would say the electorate isn’t. They are voting for the politicians who make the best promises.

        Reagan and Thatcher made deals with the devil, partly because the citizenry demanded jobs and economic salvation immediately. If they didn’t deliver, they would have been crushed and written off as ineffective leaders.

        • IstvanIN

          Stagnant growth? Low-IQ peasants from Mexico? What jobs do they create, prison guard jobs? FS Office jobs? Arabs and Sikhs running quickie-marts? We don’t need immigrants, if anything they are a drag on the economy. We would be better off trying to find something useful for the native-born blacks to do!

          • evola33

            I often wonder whether these corporations, e.g., 7-Eleven, Dunkin Donuts, Shell and Sunoco don’t actively work to import as many Punjabis as they can, along with their entire extended families.

        • Xerxes22

          Reagan and Thatcher both owed their allegiance to the ruling one percent.. That’s why they got along so well and that is why most of the news media loved them. When Reagan took office we went into a serious recession.That was also the time when we began to export jobs to the third world on a large scale. During the Reagan administration the rich became richer. Reagan was elected twice because he ran against weak Democratic opponents and he was a good actor and speaker.

        • Xerxes22

          Reagan and Thatcher both owed their allegiance to the ruling one percent.. That’s why they got along so well and that is why most of the news media loved them. When Reagan took office we went into a serious recession.That was also the time when we began to export jobs to the third world on a large scale. During the Reagan administration the rich became richer. Reagan was elected twice because he ran against weak Democratic opponents and he was a good actor and speaker.

          • fakeemail

            The media hated Reagan and Thatcher! And I mean HATE.

            Because even though they weren’t pro-white by Amren standards, they were anti-communist and gave the image of proud and decent white people.

          • ATBOTL

            They were not pro-white any standard.

          • fakeemail

            Well, I’d say Reagan was more pro-white than Carter or Mondale. Those two are total leftist psychopaths. But I get what you’re saying.

          • evola33

            Spoken like a true Occupier. It’s probably much simpler than that; as politicians, they are intended to serve the elite globalist banker agenda, and that’s a lot less than one per cent.

        • eunometic

          “The price of saving the country, i.e. halting immigration, is stagnant growth, voluntary austerity, and difficult restructuring. ”
          It’s also not true.

          There is no relationship between.
          1 Population Size and GDP/capita
          2 Population Growth and GDP/Capita Growth.
          It’s easy enough to check yourself using the COREL function on a spreadsheet. The correlation coefficient “R” actually shows up as slightly negative which means immigration reduces per capita wellbeing.

          Ofcourse increasing the population will increase overall GDP but never GDP/capita. It will make a few well positioned elites wealthy. Mainly those owning corporations involved in providing housing, loans and infrastructure to the new arrivals. It also diverts capital from industry to provide costly long term infrastructure to the new arrivals. We pay for that.

          Most of us, especially young White couples, will experience astranomical housing cost increases, so much so that they can hardly afford to have children before menopause. Immigraion reduces the birth rate, that should be fairly obvious.

          We also see a distortion of the economy as cheap labour undercuts the move to automation in industry and agriculture actually leaving US and some western nations behined. It mitigates against retraining of Whites trying to change industry due to structural and technical change and of course prevents us from provding gainfull employment to the large number of cognitively average Blacks who are undercut by Hispanics.
          There is a reason the Japanese invested in Robotics first: high levels of immigraion was unacceptable to them.
          I’ve seen papers on Austomation published in 1950s USA, UK and Germany and its clear that the move to Robots in say the car industry could have occured in the USA, UK or Germany rather than Japan.

        • Fredrik_H

          You’re just regurgitating another false and largely emotional argument that has been used to sell mass immigration into white countries, namely the fear of poverty. There are few others emotional appeals – guilt and shame – that together with fear have been used to sell the idea mass immigration to whites .

          It is an emotional appeal, thinly dressed up in economic terms: “We must have mass immigration or we will have no economic growth, no one will be able to pay for the pension system and we will all be poor”.

          Moreover, It is almost never backed up by numbers because those same numbers would falsify the claim. Every single number I’ve seen on mass immigration from under-developed black and brown countries puts it at a minus. Whenever there is numbers, it usually only takes a few minutes for anyone well-versed with the tricks they play to point out the falsehoods, such as using statistics for white, european immigrants to justfiy mass immigration of blacks and browns. But such “creative” use of statistics are often par for the course in “pro-immigration”-articles

          But know this, mass immigration might just not cost us our money, but everything we have and hold dear.

          • evola33

            Exactly. The globalists use fear to scare people into accepting their agenda, like a couple of years ago the citizens of Ireland were terrorized with threats of a bad economy if Ireland didn’t take the EU bailout. I watched several interviews with the Irish and they were thinking about jobs and making a decent living, so they capitulated. Is Ireland better off now?
            Ultimately some nation will need to stand up and say, “We don’t believe you, we think you are lying and trying to scare us. It’s an old trick, and it won’t work anymore.”

      • JohnEngelman

        The only whites they really cared about were rich whites.

  • WR_the_realist

    The problem is that even politicians who are right on immigration feel it necessary to hide their views and never act to cut it or even enforce existing laws.

    • NYB

      The politicians need to have the white electorate marching in the streets for their ethnic/racial interests. Leadership has to come from the citizen.

  • Cant Fool Me

    She was all TALK and no action, just like the Republican party. Most of Britain’s Islamic fanatics like Abu Hamza (extradited to the USA) and Omar Bakri (Left for Lebanon when Tony Blair was Prime Minister) came to Britain in the 1980’s during her Conservative administration. The only thing Conservatives wish to Conserve is their Fat Bank Balance!

    • fakeemail

      Exactly. These republican heroes are so busy fighting communism and lowering taxes, but they forget to stop the CLEAR AND PRESENT invasion of their countries! They just grumble about this existential threat in private!

  • Dirk_Pitt

    There was only one Uk politician who got it right and had the nerve to say it in public. He was hounded out for it. He may well have been Prime minister but for that speech. Enoch Powel

    just in case our US cousins have not heard of him.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

    • Anon12

      Enoch was great and right!

      • HamletsGhost

        For the record, Thatcher was a great admirer of Enoch, and was one of the few people to stand up for him when Edward Heath fired him from his shadow cabinet.

        Thatcher was Enoch light. Imagine how things would have gone if Enoch, with his 200 proof truth had become the PM instead. With all the white hot fury people poured on Thatcher, Enoch Powell would have made their heads explode with rage.

        At least it’s fun to think about.

        • Paleoconn

          Enoch Powell: the best PM England never had.

    • David Ashton

      For the record, Sir Oswald Mosley said it first and said it all, long before Powell took it up.

  • Puggg

    Complaining is one thing, doing is another.

  • romulus

    No matter the propaganda of the social engineers 50yrs ago, the ONLY indigenous people of Europe are the ones described with the umbrella terms: germanic,Celtic,Scandinavian, and Mediterranean(alpine etc.). Nowadays we’re supposed to pretend that evolutionary biology didn’t happen!

  • David Brims

    Actions speak louder than words, and Thatcher did nothing to stop immigration.

    • David Ashton

      Sadly true: she was not patriotic enough on immigration, education or industrialization, despite many talents and firmness of purpose in other respects. Her officials share some responsibility for this. Too complicated to detail all this now, and “academic”. My own MP Norman Tebbit would have been a better bet, but had to put his horribly crippled wife first after the IRA bomb attack.

  • HamletsGhost

    Churchill also expressed misgivings about “coloured” immigration when he was PM. Funny how even the top person in the government seems helpless to do something, even with popular support, if it runs counter to the interests of the hidden government of all Western nations.

    • Anon12

      A good way to put it….a hidden government of all Western nations…so true, my friend.

    • Homo_Occidentalis

      A healthy aversion to “coloured” immigration was considered common-sense back in Churchill’s day. My how we’ve regressed.

  • The__Bobster

    http://www.vdare.com/posts/thatcher

    Some skeptics have questioned my account of Margaret Thatcher’s private comments to me back in the early 1990s, seizing on my scrupulous footnote:

    “I don’t like Mexicans,” she said. “Mexicans will be the ruin of America.”

    At least, that’s what I remember her saying. Obviously I wasn’t recording the conversation and memory can play tricks. But of her instantly grasping the Reconquista threat, and of the intensity of her reaction to it, I have no doubt whatever.

  • The__Bobster

    http://www.vdare.com/posts/the-enormity-of-democrats-ramming-amnesty-through-senate-like-obamacare

    That’s why Democrats are willing to ram it through, as they did with Obamacare, because once it’s through, Republicans won’t dare repeal it. This is what Margaret Thatcher called the “ratchet effect.”

    In a 1996 lecture, she spoke of how

    the Left claimed all the arguments of principle, and that all that remained to the Right were the arguments of accountancy — essentially, when and how socialism could be afforded.

    It was this fundamental weakness at the heart of Conservatism which ensured that even Conservative politicians regarded themselves as destined merely to manage a steady shift to some kind of Socialist state.[Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture (“Liberty and Limited Government”),January 11, 1996 ]

  • a multiracial individual

    “Asians”……lol……liberals think they are so clever don’t they?

    I heard Japanese, Chinese, and Korean immigrants are causing a lot of problems in Europe.

  • bigone4u

    The bull**** that I read in the papers and magazines growing up was communism would overtake the world unless the free world showed the black and brown peoples the welcome mat. Fearmongering it was. I could either live as a slave in a brutal communist dictatorship or accept as my neighbors third worlders. Some choice.

    • Anon12

      Yes and now we are the slaves of the black and brown hordes….

  • NYB

    In the 70’s and 80’s, the Western strategy was to spend the C.C.C.P. into submission in a limitless arms race.

    Mass Third World immigration was a pillar of this strategy. The banks would create the money, and mass immigration would provide the growth that innovation alone could not accomplish.

    With the fall of the Soviet Union, the momentum of this global Ponzi scheme was the driving force behind world economics. Western governments were rattled by a post-Cold War slump, which has been deflected by the sub-prime bubble, the dot com bubble, the wars against Islam, stimulus, and 2.5 million immigrants entering the West annually.

    Politicians alone cannot stop the tide. The people have to turn away from materialism and entertainment and engage in rescuing their destiny.

  • Homo_Occidentalis

    I wonder if Japan, Israel, or Saudi Arabia were under anything near the amount of “international pressure” that Britain was under at the time to allow these unassimilable boat people to immigrate en masse. I guess the key difference was that Britain was too hideously white…

  • LHathaway

    “We are not in politics to ignore people’s worries. We are in politics to deal with them.”

    What a whammy statement. In this context, with the implication she is talking about whites, white are actually considered people. It’s possibly been 60 years, or even very longer, since someone has considered white concerns, and arguably, whites as people. Only people of color have issues that must be dealt (whites are supposed to shut up, sit back down, and return to work) while the real issues people of color face are placed front and center.

  • A. Windaus

    Margaret Thatcher won me over in the late 1970’s with this line: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money to spend.”

  • Does a desire to preserve your culture and way of life define you as a racist? Only if you’re a caucasian it seems.

  • If a Paki grows tired of Britain, he may return home to the fellowship of his own people in Pakistan. So it is with Africans, Arabs, Bangladeshis, Mexicans, Chinese, Indonesians, Fillipinos, and nearly every third world people. But where does a Brit go? To what country does a Swede or a German go when he desires the gemütlichkeit of being with his own kind?

    • Greg Thomas

      We have no countries to seek refuge once our countries are thoroughly enriched with third world diversity. There is no where left to flee. Soon we must fight or suffer the consequences.

      • Fredrik_H

        Indeed, And a little violence now will prevent a much larger one in the future.

  • Greg Thomas

    She complained but did nothing to stop it, especially when she was in a position to stop it. In addition, her beloved Ronnie Reagan gave some 5 million illegal invading mexicans amnesty back in 1986. Coincidence, I think not.

    • shmo123

      Reagan got duped, and he knew it. Years later, he lamented signing that fraud amnesty and realized what a big mistake he made.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    He suggested that Britain take 10,000 of them over two years. Failure to take a significant number would lead to a “damaging reaction” at home and abroad, he said, and anything less than 10,000 would be “difficult to sustain” on the world stage.

    —-

    Where do these educated beyond their intelligence and common sense idiots come up with these numbers?

    God rest your soul, Iron Lady. Britain is not lost. The turn is coming.

  • Brady

    Margaret Thatcher was playing to the National Front vote. It wasn’t an honest position. She ultimately let those boat people in.

  • JohnEngelman

    in July 1979, Lady Thatcher met Lord Carrington, her foreign secretary, and William Whitelaw, then home secretary, to discuss the plight of hundreds of thousands of “boat people” fleeing persecution in communist Vietnam.

    The prime minister, who had publicly said that she sympathised with fears that Britain was being “swamped” by immigrant cultures, reacted sharply to the ministers’ suggestions that thousands of the Vietnamese refugees should be welcomed.

    – on Swaine, Telegraph (London), December 30, 2009

    Immigrants should be evaluated on the basis of average characteristics found in the immigration group. While living in and near San Jose, California I saw Vietnamese immigrants transform a blighted city into a thriving metropolis with one of the lowest crime rates of any large cities in the Untied States.

    • eunometic

      The last prargraph sounds like credit is being given to the Vietnamese for creating Silicon Valley. What would you think would produce a thriving metropolis: Mestizos or 1970’s South Vietnamese with anti-communistic tendancies mamy of whom were likely once buisiness people.

    • David Ashton

      Anyone in any numbers can come in, so long as they take an IQ test and score above …. ?

      • JohnEngelman

        I don’t think so. However, increasingly that is all employers care about.

        • David Ashton

          Well, you complain about “the rich”.

          But AmRen folk generally must protest against the international money-power that destroys white culture and other cultures too.

          • JohnEngelman

            I acknowledge that. I do not post here because I disagree with the basic assumptions of American Renaissance, but because I agree with most of them.

  • Liz Betbeze

    blah blah blah

  • fakeemail

    The real question is why did she just “privately complain?” She was the frickin’ PM. If that office doesn’t have the power to publicly do something about such an issue, than who does? And who was she so scared of?

    • She didn’t just ‘privately complain’. She went on national TV and gave her opinions.

      ”“People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture,” she told World In Action.”

      • David Ashton

        Brave words but little action. The name without the game.

  • Erasmus

    Thatcher was right. When the revolution comes Tony Blair and other traitors to the country need to be first against the wall.

  • ATBOTL

    Thatcher didn’t do anything to stop immigration overall. Nationalists in the UK overwhelming hate her guts. Americans shouldn’t get the wrong idea from this article and think Thatcher was on our side. She was very much a Dick Cheney type: someone who may have said some un-PC things, but whose main efforts were to promote globalism, neo-liberalism and plutocratic polices.

  • Paleoconn

    Thatcher didn’t need to go so far as to say the people who claim to favor Asian immigration should accept one in their homes. Only their neighborhoods, or even an adjacent neighborhood. That’s enough to make these liberal hypocrites rethink it.