Mass Immigration Not the Secret to Economic Growth, Says OECD

John Bingham, Telegraph (London), May 20, 2014

Mass immigration has brought little or no overall financial benefit to the UK and other countries, a study by the club of the world’s leading economies has concluded.

Evidence from around the world over the last 50 years shows that immigrants are not a “panacea” to boost economic growth but nor are they a “major burden” on the taxpayer, new analysis by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) finds.

Overall, the fiscal impact of migration in OECD countries has been “broadly neutral” with taxes paid by new arrivals usually matching what they receive in benefits, it finds.

Although in some countries the amount immigrants contribute to the public purse exceeds what they receive, new arrivals contribute less overall than the existing population, because many are less well paid.


It comes in marked contrast to the findings of a report by University College London last year which concluded that European migrants contributed £8.8 billion more to the British taxpayer than they received over a 16-year period.

Campaigners for tougher immigration restrictions said it amounted to a “nail in the coffin” of the argument that immigration provides a major economic boost to Britain.

“Measuring the impact of migration on the public purse is a complex task,” the study by Jean-Christophe Dumont, head of the OECD’s International Migration Division, concludes.

“Nevertheless, over the past 50 years migrants appear to have had a broadly neutral impact in OECD countries.

“In other words, the cost of whatever state benefits they received was largely covered by the taxes they paid.”

“Where migrants did have a fiscal impact, it rarely exceeded plus or minus 0.5 per cent of GDP.

“But while the impact of immigrants on the public purse is, broadly speaking, neutral, it is less favourable than that of native-born people.

“In short, migrants are not a major burden on state spending, but nor are they a panacea for improving public finances.”

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the campaign group Migration watch, said: “Gradually the claims for the benefits from immigration have been fading and this is another nail in he coffin.”

Britain had the third highest number of new arrivals among the world’s leading economies in 2012, after the US and Germany, with 282,600 in 2012.

The total was in fact 11 per cent down on that for the previous year but more recent figures from the Office for National Statistics show a further increase in the number of people arriving to settle during the course of 2013.

International migrants account for around 12 per cent of the UK population, or 7.8 million people, according to the OECD. The UK is one of 10 countries, which together are hosting half of all the world’s immigrants.

By far the biggest change was in Germany, which jumped from fifth to second place in the rankings with a startling 72 per cent increase in the number of new permanent migrants in 2012.

Within the OECD, the number of migrants jumped by 35 per cent in the last decade, the study said, while the number of people moving within the EU “soared” in 2012, with 925,000 Europeans moving to another country.

Over the past 10 years immigrants accounted for 70 per cent of the increase in the European workforce and almost half of that in the US, the report finds.

Significantly the UK is close to the top of the world emigration rankings, with 3.5 million Britons living permanently in other OECD countries, behind only Mexico and China and ahead on India.

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.
  • Even if the pure economic impact is a wash, the demographic impact is very very negative.

    Man cannot live on GDP alone.

    • Nancy Thomas

      It’s purely demographic warfare against whites.

    • John R

      Something the Japanese know, but sadly we have forgotten.

    • Triarius

      It can’t be a wash, 80% of muslims in Europe are on welfare. And as for the U.S., I am sure they conveniently forgot to count the 30 million illegals, who are a major net loss at -$14,000 per illegal household iirc.

    • Jesse_from_Sweden

      The problem is how they count and who they count.
      Thing is, taxes are a zero-sum game, in other words you get out as much as you pay in.
      That means that someone who pays taxes isn’t the same thing as someone who is a profit for society.

      Easy example. We have 10 people, one is rich and pays 100K in taxes a year, the other nine are compratively poor and pay just 10K per year.
      That gives a total of 190K in taxes that is split equally for all ten. In other words, each person gets the equivalent of 19K each. That is a big win for the poor and a big loss for the rich.
      But then we add an immigrant. And this immigrant actually has a job and makes money and pay taxes equivalent to that of the majority of the population.
      In other words, 10K a year in taxes.
      Which gives a bigger total taxpurse of 200K.
      But now it has to be split over 11 people which gives each person roughly 18,2K back.
      In other words, the original people all make a loss. For there to be an actual gain, the immigrant most pay MORE in taxes than the average citizen. He must pay at least the medium income (not the median, for that is in this example the 10K that he does pay).

      But the big issue lies in who they count and how they count.
      Note that they count benefits received vs taxes paid. Meaning immigrants don’t pay for the things that are commonly shared, such as police, hospitals, schools, administration, military, foreign assistance, infrastructure etc.
      And also, they are counting third world immigrants together with west european immigrants.
      There is a big difference between an immigrant from Germany and an immigrant from Somalia.
      Immigrants from western countries are a net profit, because it tends to be those with high education that moves to another country when the standards are the same (not uncommonly because their speciality in skills are required there, and they get a better job offer there) while un-educated third world immigrants who requires several years of schooling before they can even speak a language generally understood in society is a big drain.

      • John R

        THAT is what I like about this website: Unlike YouTube, Facebook, etc. people here actually THINK!

      • kikz2

        1st worlders usually become entrenched, by buying real property and pay taxes on that real property, which finances the shared services/facilities mentioned, as well as paying consumer/sales taxes. 3rd worlders, don’t pay property taxes, they simply pay consumer/sales taxes, while eating up services such as hospitals, school monies and law enforcement.

    • Jesse_from_Sweden

      You are indeed correct on the last sentence.
      GDP alone isn’t a very good measurement.
      GDP per capita is far more important.

      Unfortunately, the ones at the top are more interested in total GDP than per capita GDP.

      • Yet another problem is that there are a lot of very questionable things that are now counted as GDP.

    • r j p

      GDP is a joke. Gubmint – which produces nothing – salaries are included in GDP, then so is what they spend. It’s called “doubling”.

      CPI another government joke. It’s based on “substitution”.

      • But I’m sure you saw a few days ago that food inflation is starting to ramp up. Then again, food inflation has been ramping up for awhile, it’s just that it only seems that way now because the Feds’ trick of swapping out normal goods for inferior goods has run out.

        • r j p

          CPI is done. Can’t fake Clinton’s trick anymore.
          Are we all expected to live on ramen noodles instead of real food?

  • MekongDelta69

    It’s NOT ‘neutral.’ It destroys a country.

    • Publius Pompilius Quitus

      It is neither neutral nor destructive to the West’s plutocrats. Instead, it is a great success, as it allows them lower their workers’ wages and increase their profits. It is also not destructive to cultural marxists who, then, can consolidate their power.

      • MikeofAges

        For awhile. Then. Then?

        BTW. Possibly, no more beneficial to cultural Marxists in the long run than it is to the plutocracy and the crony capitalists. Cultural Marxism is running on autopilot too. The underlying postulate that people are fungible has been proven seriously flawed at a minimum. More likely, impossible. Useful to remember that cultural Marxists are people too. Capitalist put profits above everything. Western cultural Marxists put hurting the capitalist above everything. Include their own ultimate aims.

        • Usually Much Calmer

          Many thanks for this point.

      • kikz2

        agreed, it all depends on you’re perspective and agenda…..

  • DonReynolds

    Bloody Liars! OECD represents the EMPLOYERS. Notice too…..they do not make nice distinctions between “immigrants” and “illegal aliens”. Illegal aliens are a dramatic net negative impact on the economy. Immigrants may not be as negative, but the “mass migration” is apparently in reference to open borders, invasion by illegal aliens. No, it is not complex or impossible to compute.

    • The Final Solution

      Not only legal vs. illegal but also skilled vs. unskilled and educated vs. uneducated. The USA is the ONLY OECD country that still uses family connections as the most important factor in determining immigration status. Race, education, and skill should be the only factors considered in immigration. Entrepreneurship is one of the most important economic benefits that immigrants bring yet the USA admits the vast majority of legal immigrants from Mexico based on family ties while most immigrant entrepreneurs are white Europeans yet only account for 12% of immigrants and are decreasing by the day.

      • Publius Pompilius Quitus

        If I recall correctly, the most entrepreneurial immigrant groups are Koreans, Italians, and British people.

        • kikz2

          Scots in earlier days…

      • DonReynolds

        You are so correct. Our LEGAL immigration is definitely irrational and does not serve the needs of this country…..which should be the only criteria. But the abject REFUSAL to enforce the law with illegal aliens is simply insane. It may actually take a civil war in this country to restore legitimate government.

        • kikz2

          it serves the needs of other countries quite well.

          three guesses, and the first two don’t count…

          which group is heavily over represented in the legal system/government for their population percentage in the US?

          which singular group has the option to claim and maintain dual citizenship/nationality?

  • 4321realist

    These leftist crazies can come out with all the data they want that shows immigration neutral, economically, or a slight benefit, but there’s no way they can hide the fact that the deterioration to societies is monstrous, and if the costs for crime and incarceration are included, I’m pretty sure even economically they will show a serious deficit.

    But the overall damage brought about by multiculturalism is so bad societies who have these people are on the brink of civil chaos constantly.

    The scheme by pointy-headed geeks was to make a European Union more powerful than the US so they could strut their stuff and feel superior to all other economies, living high above the unwashed masses in their penthouses and behind the walls of their guarded, gated communities, and to hell with what the native population wanted. To do that they needed consumers and tax units to swell the king’s coffers and to contribute to their own wealth…….or so they thought.

    But it appears as if this is one more miscalculation by the money and power crowd who are mediocre at best, but so badly want to be thought of as superior.
    It’s another failure.

    In the past, instead of their warped, idiotic schemes causing the murder of millions in various populations, this time they’re causing the destruction of mostly homogeneous societies and turning them into no go zones for white people…..and advocate just bombing the countries that might do something serious like stop using the dollar as a reserve currency, which will reduce their bottom lines.

    And they have swat teams and goon squads comprised of knuckle-dragging thugs who would kill their mothers, if somebody told them it was part of their job. And they’re constantly ready to swoop down on anyone who might speak against or criticize Big Brother’s Orwellian concoctions.
    Isn’t the rainbow utopia really great? Is it because diversity is our strength?

  • TruthBeTold

    Businesses may get cheap labor but someone has to make up the cost of living in a first-world economy and that’s you and me.

  • dd121

    No S Sherlock. I hope Sociologists get paid a lot of money for the insight. /sarc

  • The Final Solution

    The evidence that mass migration offers little economic benefit has become so insurmountable that even the liberals are giving in. I’m reading Paul Collier’s book Exodus right now and even he admits that the benefits of migration are negligible. Keep in mind that Collier, an Oxford professor, is a self-professed liberal, open borders advocate who believes that migration is a human right.
    From page 131: “The truth is that modern migration has economic effects on the indigenous population that in the short and medium term are marginal, and most probably modestly positive. Any long-term effects are negligible….If however, like the Japanese, the society wants to remain homogenous, then the economic costs are sufficiently modest that it can afford to keep the door closed. After all, without any immigration Japan remains one of the richest societies in the world. In other words, the economic evidence suggests that economics should not be a very important criterion for determining immigration policy.”

    • Ike Eichenberg

      If the goal was economic benefit for the country the left would give up, however economic benefit is the sham, the goal is demographic benefit for democrats.

      When Texas turns blue the nation, as we know it, is stick a fork in it done.

      • M&S

        Why would a democrat who has never had a great voting base, delude themselves that a voting base made up of Hispanics will do anything but vote for ‘Hispanic Caucusus’ until they become ‘Hispanic Senate Majorities’?
        Is there ANY proof that Hispanics will vote white when they have plurality in 2042 or majority in 2060?
        It’s one thing to ‘have a cunning plan’ it’s another when the Baldric idiot reveals it’s about one step ahead of disaster for the conspiracist as it is for those he seeks to pull the rug from under.

        • Ike Eichenberg

          I think your premise is that these immigrants will take over and nominate candidate like themselves. However please correct me if I am mistaken.

          The premise is faulty because the financial power base will not be among these immigrants, the Mestizo peasants.

          The power base will be the same type of leftists we have today, people like Bloomberg, Soros, Buffett, Ted Turner etc.

          The mestizo imports do not have the brain power to get to the upper echelon in any significant number. They are just the voters.

          The rich and powerful will, just as today, pretty much decide who is blessed with the financing to wage a competitive race for office.

          Sure there will be a few Mestizos that get elected, especially in minor local offices and we will have our “first Hispanic” president soon enough, but he will be a puppet of the left just as our first half black president.

          But in general the candidates will still be hand picked by the upper echelon which will still be heavily Jewish and white.

          • M&S

            Ike E,

            The power base will be the same type of leftists we have today, people like Bloomberg, Soros, Buffett, Ted Turner etc.
            Do you ever ask yourself how a conservative right, rich, power base came to lose everything if the nature of power is preservation of self-serving goals?
            The mestizo imports do not have the brain power to get to the upper echelon in any significant number. They are just the voters.
            I disagree, compared to blacks, Hispanics are very group conscious and well able to organize, exploit and exclusivize any activity, industry or business sector they target.
            One man makes a phone call…
            And suddenly there are a dozen Hispanics showing up for a call for six manufacturing positions in small industry.
            Such collecitivism can stand in for smarts and has been an obvious character trait of Hispanics since the 60s agro campaigns.

            The rich and powerful will, just as today, pretty much decide who is blessed with the financing to wage a competitive race for office.
            To be rich and powerful is not to be immortal. And when today’s movers and shakers children’s children do not and indeed -cannot- gain by exclusivity of access (The Old Boys Club, the Skull and Bones etc.) to white controlled centers of power as the _high tech industry_ which they bankroll and command (because industry has fled the U.S. brain drain) those who /had/ power will lose their children’s right to earn it by default entry to similar jobs which they once had.
            A white who is not useful as a manager or a contact man is a white who is not going to move up the ladder of a company which is no longer even based in this country.
            Sure there will be a few Mestizos that get elected, especially in minor local offices and we will have our “first Hispanic” president soon enough, but he will be a puppet of the left just as our first half black president.
            As whites lose numeric majority and the U.S. collapses as a First World State, they will become more concerned with their own communities and maintaining their status as wealth earning potential within those communities. Where a politician never dares to raise a new subject so much as agree with the most popular prejudice of the public, what will get him elected?
            “I hereby promise to give whites back their mojo!”
            “I hereby promise to take more mojo from the little whites have left and give it to Hispanics!”
            Neither one works. Neither one is solutionable. You can’t get elected by your own if you don’t serve your own’s interests.
            And whites will have no reason to do so in a world where Hispanic economic power vastly exceeds their own diminished status in a society driven by 90-95IQs where white specialist skillsets or management of same isn’t worth a damn because those jobs are long gone.
            But in general the candidates will still be hand picked by the upper echelon which will still be heavily Jewish and white.
            Not unless the nature of Democracy changes to support the oligarchy of the classist rich.
            It irks me no end that people, even nominally wise to the game race realists here, do NOT seem to understand that a race is not a social construct. Society is a racial one.
            And once there is no point in adhering to white social mores as the means to better themselves by pretense, Hispanics will resort to raw political entente` between the Home Country and the Faltering El Norte Invaders to SIEZE what is left. Lest it be bled to nothing before someone grabs it.
            Our leaders have to know this is the way things will go.
            They have to because their stated goal is to wreck white population majority so that a ‘better world’ can arise from the wreckage of the old.
            But Hispanics are no less _genetic algorithm driven_ dominance engines than any other race. The fact that they are less capable than whites of sustaining a high tech society with a massive social infrastructure simply means that, when dominant numerically, they will sag back to what their instinct tells them is comfortable.
            There is no way to get around the fact that what we are doing is suicidal if universal egalitarianism is the goal because no -other- race displays ‘better cultural sharing behavior’ than we do.
            Which means you are left with the realization that the multicult is a front to instituting a return to a despotic rule of the few over the many as the death of democracy.
            Or. That our leadership and particularly it’s leftist liberal flag wavers are _Truly Mad_, in the face of a preponderance of evidence against their point of view.

          • Ike Eichenberg


    • DonReynolds

      I would defy Collier to find a better rational basis for determining immigration policy that is non-economic. This country is not running out of people. (We have grown by more than 100 million people in my lifetime.) But we could easily exceed the carrying capacity of the land we occupy, particularly if anyone is interested in environmental quality. But even before we exceed any physical limitations, competition for scare resources will drive up prices and at the same time depress wages and incomes. What we need very badly is a rational immigration policy and social diversity is not rational.

      • M&S

        We need to abandon Capitalism, flat out.
        If a man can admit he’s not got a patent for genomic engineering or computer sciences in him, that doesn’t mean he should have to or want to accept less wages than he now makes for whatever service or industrial job he accomplishes.
        But to give that man that lifestyle means cutting down on the number of other individuals like him who need a similar over-payment for the value of their work.
        There is only ONE way to do that and that is through mass automation at the anthropomorphic robotics level.
        Because ditch diggers breed a ditch diggers spend a lifetime doing motor-skill intensive things which starve their rational cognitive centers of calories as emphasis.
        And the way you get around that restriction is by letting one man use 10 hands to do jobs he could never accomplish on his own.
        Did we do this, service jobs would immediately become less icky to the majority population, both because they were paying well (one man gets 20,000 as a ‘living wage’ but also 5,000 for every robot, on average, that he utilizes in construction, roadway repair, warehousing etc. etc.) and because he is no longer dead beat, unable to move, after coming home from work.
        THE PROBLEM: If one man can use five robots to do the work of ten men then the monetary exchange system by which wealth is ‘made’ through the artifice of interest for loans goes down with the (controlled reproduction) population necessary to keep that society’s wheels turning.
        That this is actually a _good idea_ because it implies the wealthy nations can use mercantile controls to constrain the wanton flow of resources to the Third World and not ‘invade to invite’ a wage slave population into our own socities is anathema to the ‘pure capitalist’ who, apparently like the shark he’s descended from, must continue to swim through seas of profit to keep oxygenated.
        The problem is so many people have been indoctrinated in the ‘failures’ (engineered) of socialism and communism that to argue against capitalism is to seemingly argue against the notion of doing well to move up in the world.
        What you are arguing against is what used to be called Usury or Riba by those whose _capital_ allows them to finance a given activity for the right to profit from the exchange of profit itself.
        Entrepreneurialism which is the chance to do as much as you want to, bidding online for jobs which your particular robots are highly mod-qualified doesn’t die with the death of capitalism.
        Because money is paper. And so money can also be any other abstract ‘
        ‘valued’ thing like 1s and 0s. Where Bit Coin is an example of how you can be paid in _social credits_ which are beyond the reach of the moneychangers who get rich on putting you into false debt.
        If you want to contain the Malthusian implosion of society, while we still have a sufficiently advanced culture not to make the fallback one of Dark Ages primitivism; kill half the population of the planet, overnight.
        And force the development, not of fighters and bombers and missiles and tanks but of _robots_, to replace sudden loss in basic areas (stoop labor in agro) so that you get the social contraction that The Plague brought but not the loss in developmental potential from having to revert to subsistence agro.

  • Bartek

    Mass migration causes real estate prices to rise, the central banks claim the increase as increase in GNP to justify their fiat currency valuation and have an excuse to print more of their monopoly money.

  • JohnEngelman

    “In short, migrants are not a major burden on state spending, but nor are they a panacea for improving public finances.”

    – John Bingham, Telegraph (London), May 20, 2014

    It is difficult for me not to believe that immigration depresses wages. Also, the immigration of third world people is likely to raise the crime rate.

    • DonReynolds

      Very good, John.
      No nation that has a welfare state can claim that unchecked third world immigration does not create a major burden on state spending. They may not feel guilty about playing Robin Hood, but it is obvious that some people are paying a lot more for the same government and getting less in return. None of the new arrivals brought a house with them and they do not have the money to pay for one, so yes…..there is a significant public expense…..even if they deny it or lie about it.

  • JohnEngelman

    Whenever someone says that something is good for the economy, you should ask, “Whose economy?”

  • anew

    It comes in marked contrast to the findings of a report by University
    College London last year which concluded that European migrants
    contributed £8.8 billion more to the British taxpayer than they received
    over a 16-year period.

    Not really. European immigration and immigration in general are not the same thing.

  • Einsatzgrenadier

    I always ask immigration enthusiasts and multicultural extremists to show me a single study that says that third world immigration is beneficial. I am still waiting for them to show me that evidence.

    • JohnEngelman

      They suppress a debate they know they cannot win.

  • IKUredux

    All lies. You can’t believe anything TPTB say about ANYTHING. They lie all the time. God only knows what the real actual immigration numbers are in any country. God only knows what the REAL ethnic breakdown is of any previous WHITE country. And, God only knows what the actual respective birth rates of various ethnic groups are. Don’t believe ANYTHING. There is a motive behind any and every poll whose numbers they publish. What you can always assume is the truth, is the fact that it is designed to hurt the native White population, in one form or another. There is no way that immigration helps any country, in any way. Not in this day and age. If a White company in Europe needs cheaper employees, they just offshore their company. PERIOD. There is, I repeat, NO REASON for immigration into White countries.

  • Truth Teller

    With the race to the bottom for wages, the natives pay less income tax, sales tax and other taxes because they less money compared to 40 years ago. That is one reason traffic and parking fines, building permits, car registration, business licenses and other fees extracted by goverment are so high. Incomes are too low to pay much income tax and since people can’t buy much the sales tax revenues are down.
    When estimating the impact of immigration, they need to study the way immigration lowers wages and thus the taxes extorted from us.

    • Jesse James

      Let us hope the beast is starting to starve.

    • DonReynolds

      Good point. When revenues decline, the first response is to raise the RATE of taxation in order to restore the lost revenues…..and raise it again to account for the fact that more people now need the services.

      • kikz2

        yeah, and when ‘they’ get to truffle-riffling thru ‘muffy and tuffy’ thurston howell the IV & V, gates, walton, rockefeller, rothschild, soros et al’s rube goldberg machines of untaxable untouchable slush/trust funds, we can all have a party…..

  • John R

    So many ways to respond to this article. First, the real issue of immigrants is not so measurable in dollars and cents. But, on that level, let’s just agree that the people who benefit the most from immigrants-legal and otherwise-are the people at the top of the economic ladder. More immigration=more income inequality. But the bigger issue is the changes that immigrants bring to the racial demographics of a society and that has long term implications. Obviously, the article ignores THAT issue.

  • 4321realist

    If these third world criminals are not economically advantages to a nation, I’m wondering if it ever occurred to these “journalists” to ask the elites why they brought them in, since their society is in constant turmoil.

    Or would that be considered blasphemy against the cult of political correctness?

  • Magician

    The most ridiculous story I have ever read on telegraph


    “Somali asylum seeker family given £2m house… after complaining 5-bed London home was ‘in poor area’ ”

    £2m = $3.4M USD at the moment

    I read that it is almost impossible for educated, law-abiding whites to immigrate to Sweden, but at the same time it is welcoming tens of thousands of refugees every year who very likely will live on the generosity of the Swedish welfare system for the rest of their lives. Also, they will be given citizenship or permanent residency almost as soon as they arrive in Sweden. And once they gain the citizeship, they can legally bring their family members to Sweden”

  • Kenner

    ‘Broadly neutral’….Unless you’re downwind.

  • archer

    More leftist propaganda, I’m sure. It has to be negative when the majority of immigrants are low skilled, and require subsides from the government. In this country it is claimed that the so called great society has cost us about 20 trillion, of course a lot of that money was spent on native Americans, but you can’t tell me that hasn’t impacted the average working family. Imagine how much better off the average person would be if they could have kept most of that money, or that money wasn’t borrowed or created by the fed to supplement the “poor”.
    Since almost all the jobs immigrants are involved in are service sector, many are living in high immigrant areas and are just servicing other immigrants, there is no beneficial impact at all, coupled with the fact that they require subsidized medical care, I would have to conclude their impact is definitely negative.

  • scutum

    Immigration is not neutral in its effect on the host countries. It depresses wages, increases real estate prices along with the costs of most other consumer products. Mosy immigrants, especially illegal immigrants are semi or illiterate, and if they work at all will do so at very low wage jobs. These people are considered dis-savers because the consume more in subsidies like tax credits, welfare and food stamps than they pay in taxes or contribute to the economy via their labor. The open secret about immigration is this, when you subsidize the low skilled immigrant laborer, you are also subsidizing his employer.This explains the heavy lobbying by the Chamber of Commerce types for open borders and amnesty. Its not just about cheap labor, its about subsidized labor paid for by you and I.

  • anew

    When I say European immigration, I mean white immigration. I understand that not all EU immigrants may be of any race, but 90% of them are white, whereas, what, 70-80% of non-EU immigrants aren’t white, and because a lot of British still immigrate to Oz/NZ, on net, non-EU immigration is probably close to 100% non-white—in 2012, the US actually got more immigrants from the UK than any other majority-white country, other than Canada, though only 2.5% of immigrants came from those two combined. EU immigration may not be perfect, but non-EU immigration is an exponentially bigger problem; Britain isn’t getting less white every year because of the EU.

    I know that Britain, especially in England, is very crowded, but if it’s to be saved, it’ll need to get a lot more crowded. The Celtic fringe can save itself just by ending non-white immigration, and adding a minor supply of white immigrants (my definition of ‘saved’ is a stable white majority of at least 97.5%), but England needs more drastic action.

    Right now England had almost 8 million non-whites out of a population of 53 million. And 25% of newborns there are non-white. It’s too late to just close the border. Repatriation is part of the solution, but without being overly brutal (and brutality would undermine the effort anyways), you will be very lucky to even cut that 8 million number in half in a decade. So along with ending non-white immigration, you’ll have to aggressively recruit white immigrants to overwhelm the remaining non-whites. Don’t be fooled by their language and religion, or by ethnic grocers and foreign flags; the grandchildren of white immigrants will be British, which, by definition, is impossible for non-whites.

    Frankly though, even that will not be enough. Besides what I’ve said above, it will also be necessary for the rest of the country to secede from Greater London. London is a natural city-state anyways, and it will be a lot easier to convince non-whites to leave the rest of England if they can just go live in London. Giving-up London is a prime sacrifice, but England would still be a coherent nation-state. However, the window to do this is probably only open for the next ten or fifteen years. After that, the best ethnic Anglos will be able to get is the southwest and chunks of the north.

  • M&S

    ‘The entire European continent should go into complete ‘lock down until the present situation is sorted out, it is getting beyond ridiculous.’
    No. Stopping everything at this point only ensures the given outcome.
    Whites MUST do the one thing that they have been indoctrinated to believe is not truth: Hitler was right.
    It is a war among the races (or at least a ‘competition’) in which advanced societies in resources rich, isolated, Galapagos-like environmental conditions have created sub species with highly advanced thinking on their way to full speciation into Homo Evolutis.
    In comparison with a place like Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran/Iraq or all of Africa which have been resource deserts for a long time and waystations for hostile overrun by other barbarian tribes for even longer, the mixing of genes by violent success as conquest has destroyed whatever hope for advancement there was as societies become insularized between new and last conqueror hostile groups and inbreed to the point where whatever intelligence might have been gifted to them is forever suppressed (The Hot Band of Middle Latitudes, from Algiers to Riyadh to Mumbai to Hanoi to Mexico City have ALL have mid-80s IQs, despite being nominally of at least seven different ethnic groups).
    We are different. We are blessed because, by and large, we were NOT overrun by any and all and shifted from R-Breeder dominance of environment to K-Breeder investment in few children to control our population growth in a hostile but ultimately rich Eurasian landscape.
    With this in mind, inviting in the failed genetic lines to our countries will make us into Pakistan in no time and _doing nothing_ but calling a moratorium at our present level will still see us outbred and blended out or annihilated, if we do not actively reverse the influx and expatriate those who nominally have the rights of citizens.
    We may not like to admit it. But as the UN fails, as it always does, to cap populations at 9-10 billion and instead sends us staggering towards 14-17 billion by 2100, it will become explicitly clear that, while no population deserves death simply for convenience, ONLY A FEW GROUPS can have access to the kinds of resources which will keep us moving forwards.
    And that sir, will lead to revolt among the seventy percent of us whose liberalism squeals about idealist motives and how we can’t be the next Nazis (ignoring the fact that this has, in fact, been going on since Carthage). Versus the thirty percent who are conservatives, and have nothing but contempt for the deluded who begat this condition to begin with.
    It will be the civil war -among- whites, for the right to choose the moralist vs. the realist path to a future for our people, which will so weaken and disrupted that the other races will be able to out and out displace and supplant us.

  • Ron Cheaters

    They’re trying to pull this fervant crap thoroughly here in Nova Scotia here right now. Immigration Watch, you might not know it. But it is happening with a fervour in the newspaper. CH needs a dose of reality (minus the rhetoric)
    What can I do?