Two of the most important issues that we face in this country are immigration and the consequences of immigration. I think we in UKIP all agree that Britain should drastically cut down immigration. What about the consequences of the immigration which has already occurred?
Many (perhaps most) immigrants who are now established in this country, and certainly their children as they grow up, talk as we do, behave in most ways as we do and often oppose further immigration, whether from their original homelands or from elsewhere. Whatever their appearance, whatever their origin, they are in fact becoming British. We British are a very tolerant people and for our part, we increasingly accept them as fellow-British. But whilst assimilation is the general rule, there are some striking exceptions. And these exceptions can cause trouble and bad feeling, even criminal activity. We in UKIP see the problem and we can propose remedies.
There are strong influences which encourage assimilation. Our task should be to identify and counteract the contrary influences which discourage it. Perhaps the most important influence is the practice of importing brides and bridegrooms.
When Britain first ruled parts of India in the eighteenth century, very few British women went there. British men went to India, initially to trade, then later as soldiers and administrators. In very many cases, they acquired Indian mistresses and in some cases they married Indian wives and settled down. Their descendants live in India still; they are Indians, with some British blood in their veins. But when Britain ruled the whole of India in the nineteenth century, and particularly in the Victorian period and as the voyage between India and Britain grew faster and less hazardous, intermarriage almost ceased and all association with Indian women was strongly discouraged. Wives came out from Britain. British families grew up in India, often (if they could afford it) sending their sons “home” to be educated in British public schools. The British who ruled India lived there as an isolated and distinct caste, with little social contact with Indians, even those Indians (an increasing number) who had had a European education. The British in India did not become assimilated Indians. They never fully understood the Indians they ruled. But the educated Indians understood them, resented their belief in their own superiority, and when the time was ripe, threw them out.
Although they do not rule us and hopefully never will, some of the immigrants from the old Empire who now live in Britain live here as an isolated caste of the same kind. They maintain close links with their families in their countries of origin and they frequently, perhaps normally, marry wives and husbands from “home”. The constant influx of traditional influences, particularly from incoming girls who have been brought up in their traditional way, reinforces their determination to remain unBritish even though they live in Britain. Some of the girls, who soon become full-time mothers and often don’t go out to work, never learn to speak English very well at all; so that their children do not initially speak English either. If this is allowed to continue indefinitely and if their birth rate remains at traditional levels, English will no longer be the first language of our country.
For the sake of national survival as well as community harmony, we have to prevent this from happening. In these days of easy and frequent international travel, we cannot simply prevent people marrying people from other countries and bringing their wives and husbands to live here. British people also often marry foreigners and may settle abroad. What we can do is: firstly we must keep a proper tally on the movement of population analysed by country of origin age and gender. Our migration statistics are very inaccurate at present. Secondly, we can ensure that no incoming brides or bridegrooms are under 18, even if they have already married British residents. But the most important new policy is to balance immigration and emigration by country.
What this means is that we should not allow the number of permanent immigrants from any one country to much exceed the number of permanent emigrants from the U.K. to that country.
Ways will be found at first to get round the law, but only in a minority of cases. Although there will be some protests, they will mainly come from our old enemies, the proponents of multiculturalism, rather than from the people who are most affected. Young people do not necessary welcome being bundled off to foreign countries to marry strangers – and their parents must undoubtedly love them and pity them. The practice continues for traditional reasons and the habit can be broken.
If we one day form a government, we can put these remedies into practice. But long before this happens, we have shown, by getting and winning the EU referendum, that without commanding actual political power, we can still have great political influence. We should make assimilation our policy, because that is what the people of Britain, whatever their personal origins, both want and need.