Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Rule al Britannia

There are now 40 schools in Britain that teach children sharia law. At these schools, children are taught that British culture “is in opposition to almost everything that Islam stands for.” At some schools, teenagers are taught the correct way to chop off a thief’s hand and that the penalty for homosexual sex is to be stoned, thrown off a cliff, or burned with fire.
Immigration is irreversibly altering the cultural landscape of Britain—that much is sure. But can a nation so culturally diverse stand for long?
According the European Union’s most recent population report, Britain is now the immigration capital of Europe. The country gained more people last year due to immigration and rising birth rates (largely attributed to recent immigrants) than anywhere else in Europe. One in four babies born last year was born to a mother who was herself born abroad, according to the Daily Mail.
An astounding one third of all European population growth took place in Britain, last year.
As far as how many immigrants (legal and illegal) there are in Britain, no one really knows. The government releases statistics, but they are really just politicized guesses. Every year, 110,000 foreign students are given permission to stay for 12 months. When their visas run out, most refuse to go home! According to analysts, only about 10,000 comply with their visa requirements to leave the country. The UK Border Agency admits it is overwhelmed.
The result is that more than one in ten of the entire British workforce are immigrants.
Britain’s immigration system is such a shambles that official figures for population and immigration are totally unreliable.
However, anecdotal evidence highlights the widespread cultural transformation shaking the nation. There are now schools where not a single student speaks English as a first language. There are almost 600 primary schools where an astounding 70 percent or more of the students have English as a second language—if they can speak any English at all.
The above statistics are shocking. But in light of the revelation earlier this year that British politicians purposefully encouraged mass migration to Britain with the stated goal to “change the social make-up of the country,” it should not be such a surprise (Daily Mail, February 23). The Whitehall document smoking gun acknowledged that most Britons were against mass immigration, which the authors said was due to “racist” attitudes. The document also claimed that only the ill educated and those who had never met a migrant were against opening up the country’s borders. Ministers were instructed to work to change racist public attitudes and prepare to deal with elevated crime rates.
The result one decade later? The most popular boy’s name in Britain is now Mohammed.
Meanwhile, across the English Channel, French authorities are battling to contain one of the largest illegal camps of immigrants on the Continent. Thousands pour into the “jungle” trying to seek passage to England. Up and down the coast, French and Belgian harbors are inundated with migrants.
Why the effort to get into Britain? One reason is that Britain is seen as the country of the free ride. Take the case of Romanian immigrant Illie Schian. On Monday, he was charged with stealing £113,000 worth of housing, job seekers, and children allowances. Eleven years ago, claiming persecution back home, he had been granted indefinite stay. He immediately set out to claim as many taxpayer-funded handouts as he could, even as he became involved with a smuggling ring to bring other immigrants into the country.
But perhaps the most visible result of Britain’s mass migration experiment is the disintegration of its national identity.
The protest surrounding Armistice Day is a tragic example. As millions of Britons paused in silence to remember the soldiers who gave their lives to defend the country, radical Muslims burned poppies and shouted hated-filled slogans, accusing troops of raping and murdering thousands of Muslims.
“We find it disgusting … an illegal and unjust war,” said Asad Ullah of Muslims Against Crusades. “We want the government to pull the troops out from these countries and to stop interfering in our affairs” (emphasis mine throughout).
What a telling statement: “interfering in our affairs.”
This is the problem with mass immigration. Instead of leaving the past behind and seeking a new future, mass immigration promotes the retention of past cultures—and past grievances—and ancient grievances. Instead of integration into British culture, immigrants are able to live in their own enclaves that remain distinct from the rest of the country. Thus they do not adopt the ideals, the common history, or the sense of national purpose inherent in the rest of the land. Mass immigration promotes segregation and the development of self-interest groups.
It is obvious that Asad Ullah and his group of Islamists have not adopted Britain or become British. To them, the Anglians are the outsiders, while the Afghanis and Iraqis are their people.
Britain is filled with hundreds of different ethnic and cultural groups—and no one knows whose side anyone is on.
And if you are a politician, be careful who you offend because you just might be representing a district composed primarily of Poles, or Roma, or Sudanese, or Pakistanis, or Cambodians. Who then do you really represent? Do you represent the British interest, or the interest of some other people?
That is the big question facing Britain today.