The nest of idiots in the UK government continues to try to convince an increasingly skeptical public that the steady stream of immigrants, most of them Muslim and many of them illegal, now entering the UK are a boon. positive for the economy and therefore the British. Far from trying to limit immigration, it should encourage it. This strange twist of truth can be found here: “Lower immigration means higher taxes,” for
Is it true that this majority Muslim immigration is a blessing for the UK? We know that in the year ending (YE) June 2022, net international migration, which is the calculated difference between immigration and emigration in the same period, was estimated at 504,000, an increase of 331,000 compared to the figure from YE June 2021 of 173,000. This is a colossal increase. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) seems to think that’s a good thing.
“Only the higher-than-expected number of migrants arriving in the UK under the post-Brexit migration regime substantially increases the prospects for potential output growth over the next five years relative to the assumptions we made in March.”
That’s from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) assessment that accompanies the Fall Statement. It’s quite a striking line: the state’s official public finance analyst says the only good thing that has happened to the UK economy since March is more immigration.
Here, I can only say something rather childish: I told you so. No doubt this perspective on immigration will make some people unhappy. Right, too. It is not what they were promised, at least not by the current Minister of the Interior. Suella Braverman said she wants net migration to fall below 100,000, although to be fair she said so herself as part of the Truss government in October.
James Kirkup belongs to that small group of Tories who have convinced themselves that migration has been an economic boon for the UK. Fortunately, most conservatives take a much less optimistic view of the immigrant invasion.
We need to ask these British migration fanatics a few questions. Are they aware that more than three quarters of the immigrants now arriving in the UK are Muslim? Are they aware that many Muslim immigrants in the UK are not genuine asylum seekers, as they claim to be, but economic immigrants, determined to take advantage of all the generous benefits offered by the British government, ie the British taxpayer? ? Among those benefits are free or subsidized housing, free healthcare available from the National Health Service, free education, family allowances that increase with each child (Muslim families are much larger than indigenous Britons and get the most benefit from this support). ), and unemployment benefits even without ever having been employed. The amount that National Health spends on Muslims is unusually high, it has to. It should be noted, due to the prevalence of congenital diseases among Muslims. This is the result of endogamy, encouraging marriages between cousins. In a low-trust culture, it makes sense to keep marriages, and therefore property, within the extended family.
Muslims who feel the need to supplement those benefits sometimes resort to property crimes: theft and trespassing. Muslims exhibit an unusually high crime rate; they make up 4% of the UK population, but 20% of the prison population. At the cost of all those benefits that economic Muslim immigrants take full advantage of, must be added the cost of their high crime rates. This criminal activity requires more government money to be spent on police officers, detectives, prosecutors, public defenders, prosecutors, judges, prison guards, and prisons. This all adds up to a large sum, although, as far as I can tell, no one has really calculated the exact cost to the British government of the economic benefits claimed by Muslim immigrants, contenting themselves simply to point out that they run into the trillions of dollars annually. The average cost to the British government of imprisoning a single prisoner is $75,000, and rapists, murderers and terrorists require the highest security, making them the most expensive to imprison. Muslims make up about a quarter of the rapists and murderers in British prisons, and almost all those convicted of terrorism in the last twenty years (there are still a handful of IRA men aging in UK prisons).
If we add the cost of all the government benefits that Muslim immigrants reap to the cost of arresting, prosecuting, and then imprisoning Muslim criminals, it gives us an annual figure of tens of billions of dollars. And this is only the economic cost. There are other large costs to society that are not measurable. What kind of dollar or pound figure do we assign to the damage done to many thousands of English girls, victims of Muslim recruiting gangs in two dozen English cities, who were seduced, given drink and drugs, then handed over to share as sexual objects? We can’t put a dollar figure on the despair and human ruin that Muslim grooming gangs have caused in the UK, but that doesn’t mean the despair and ruin isn’t real.
How do we put an economic value on the growing sense of insecurity felt by British women in some neighborhoods where they used to go out alone at night without thinking about anything? Have Muslims been known to take advantage of unfaithful women, whose clothing suggests to Muslims that they are “just asking for it”? What about the anxiety felt by Jews who know that if they wear identifiable Jewish regalia (yarmulkes and Star of David pendants, not to mention the shtreimels and tallit worn by hasidim going to shul) they can expect to be attacked at some point? Why Muslims, not only in London, Manchester and Birmingham, but also in Paris, Rome and even New York? And what is the negative value we assign to the appearance of No-Go neighborhoods, where a dominant population of Muslim immigrants makes outsiders (the indigenous non-Muslims whose country these immigrants have invaded) clearly unwelcome, and even the police and fire departments don’t? Enter without protection?
So let’s go back to the OBR report that prompted this article, the report headlined: “UK Office for Budget Responsibility Says More Immigrants Help Stimulate Economic Growth.”
Just a question. What are those people smoking in the UK Office for Budget Responsibility?