We appear, within the United Kingdom, to have a problem with the integration of immigrants and said problem is one which is not helped by the ‘politically correct brigade’ who would have us believe that the right of immigrants to maintain their native culture is their right and one that is above anything else.

When moving to a new country is there not an obligation on the part of an immigrant to respect the customs and traditions of your new ‘host country’; is there not an obligation on the part of the immigrant not only to learn the language of the host country, but also not to make a blatant attempt to mark yourself as ‘different’ and in so doing ‘demand’ acceptance of your culture, citing human rights?

Perhaps the example of Switzerland should be adopted? Perhaps bolted on to any immigration acceptance decision should be that a ‘probationary period’ has to be served and that the final decision about an immigrant’s acceptance rests with those from their own community? Should not the proviso be made to immigrants that break that probationary period, or at any time thereafter; and back they go from whence they came?

When one considers that in Switzerland the granting of Swiss citizenship rests not with the Federal Government but with Cantonal Authorities and the immigrant’s community, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned?

Food for thought?


5 thoughts on “Integration

  1. Why?
    The leaders who invited mass immigration , who push for devolution , who agresively suppressed all opposition to this -did not want integration they thought there would be blending.
    The leaders did not care for patriotism
    But the immigrants everywhere really want to replace the native group. They don’t want or need to be chums.
    And why not– the native group has stopped breeding. They let their institutes be wrecked.

    1. It is not true to say that all immigrants do not want or need to be chums. In my experience most European immigrants are very good at mixing with the locals some I know have even joined the local Rugby club.
      However the comments would be true of those that come from parts of the Indian Subcontinent in particular those of Islamic persuasion.
      It does seem to me that had we had a Swiss type system then the natives of e.g Bradford in the fifties and sixties would not have agreed to allow most of those that came from the Indian subcontinent to stay, on the basis of language culture and religion..
      However what is true of those of Islamic persuasion is also true of those of the Jewish persuasion. Both groups will look after their own tribal / religious interests at the expense of the host country.

      In both these cases Religion is a unifying factor, just as religion principally through the C of E was a unifying factor for the English until the 60’s
      Unfortunately in the U.K the indigenous Brits have largely given up on the Church and the Church of England has so it seems to me largely given up on the people and tried to cosy up to Jewery and Islam.

  2. Such a system would have resolved quite a few contentious immigration cases in the UK where central government immigration authorities have been very heavy at re-turning foreign nationals to their countries of origin while the people concerned have had overwhelming support from the communities in which they live.

  3. The Indians have bonds with the UK that go a long way back. They were very strong supporters of Brexit, they understand ‘our’ values because we share a lot with them.

    1. They do indeed but then most of them in terms of religion are Hindu.

      Judaism and Islam are both a serious existential threat to our heritage.
      Go back far enough in history and it will be seen that both the Crown and Church put onerous restrictions on Jews when they first migrated to England. Over time these restrictions have been lifted which makes it harder to impose similar restrictions on Islam now the country is being infiltrated by that religion and the culture it brings.

Comments are closed.