In 1973 the French author and explorer, Jean Raspail, published his dystopian novel “The Camp of the Saints”, which portrayed the destruction of Western civilisation by Third World mass immigration to France and the West, much of it by sea. Its name comes from the bible’s book of revelation, which depicts the apocalypse. Unsurprisingly it was decried by many as being racist, and indeed it has been popular with parties and groups who espouse far right policies. However, it returned to the best seller list in France in 2011
It undoubtedly contains underlying assumptions about the differences between racial groups, which run contrary to contemporary beliefs. Those of us who espouse Christian values know that the young child in a Third World slum is as important, and worthy, as any rich denizen of a rich country, while the accident of birth should be no guide as to the life to which one aspires.
However there can be no doubt as to its relevance to the question which is becoming more and more central to the modern world, that concerning the mass movement of peoples across the globe, and in particular for us in the UK, confronting the continued, and growing problem of illegal immigration across the Channel. On one end of the argument would be a halt to all immigration, on the other a free for all, with no limits imposed, and where the line is drawn is of increasing importance.
In the modern world a full stop would be impracticable, as well as immoral, as those fleeing in fear of their lives must be given hope of a refuge. To open the door entirely would, apart from provoking a massive adverse reaction among the indigenous population, very quickly reduce the host country to chaos, and economic destruction. We have tried to compromise with limits applied, yet valid refugees being welcomed, in particular those from areas, such as Ukraine, where conflict is taking place.
When looking at the specifics it is clear that the vast majority of those coming across on small boats are young men, albeit accompanied bya much smaller number of women and children. In addition, interviews with those arriving reveal that a majority are coming from countries which are not being subject to violent conflicts. These facts make clear that the bulk of these migrants are in fact motivated by economic factors, and should therefore be taking their place with those who are taking the legal route to claiming asylum, not being allowed to jump to the head of the queue. It should also be noted that they will have been paying considerable sums to criminals, indicating that they are not destitute, while they are coming directly from France, a country not considered dangerous, and where they should be claiming asylum.
It is quite understandable that very many people from the third world would wish to live in the West, but we must also consider the fact that we lack the infrastructure ranging from GPs, housing and employment to absorb unlimited numbers. Those who constantly seek to block anything the government tries to do to stop the flow of illegal immigration refuse to answer the direct question as to how many immigrants they would consider too many, and instead resort abusing those attempting to find a workable compromise as racists. It is doubtful that the lawyers, and metropolitan liberals supporting open door policies would themselves find their own jobs and way of life under threat, as the burden would fall upon the working class in already deprived areas.
Those left liberals, indulging in their usual virtue signalling at no immediate cost to themselves, should reflect that, if nothing is done, there will inevitably be a reaction which could affect far more than immigration policy.
