‹ Back

Ethnic and immigration problems have been getting increasingly worse for a generation. Now, people across the political spectrum are talking about 'remigration' or 'repatriation', given the sheer number of people who have either entered Great Britain uninvited, or who have been granted residency by previous governments but have outstayed any welcome. On social media in particular, people talk about 'mass deportations', though often with little quantification as to who or how. Which leads to the question that must be addressed:

 

Where are these people supposed to be sent to?

 

Most of the issues surrounding immigration focus on immigration from outside of Europe, with obvious reference to the fact that the greater the racial and ethnic difference, the greater the expression in cultural and behavioural difference. But most discussion of 'repatriation' or 'deporation' of people ignores the question of where anyone removed from the country will go. It is the vital question, because even if someone actively wanted to leave, they physically couldn't unless they are able to go somewhere else. Thus, it becomes the responsibility of the state implementing a National Agenda to have an answer to this question.

 

The need for somewhere to resettle to.

 

The answer comes in the form of the British state actively cultivating places in which anyone being resettled (either voluntarily or by mandate) can be directly sent to. And these places must fulfil the following criteria:

1. They must have a functional government which is directly co-operating with the British state.
2. They must have a religious and cultural environment which is, as far as practical, compatible with anyone being resettled.
3. They must provide for (or be able through work to provide for) a reasonable quality of life for anyone going there.

 

The majority of immigration into Britain from outside Europe comes from Africa and Asia, and thus this is where places for resettlement must be sought. It is important to recognise the deep religious differences between Christian and Muslim populations, as well as ethnic differences. This being the case:

 

Implementing the National Agenda would require the establishment of TWO functional, prosperous places for resettlement. One in Asia, which is culturally more aligned with Islam, and one in Africa.

 

The question then becomes, where could these places be? It would be possible for the British government to make arrangements with existing governments in these regions, which would financially be possible. Alternatively, the more constructive option is to work to remedy those parts of Africa and Asia which are destitute and in a state of turmoil, and create out of them functional societies, purged of anarchistic and disruptive internal elements, which can provide people with a genuine homeland. The most obvious examples of places that would benefit from such investment are Libya (which has been in a ruinous state for over a decade), and the Levant (Iraq/Syria, which is similarly destitute from years of conflict). It would take a short-term financial and diplomatic investment, as well as a potentially constructive military investment, to accomplish this. 

 

All the resources currently being expended in foreign aid projects, and all the money that these various factions propose be spent paying people to 'repatriate' themselves, should instead be invested in the creation of two functional societies, one in North Africa, and one in Asia, in which people can be positively resettled. It would benefit those regions, those being resettled, and it would provide a mechanism to resolve demographic problems in Great Britain.

 

Everyone in this world wants a place to belong, and many people who have left foreign countries to come to ours, have done so because of the problems in their lives in their homeland. They have chosen prosperity over belonging, and they had their reasons. Investing just a small portion of our energy into creating and managing new homelands for these people, offers them the opportunity to have both belonging and prosperity, elsewhere. It is an option that many would take of their own accord, and few would actively protest.

 

By Alek Yerbury

Party Leader