Sim-O

Here we go again. More BNP bollocks. Google Immigration into Britain: These are the facts because I ain’t linking to it.

British National Party is the only political party which has consistently sounded the alarm on the topic of mass immigration into our country.

Because they’re paranoid that the white British man will be enslaved to all the foreign brown people that come to these shores not out of desperation or fear but to live of the sweat of the honest of the noble Englishman.

All the other parties, assisted by their controlled media, have either attempted to downplay this topic or to attack and smear the BNP for daring to openly discuss it.

I love that line, the ‘controlled media’. It’s just as common the otherway, too, the ‘controlling media’. And what they do’t do so much in the articles themselves but you’ll see in comments and on BNP blogs is Rupert Murdoch being called a communist. Murdoch? A commie? No one denies the media don’t have an influence, and the amount is debatable, but they are not really controlling in any sense of the word.

And now we come to the facts…

– According to an August 2008 Office for National Statistics (ONS) study, some 2.3 million immigrants have officially come to the UK in the past 16 years, the vast majority of whom are from the Third World. (Of the 2.3 million, only 205,000, or 8 percent, came from the new East European members of the EU.)

Over 16 years that’s only just under 145,000 people a year. I don’t know for sure as I can’t find the report, but I’m pretty certain that that there is the number of people that returned to their original country and the amount of British citizens that emmigrated to be taken off that 2.3 million figure to give a true picture of how immigration has increased our population.

– August 2008 French government statistics showed that more than 1,000 Third Worlders pour into Britain from northern France every month.

I can’t speak French. But what a wonderful turn of phrase that is ‘Third Wolders’. Brings to mind industrial sc-fi rather than people fleeing persecution and poverty.

– A report by an all-party group of Members of Parliament in 2008 said that more than one million illegal immigrants were living in Britain – a population equivalent to that of Birmingham.

Ok, rough figures because I’m crap with Google, but they’re good enough for you to get the idea that this is a complete crock of shit. I’m not saying that the one million figure is too high, just that know one knows.
In 2005 the home office tried to put a figure on illegal immigrants. What it did was take the figure of foreign born people living in the UK recorded in the 2001 census, a figure already 4 years out of date, and then subtracting the estimated number of legal immigrants. Not a rock solid figure that was right a few years ago, but a guess.
Then in 2008 the London School of Economics adds some more fictional numbers to this first report to come up with the magic numbers for illegal immigrants between 524,000 and 947,000, with a ‘central estimate’ of 725,000, which the BNP then rounds up to 1 million. Whereas the figure could be as low as just over half million, but that would not suit the BNPs’ (or the daily Mails’) purposes, would it.

– An August 2008 ONS report showed that nearly 25 percent of all babies born in Britain were from ‘foreign’ mothers. The ONS said that 758,000 babies were born in Britain in 2007, and that births to foreign-born mothers rose to 160,340, or 23 percent of all live births.

And?

– More than half of all births in some towns and cities, including London (54%), Slough (56%) and Luton (51%), were to non-UK born mothers. This figure peaks at 75 percent in the London borough of Newham. As the key areas reporting the biggest baby boom were London, West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire – all areas of long-settled Afro-Caribbean and Asian immigrants, it is highly likely that once these figures are added to the 25 percent ‘foreign’ birth rate, then as many as 50 percent of all babies born in Britain in 2008 were of Third World origin.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this and the previous point don’t add up, do they?
Lets do this slowly. For my sake if not yours. We’ll take ‘foreign’ as the parents/grandparents of the pregnant lady to be from another country and ‘foreign-born’ as the pregnant lady herself was born somewhere else. Presumably all the births in these figures are live births, not just the ones stated as such:
25% of all babies born in 2008 were of ‘foreign’ mothers.
23% of all babies born in 2007 were to ‘foreign-born’ mothers.
These two figures are not really connected in this equation as we are not looking at a trend because they are from different years. Then we have some figures for specific towns for non-uk born mothers (yet another term) from an unspecified year.
These areas may have high ‘foriegn’ parentage, but they have already been counted in the 25 percent of babies born to ‘foreign’ mothers as non-uk born mothers are a subdivision of ‘foriegn’.
I am right aren’t I? They’re adding numbers up that have already been counted and throwing in extra numbers to confuse things. Aren’t they?

– The ONS population report states that, on average, ‘foreign’ women have 2.5 children each, rising to 3.9 for those from Bangladesh and almost five for Pakistani women. The number of babies born to British mothers is also rising, but lags far behind immigrants at an average of 1.7 children each. From this it is possible to deduce that white British mothers are only producing 1.5 children at a maximum, against a required replacement level of 2.1

‘Foreign’ mothers have mor babies than white british mothers. But They’re not really talking about foreign, they’re talking about brown skinned mothers and white mothers.
Some more abiguous wording there as well – ‘deduce’. Either you can work out that figure or not. Deducing something is having a guess. And I’ve just noticed that if the average white mother is having 1.7 children each, that means that some are having more children and some are having less, how can then deduced or even properly worked out that they are having a maximum of 1.5 children? If the maximum is 1.5 then the average would be much lower.
WTF?

– The ONS has also predicted that the British population could reach 71 million by 2031, with migrants and their UK-born children accounting for 70 percent of that growth. This fast-moving trend means that babies born to immigrant mothers are set to become the main driver of Britain’s population growth within the next few years, taking over from immigration itself.

I can’t be bothered to look into this claim as the previous ones have made my head throb. Even if it is true, so what? What they gonna do? Oh, yes deport everybody. Then where are we gonna be? In a declining poplulation which is no good for a nation. Unless, of course the BNP want to introduce a complusory amount of children each couple are to have.

– The ONS also released official immigration figures in August 2008 which revealed that 69 people – mostly Third Worlders – entered the UK every hour. According to the ONS, in the 2006/7 year period, a record 605,000 people moved to Britain – the equivalent of 1,650 a day. The number of foreigners living in Britain has increased by 1.1 million in three years – enough to fill a city the size of Birmingham.

And on it goes. I got other stuff to do, I didn’t realise what a long piece this is. It’s fucking relentless, isn’t it?
No, I’m not on about immigration. I’m on about the indignation, the outrage, the, the mindless lack of self-awareness of just what cunts they are.