Does this article mean Europeans themselves should lose the right to emigrate? I live in Canada. Most people here are immigrants from Europe. Under Murray's rule, would the native peoples have the right to ask them to go back to Europe? Much is made of how white Britons were not asked before coloured immigrnats were let in - well, Britons never asked the natives of a whole host of nations if they wanted to be transformed by colonial rule and British immigration. No people has emigrated in such numbers as white Britons, and they are continuing to emigrate today. You cannot take full advantage of a process and suddenly declare it sinful for others just when it suits you. If white Britons emigrated in vast numbers in the past and do so today it must be permissible for others too. That is all I am saying. The presence of large immigrant communities is a fact of life for very many nations today, and not only in Europe or North America or Australasia. A large migrant population of Afghans has changed the demographic character of several provinces of Pakistan. This is in large part because of the fuelling and intensification of deadly warfare in Afghanistan by the British and the US for their own strategic purpose of hitting the Soviet Union. Large communities of people from India and Pakistan are found in the Gulf Arab states. Indian Assam has been settled by a huge number of Bangladeshi Muslims. Kenya hosts a large migrant Somali population. Many other Black African nations have large immigrant communities and so do many Latin American ones. So this is a global phenomenon and singling Britain or Europe out as the host of immigration is absurd. Especially so when the white British and Europeans themselves have taken advantage of the possibility of emigration more than any other people. This is about fair play. No people has emigrated in such numbers as white Britons, and they are continuing to emigrate today. You cannot take full advantage of a process and suddenly declare it sinful for others just when it suits you. If white Britons emigrated in vast numbers in the past and do so today it must be permissible for others too. That is all I am saying. The presence of large immigrant communities is a fact of life for very many nations today, and not only in Europe or North America or Australasia. A large migrant population of Afghans has changed the demographic character of several provinces of Pakistan. This is in large part because of the fuelling and intensification of deadly warfare in Afghanistan by the British and the US for their own strategic purpose of hitting the Soviet Union. Large communities of people from India and Pakistan are found in the Gulf Arab states. Indian Assam has been settled by a huge number of Bangladeshi Muslims. Kenya hosts a large migrant Somali population. Many other Black African nations have large immigrant communities and so do many Latin American ones. So this is a global phenomenon and singling Britain or Europe out as the host of immigration is absurd. Especially so when the white British and Europeans themselves have taken advantage of the possiblity of emigration more than any other people.

Two of the pro-multicultural arguments you mention ring true on this side of the Pond: (1) "It has always been this way" -- In fact, immigration, both legal and illegal, has been occurring at such historically rapid rates that assimilation is the exception. Rather, the political, special interest and media classes tend to encourage such diversity/lack of assimilation. Miami has been ceded to Latin America; Muslims have gained measurable control of Dearborn, Michigan, and you can find language ghettos in most cities. In earlier immigration waves, people wanted to become Americans and were expected to do so. (2) "There is no American culture." We are "all immigrants." "We are just a mix of different cultures." -- Ha! I know exactly who I am. I am an American. I am very much aware that my rights and attendant responsibilities come from God, not from some man who tries to make rules for others to live by. And I, like others, feel a responsibility to preserve/return to the limited constitutional government our country was founded on. You can't stand by and watch you country die!

The Western world is ideologically brainwashed by the Liberal Left, essentially an anti-capitalist leftover from the Bolshevik days. These people hate their own skin color. They have some ideal vision in mind of a world in which we will all hold hands and intermarry or integrate somehow, but just because they have such aspirations does not mean immigrants do. On the contrary, sooner or later we will see a Balkanization of not just Britain, but of Western Europe, with the notable exception of the indigenous whites who will be cowering in their basements....

The twit who said Dubai has 40% immigrants is wrong. The figure is over 80%, so if you get that wrong, what else did you get wrong? On top of that, they only give visas for 2 years that cost at least two months of the average workers wage. No handouts, no passports - EVER - and no free education etc etc. So, the left set the agenda in the 60's and you only show your total ignorance. When the collapse comes - see Cyprus etc, as explained years ago by those "dumb" righties, things will change. Let's have points like NZ and Aus, so we get benefits instead of giving them. All the best then.

Get used to it

There is a tendency amongst certain sections of the right to believe that immigration and the subsequent changes in demographics is a consequence of some left wing conspiracy perpetuated by New Labour to alter the political landscape of Britain which will make it harder and harder for Tories to win an absolute majority in an election. This is the stuff of fantasy perpetuated by the likes of Douglas Murray, Melanie Phillips and others. As is often the case, the truth is mundane. Global capitalism demands a significant free flow of labour, both highly skilled and unskilled, across national boundaries. Large scale immigration took place under both the Thatcher and Major administrations mainly due to pressure from the labour market. A free market cannot operate efficiently without a flexible labour market where it is easier for labour to relocate from one country to another according to the law of supply and demand. Therefore many successful non Western free market economies such as Hong Kong, SIngapore and Dubai have of late become more multicultural. In fact in Dubai nearly 40% of the population is made of immigrants. Multiculturalism is not just a phenomena in the West. It would be less hypocritical if those obsessed with UK demographics are honest and consistent in their beliefs. Firstly they should oppose unfettered global capitalism, however economically ruinous and secondly they should have the courage to admit that they hanker back to an all white Britain.

Over the past decade as a resident of London I have seen the increase of "diversity" and the decrease of our "non culture". It saddens me that I feel I will need to myself go and live in another country as I cannot see residing here in my own as futureproof anymore. The difference being, I will try and fit in, not ask to be accommodated. Our country has faded away under the personal aspirations of our recent so called political leaders. Leadership requires the ability to do what is right, even if that path contrasts with the current view of a flock of sheep not wanting to stand up!

Glen Ram etc. If the British went out into the world and took it. Were they A) welcomed or B) resisted? If they were resisted would this explain massacres genocides etc the left likes to claim? If they in fact occurred? If they were resisted cannot Europeans resist the current colonisation? If they were not resisted and in fact in places welcomed, then where is the truth in your argument that Britain deserves to be eradicated?

A country to be serious about itself as a country needs to have strong controls over its borders. Secondly, it needs to have still stronger controls over who are allowed in and in what numbers. Any weakening on these points and the consequences can be quite unpleasant. Britain should act.

Has anyone noticed the contradiction when it comes to the principle of consent? On most issues the principle of consent is rightly regarded as sacrosanct. But somehow when it comes to immigration it doesn't matter. The only argument that is put forward is the "two wrongs make a right" argument: that because the British Empire invaded foreign countries without consent, the British people can't now complain about immigrants coming to the UK.