<<< back to Articles Index
The Great Immigration Scandal
By Steve Moxon
Imprint Academic 2004
Reviewed by Michael Newland
‘Systematic abuse of procedure and open invitation to fraud allowed by the Home Office at
ministerial and top management levels extend across the whole of migration.’
Enoch Powell observed that matters of vital importance to humankind are contested at the
limits of human endeavour.
Most vital events in history invite the invention of counter factuals. Seemingly trivial
changes, as a result either of chance events or a different decision by the leaders, would
have led to an entirely different result. A small publishing industry thrives on discussing
‘what might have happened’. A recent BBC documentary, for example, suggested that Rasputin
might have been murdered for fear that he would persuade the Romanovs to seek an armistice
with Germany - leaving that nation free to concentrate its forces on the Western front, and
perhaps winning the Great War.
Are Britain and its people to be terminated by mass immigration? Are we to end up like
the American Indians marginalised and sidelined?
I have a little private joke about areas
of the country becoming ‘reservations’, as native Britons flee in the face of living as
foreigners in the cities. Far-fetched? The head of the Commission for Racial Equality
has called for black children to be taught separately. The thin end of a very long wedge
Opinion among those who do not believe in a future multiracial
multicultural paradise divides between those who say “too late”, and those who argue that
almost any situation can be turned round given the political will.
The difference between the outlook for the British people and that faced by American
Indians in the 19th century is not simply in the resources available to us to defend our
continued existence. The Indian tribes had no hope of resistance against European weapons
and numbers. Counter factuals are difficult to imagine in that case.
The present British struggle is obviously not military. The vital and critical difference
for the British is whether the will exists to resist, or even adequate comprehension of the
bad faith of our own leaders. The Indian tribes understood very well what would happen to them
when the first transcontinental railway was built in the 1860s, and made a futile attempt to
attack it. A similar outcome for the British people is just as certain if immigration policy
is not changed.
For decades, the British appear to have been lulled into a sense of false security by
deception about immigration on the part of every government, both in respect of numbers
and concerning the intention to allow mass immigration on a permanent basis.
For example, the last census figure for the numbers of Chinese in Manchester was 8,000.
But when a civil servant gave evidence on oath, in a trial concerning Snakehead gangs, he
revealed what he said was ‘highly classified’ information in that the real numbers were
But those who claim to be able to divine the inevitable outcome for us with certainty are
arguably wrong. Neither the eclipse of our own people nor a last minute 1940-style ‘Battle of
Britain’ survival story is certain. We are not fatally technically disadvantaged like the Red
Indians. Our fate will be decided by our comprehension of our situation, and by our ability to
organise ourselves politically. All that can change rapidly as a result of events unforeseen
either in nature or effect. The Dutch political situation was radically altered by the murder
of a politician and a journalist. The unexpected can trigger a sea change.
One Sunday in March 2004, the Sunday Times published damning revelations about how
immigrants from Eastern Europe were being allowed into Britain in blatant contravention
of the ‘strict’ controls which the Labour government claimed were in place.
For the first time, a civil servant who had worked within the immigration service, had
blown the whistle on how things were actually done. The one-legged Rumanian roof tiler,
supposedly coming to Britain to start a building business, became a tabloid cause celebre.
Steve Moxon worked in the immigration service for some months on a daily basis at the
level of assessing and approving applications for entry to Britain. He handled and
processed the documents upon which individual decisions were based. The incredible
extent of the deception, deliberately engineered by the most senior levels of government
and the civil service to fool the public into believing that there are substantial controls
on immigration into Britain, is laid out in his book.
Moxon’s book is a crash course on immigration, the realities of policy, and the many false
arguments, both social and economic, which have been thrust upon the British to deceive us.
It’s a damn good read whatever your previous level of appreciation of the monstrous imposition
made upon the British people by those supposedly paid to serve us.
Three examples from the many in the book, concerning how immigration controls actually work,
give the flavour of what Moxon found working for the immigration service in Sheffield.
It is now widely known from recent press reports that many of the ‘language schools’ which
immigrants claim to be coming to Britain to join as students are bogus. But when Moxon
attempted to make elementary checks on schools named by migrants in their applications,
by looking to see if they had a working telephone enquiry line or web site, he was told he
was showing excessive zeal and given an official reprimand.
Students visiting Britain are supposed to be here under strict controls about working.
Yet, when Moxon saw clear evidence from bank statements that the rules were being ignored,
he was told not to bother in characteristically suggestive, but deniable in its implications,
civil service language. He also deduced that the immigration control branch of government is
deliberately under-staffed to ensure its ineffectiveness.
He was further reprimanded for questioning the extension of visits to Britain in order to
obtain medical treatment, when it was very likely that NHS treatment would be obtained
Why then are things like they are? Why have Britain’s political leaders put themselves
into a position where they can be found out rather than openly pursuing what they appear to
The embarrassing pursuit of their own creature comfort is one motive. It is only recently
that the leftish political establishment has been willing to make the kind of hubristic
admission made by Will Hutton on television. Britain needs immigrants to provide nannies.
Right-on Will. And don’t forget those of us suffering life without butlers. You just can’t
get the staff since the war.
Recognition that there is little support for what they doing, and so a disinclination
to admit to it, is another motive. But, as Moxon says, the motive goes far deeper than
political tactics, or nannies for wealthy Labourite apparatchiks. The leftish establishment
has retreated into its own incestuous in-group in the face of the failure of its own favoured
‘vanguards’ - like the working-class and students - to stay true to the cause.
The establishment lives in a state of denial like a failing but arrogant military staff
pushing symbols of non-existent or defeated armies round a map table.
The working-class is implacably opposed to immigration, and the students generally not
absorbed by politics in the way they once were. Getting a good job is now the preoccupation,
not upsetting the social order.
It is easy to see the attractions for people of power and influence, deserted by their
own political troops and living on borrowed time, in seeking some new constituency of
followers prepared to listen - and one which lends itself to romanticism. The religious
fervour with which heretics about migration are pursued betrays the psychological imperative
As Steve Moxon says, the migrant is now the championed figure in politically correct
thinking - ‘another class of saviour for the cause being the disadvantaged person from
outside the core of the capitalist world untainted through never having declined to grasp
the chance when offered of ‘rising up’ against the bosses’.
Those pesky working-class and
students, corrupted by capitalist false consciousness, no longer deserve even the courtesy
of having laid out for them the intentions of the superior and socialist class who, chosen
by fate, alone guard the truth in their lonely position of responsibility.
The sheer looniness of imagining that immigrants in the main have any enthusiasm for
anything other than making money, and using their own numbers and solidarity as a lever
for their own advancement, betrays just how far the Guardianista class have retreated from
Neither of the two main strands of argument employed to justify mass immigration holds
Just about every speech by a major political leader during the last decade appears to
include as de rigeur a ‘tribute’ to mass immigration and ‘diversity’. Political leaders
appear to think it too risky not to mention the subject on every occasion ad nauseam. But
how any society can hold together when it is the policy to create the maximum division among
its members in their aspirations as to the social fabric?
The head of the CRE, Trevor Phillips, now says that multiculturalism is not such a good
idea after all, and that separatist projects would no longer be funded. He presumably does not
see racially separate teaching arrangements as separatist. Maybe he really does now reject
multiculti, but the numbers able to form critical masses of varying ethnic composition, and
pursue separatism whether government likes it or not, are now so great that it will make
little difference what he thinks.
Moxon cynically thinks it likely that Phillips’ remarks are merely the pretext for more
resources being directed towards ethnic groups. If that is the case, then it will be said that
the Government is funding integration. As always, the real reason will be to buy votes.
Question diversity as a justification for immigration and the standard switcheroo will
appear. Britain’s prosperity depends on migrants - ‘labour shortages’, and so on.
Moxon’s book includes a very good rapid tour of the detailed arguments for mass economic
migration - every one of which is easy to deflate.
Anyone who has had the misfortune of trying recently to get a job through Labour’s Job
Centres in the main national melting pot - now dubbed ‘Londonistan’ by the politically aware -
can see what is happening at least among smaller employers. Nearly every one of them has
expectations of being able to get his work done - and often skilled work - at farcical wages
associated with ‘foreign students’. The black economy is creeping into the white-collar
workplace. Often employers are imbued with inflated ‘animal spirits’ about the low wages
they can expect to pay. Even the fabled ‘students’ sometimes cannot be found to fill the job.
Shelf-fillers in London are now paid 10% less than in other areas of the country with lower
The leading immigration economist, Professor George Borjas, joked that economists have no
difficulty in agreeing that an increased supply of labour will lower wages. Until the
increased labour supply is attributed to immigration, when economists become mysteriously
As Moxon says, increasing numbers of local British workers feel it is simply not
worthwhile to work for the wages now being paid. This creates a ratchet. Existing workers
disappear into the benefits system or crime (or both), and the near three million classified
as sick. Immigrants are brought in to meet supposed shortages of staff, who further force
down wages and encourage more to give up on work. Past immigrants are themselves disadvantaged
by those coming in later as the ratchet tightens.
Particularly duplicitous is the Labour claim of ‘staff shortages’ based on the half-million
or so advertised vacancies. As any economics text book can tell you, there is something
called ‘frictional unemployment’. Jobs take time to fill. Advertising, locating potential
staff and interviewing them cannot be done in a day.
Even if there were an infinite number of the unemployed available to fill vacancies
there would still be a substantial number of job advertisements. Half a million is only
a percent or two of the total number of jobs, and in a fast changing and mobile economy
certainly no indication of labour shortages in itself. And especially not when a large
proportion of the jobs are part-time or temporary.
‘Active promotion of mass net immigration into an already crowded and fully developed
economy is unique to Britain’ says Moxon.
But the Labour Government is caught in a trap of its own making.
To admit the error of its ways would be politically calamitous when its entire policy is
based around immigration both as a social device - ‘diversity’ - ‘vibrant multiculti’ - and
as a supposed economic necessity. The Tories - witness Michael Howard’s recent speech
(January 2005) - have more latitude after towards a decade in opposition.
A coalition of strange bedfellows certainly benefits for now from the
destruction of British society. Labour expects to be rewarded with votes from immigrants.
The remnants of the ideological left hope for a new revolutionary political army made up of
foreign mercenaries. Many employers, consumed by short-sighted greed, want foreign workers for
low wages. Some of the middle-class enjoy cheap servants. But a growing majority are becoming
aware that preserving their own social fabric is matter of importance to them even if they
still have little grasp of the economic pup being sold to the country.
Blair appears to attribute Labour’s increasing unpopularity to managerial failure.
Perish the thought that the ideology - such as it is being a rag bag of fashionable
leftish sloganising and some half-baked economics - might be calamitous.
But people are waking up says Moxon, and there will be a big political score to settle.
<<< back to Articles Index