The advocates of mass immigration will say things like “all countries have immigration” or “immigration doesn’t just happen in White, Western countries – it’s a global phenomena”. Such statements are highly deceptive, and yet the vast majority of people simply accept them.
Most people have heard of ‘guest-worker immigration’. This is the immigration system which operates in non-White countries from Africa and Asia to the Middle East.
One of the key features of guest-worker immigration is that immigrants are treated as temporary, economic residents. That is, they are granted permission to stay (i.e. temporary residence) and permission to work for a limited period (e.g. for 10 years on a limited-time visa), after which they are expected to leave.
A second, crucially important, feature of guest-worker immigration is that the total immigrant population always remains the same size, the total immigrant population remains fixed (once the required number of immigrants has been reached.)
The overall immigrant population will always remain the same size whether the immigration process continues for 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years. Furthermore, even if the immigrant population has a large number of births, their children will be returned home with their parents. Guest-worker immigration provides advantages of immigration without greatly affecting the demographic balance of the country deploying it.
Overall, guest-worker immigration is flexible. It makes immigration easy to plan and control. It is easy to increase or decrease the total number of immigrants as the country’s economy fluctuates. And, if desired, the total number of immigrants can be returned to zero – since immigrants neither become citizens nor permanent residents.
Guest-worker immigration treats immigrants as temporary, economic guest-workers right from the start. And, unsurprisingly, it is the most common immigration system in the world. It is the immigration of choice throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East – yet it isn’t deployed in even a single White, Western country.
Overall, citizenship immigration can be characterized by: • Endless inward immigration
• No expatriation process for immigrants – only illegal immigrants may be expatriated
• An ever-growing immigrant population
Unlike guest-worker immigration, citizenship immigration always leads to an ever-growing immigrant population because there is no expatriation process to keep the overall immigrant population in balance, almost all immigrants quickly gain the right to permanent residence or citizenship, any children born to them will automatically acquire permanent residence and/or citizenship too.
The total immigrant population will never stop growing because, few, if any, will leave. Most will become permanent residents or citizens, and those who acquire citizenship (including any children they may have) will no longer even be considered immigrants.
One system keeps the immigrant population static and unchanged, whilst the other system leads to rapid growth. Citizenship immigration leads to a rapidly growing immigrant population.
Overall, citizenship immigration creates conditions where the native population will become outnumbered by the immigrant population (i.e become a racial minority). Citizenship immigration has a social engineering component which is absent altogether under guest-worker immigration. In economic terms, guest-worker immigration is a far more flexible and efficient than citizenship immigration. Under guest-worker immigration, non-working immigrants can be expatriated, older workers are continuously replaced by younger workers, and the immigrant population itself is static – yet it can be intentionally increased or reduced as economically necessary.
Under citizenship immigration, because existing immigrants rarely leave, once the total immigrant population is large enough, it will continue to expand – even if further immigration is stopped altogether!
Citizenship immigrants are necessarily (as citizens) granted access to welfare, social security, pensions, medical and healthcare support, housing benefits and other costly public services. These are clearly additional social costs and overheads which reduce – not increase – the economic benefits available under guest-worker immigration. Indeed, under guest-worker immigration, these social costs and overheads are the privilege of citizens alone – and immigrants are rarely granted citizenship.
Guest-worker immigration leads to an immigrant population which is fixed in size. This makes it easy to plan for. Because the immigrant population is fixed in size, the additional budgeting is relatives small and easy to plan. Under citizenship immigration, on the other hand – where the vast majority of immigrants will acquire permanent citizenship – the costs will grow rapidly. Overall, there is a vast difference between planning for a fixed, static immigrant population and funding an ever-growing immigrant population.
Under citizenship immigration, non-working immigrants cannot easily be returned home – even if would be economically expedient to do so. Their legally protected ‘right’ to permanent residence and citizenship (in all and only White countries) mean that the immigrant population cannot be reduced without resorting to drastic measures, such as withdrawing permanent residence status or cancelling citizenship – measures which were economically unnecessary in the first place.
Overall, then, there are no economic advantages to offering immigrants citizenship and permanent residence – there are only additional costs and social burdens.
Under guest-worker immigration, the purpose of immigrants is to empower the economy. But under citizenship immigration, the primary function of economics is to endorse, justify, and (if necessary) suffer substantial economic losses for large-scale immigration and demographic engineering. We can gain an important insight into what has motivated citizenship immigration (rather than guest-worker immigration) by simply looking at which countries have implemented it. When we do, we find that all and only White, Western countries have implemented citizenship immigration. Why would any country choose an inflexible, economically inferior system of immigration which clearly and demonstrably changes the demographic make-up of the country – especially when a far superior alternative is widely available?
Choosing citizenship immigration over guest-worker immigration makes absolutely no sense – unless radically changing the demographic make-up of your country is the desired result. We are constantly told that immigration is an “economic necessity” – and yet it’s more expensive, more inflexible and it’s vastly more demographical harmful. White countries alone operate a completely different immigration system to non-White countries. The economic arguments are lies.
These days, demographic decline is a common justification for endless immigration into the West. It would not, therefore, be very surprising if pro-immigration advocates were to argue that the West needs citizenship immigration to prevent the demographic decline of their native White population. On the surface, this appears plausible, yet the ‘demographic decline’ argument has a serious credibility problem.
If citizenship immigration is the tool of choice to combat ‘demographic decline’, then why don’t rich, non-White countries like Israel and Qatar force their people to adopt it?
Qatar, for example, is a country with only 278,000 citizens, yet it has an immigrant population of over 2 million! Yet because Qatar operates a system of guest-worker immigration, the ethnic Qatari population is protected from race-replacement, despite being outnumbered 8 to 1 by immigrants! Qataris are a small statistical minority (compared to the immigrant population) yet their immigrants are temporary guests, not citizens. Qataris will neither become an ethnic minority in Qatar, nor lose their culture or sovereignty. So why should we?
The final nail in the coffin for the ‘demographic decline’ argument, however, is the openly hostile attitude of Western leaders to measures which might boost White birth rates and halt that decline.
When Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, won his country’s election in April 2014, he called for the total cessation of immigration into his country coupled with policies designed to boost native Hungarian birth-rates. The outrage which ensued was as caustic as it was immediate. The EU Minister for Foreign Affairs, Vidar Helgesen (Norway), called for the EU to immediately impose economic sanctions on Hungary.
Thus, in White, Western countries it is the worldview of Mr Helgesen – not Mr Orban – which prevails amongst our leadership. And far from supporting measures which might halt ‘demographic decline’ (in all and only White countries), Western leaders utterly condemn such measures and seek to demonize, ostracize and alienate anyone brave enough to even suggest them.
Indeed, French ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy went even further; stating, on several occasions, that EU countries have a ‘moral obligation’ to engage in race-mixing – and not just accept (citizenship) immigration.
In reality, there are two different systems of immigration, and they have very different outcomes. The ugly truth is that all White, Western countries have been forced to accept one system of immigration whilst all non-White, non-Western countries are free to choose another. So, not only is the idea that there is one, universal system of immigration false, but the outcomes of those systems could not be more divergent and extreme. We have been silenced by wolves justifying biased, one-sided policies as ‘fairness’. Yet there is nothing fair about the outcome they have in mind. Read more here: http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=32331
