Mass migration threatens Western culture
Forget climate change, the greatest civilisational issue facing the West in the 21st century is mass migration from the third world. If the United Nations, the globalists in the European Union and the Green Party have their way, our cities and towns will be overflowing with migrants long before the ice caps melt and high tide washes away our vegetable gardens.
Now for the obligatory, “I’m in favour of immigration, it is an engine of economic growth, and without it our culinary choices would be considerably limited”. However, I’m inclined to balance my enthusiasm with the desire to retain our sense of national identity, especially if being a New Zealander means more than just occupying a geographical location.
Culture matters. Ours is a unique blend of European, Ma¯ ori and Pasifika with an increasing Asian influence. It has been shaped over a thousand years with many influences. We have our own tikanga.
Our personal freedoms and relative prosperity are not a matter of chance. They are a product of the beliefs and practices handed down through many generations. The rule of law, respect for the individual, the presumption of innocence, private property rights along with freedom of thought and religion are all characteristics of our culture largely unknown amongst billions of the world’s populations. Consequently, global migration is a one-way street.
The challenge we face in the West is an existential one. Can we absorb millions of people from the third world and still retain our cultural identity? If the experiences of Britain and Europe are any guide, the answer is probably not. Over the past two decades, and particularly in recent years, they’ve experienced mass migration from the third world on a scale previously unknown.
There has been little effort to integrate those from other cultures as the uniquely Western ideology of multiculturalism insists all cultures are of equal value and must be celebrated, apart from the host culture. So in many English centres large immigrant ghettos have been formed. English is rarely spoken and many women are isolated from the wider community.
France, Belgium and Sweden have embraced high levels of mass migration. They have experienced violent acts of terrorism and have “no-go” areas where police, ambulance and fire services don’t enter without special precautions.
One of the least desirable aspects of immigrant culture has been the rise in antisemitism. In France and other European countries armed guards protect synagogues and Jewish schools.
Is this the vision our politicians have for New Zealand?
Our Government has recently become a signatory to the United Nations global migration pact. This compact seeks to facilitate “safe orderly and regular migration” on a global scale. While “safe and orderly” are desirable outcomes, why migration should be “regular” remains an open question. Surely the most desirable outcome for all peoples is to become established and prosper in their local environment?
Objective 17 carries Orwellian overtones: “Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidencebased public discourse to shape perceptions of migration.” As far as the UN is concerned, migration is a universal public good and must be described as such. This is utopian nonsense that deliberately ignores the lived experience of indigenous communities in places such as Manchester, Bradford, Luton, Paris, Brussels and Malmo to name only a few cities that have suffered the negative and often violent impact of mass migration.
New Zealand has so far been fortunate with its migration experience but with 44 per cent of Auckland’s resident population born outside of New Zealand, we are surely approaching the limits of successful integration and sustainability.
While section 17 of the UN compact argues against discrimination for any reason, if we are to preserve that which is good about Kiwi culture we should learn from the experience of Europe and choose immigrants who are predisposed to integrate, rather than those whose political, cultural or religious beliefs are in direct conflict with our way of life.
Central European nations such as Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic understand this with great clarity. They refuse to take migrants who are least likely to integrate. But given the level of UN inspired political correctness that informs our public policy, we will undoubtedly ignore this wisdom and risk importing the multicultural conflicts of Europe.