Importing rivals

Skilled immigration is a lot like men in women’s sports.

In most Western countries there is a determined campaign to normalize skilled immigration. It is not just pursued but celebrated as both enlightened and necessary for our survival.

This is so much a part of the West we overlook the observation it is rejected in most parts of the world.

Foreign people now compete with us inside our borders rather than safely outside. Individuals with whom we will typically share no history, heritage or even outlook, all needed for a stable society. In some cases, groups hostile to our way of living and unwilling to maintain it, even working to undermine it, a recipe for conflict.

When explained in plain English it clearly is an unusual thing for anyone to accept.

We need skilled workers

The importation of skilled workers is always sold as a positive. They are educated or they bring niche talents. They improve our competitiveness to help us take on the world.

The sales pitch is relentless. Even those uncomfortable with rapid demographic change parrot claims about the benefits of foreign workers who then compete with domestic workers.

We are told we are lucky to be able to attract such amazing talent as if the immigrants are choosing from a buffet of impressive options rather than fleeing poverty and corruption as is usually the case.

When all else fails, and the narratives are questioned, they trot out the classic line, that the immigrants do the work our own people won’t do. Naturally they erase the last clause in that sentence, they do the work our own people won’t do for the money offered.

Interchangeable units

We are told many of the blessings of the West would not be possible without importing talented foreigners, despite all evidence to the contrary, not the least of which is the social, economic and technological black holes many of them come from.

If they are so talented why are their homelands so disastrous?

Such obvious questions are discouraged. Instead we are encouraged to think of it as gaining access to the best from around the world, as if countries are just collections of interchangeable economic units.

We are told it is like building up a sports team. The emphasis is on the excellence of the players. The world-class performance is a consequence of being able to cast such a wide net.

But it is really more like drafting in men to play in women’s sports leagues.

Imagine a netball team importing men wearing skirts and insisting we accept it. Bribing the politicians, media and cultural leaders to sell it as normal.

When we object they draw attention to how skilled these new players are and in some cases superior to the old players. Faster, stronger, more stamina. They are taller too, a real advantage in netball.

Who wouldn’t want this? Instant win, instant domination.

Except with female sports we immediately see the absurdity. The male players look different and act different from females.

Their ability to win is just one of multiple parameters at play. Importantly, another factor, their sex, destroys the viability of female leagues, the basis upon which any of them can play.

As other teams gradually adopt males into their own team just to compete the longterm cost of this strategy would be the erasure of female sports completely. Very few women would remain. Men would dominate. The price for women is then catastrophic despite some nominal improvements to the game for spectators.

It is an imperfect analogy. European nations in Europe and North America would be hard pushed to find people with superior skills than their native population. This is the farce of “skilled” immigration. No one is better than us. We invented the modern world they all flock to.

The much touted notion of “skills shortages” is often financial sleight of hand or an unwillingness to train people to be productive. In many cases it just reflects inadequate wages.

Population decline is the next line of defence, but the future is one of increased automation, robotics and AI systems, all predicted to reduce the number of jobs needed to run society efficiently.

Most Western nations have millions unemployed already thanks to these advances with more devastation to come. This is not an era that needs to import millions of extra workers.

Those aggressively pushing the narrative know this yet still insist we need skilled workers while our own people struggle to find work and face a bleak future thanks to technology change and economic decline.

Hidden costs are downplayed

The sporting analogy is about differences and the price we pay to accommodate them. Whatever ostensible benefit we gain a cost must be paid because the newcomers are not the same as those they dislodge.

Men in women’s sports bring greater physical attributes which are immediately beneficial, but the cost is the destruction of female sports.

Foreign workers may possess useful skills and they may be willing to work for lower wages or longer hours. All this is an immediate win for companies and shareholders. Comparable work for less money.

But it is known to erode wages as well as working conditions natives have often spent decades or even centuries establishing.

Even more hidden are cultural factors that do not directly affect an employer. Larger families, extended clans with unemployed dependents, incompatible cultural practices, and propensity for violence or antisocial behaviours. Dysfunctional traits that make their own countries failures travel with the immigrants even if difficult to detect in a single individual. This process becomes even more dangerous with mass immigration as everything reverts to the mean.

The giveaway is often the state of their homelands which we are told we must ignore. When we import people from a failed state we are ignoring the myriad of factors that condemn their cultures to mediocrity, many of which will be present within the immigrants themselves.

The most common not-immediately-visible effect is petty corruption, often in the form of familial or tribal nepotism. This is largely absent in Europeans and endemic with everyone else. A company designed for the European mind can be quickly destroyed by an influx of tribal nepotists under pressure to hire their own.

No matter what multiculturalists imagine about social harmony, the world is dog eat dog and the response in most locales is to protect your own. Only Europeans have “overcome” this tribalism, which is fine in a homogenous society but a handicap when competing globally, and an exploitable weakness when you import the world into your own country.

This makes us attractive to those tired of the chaos we witness elsewhere. But few of them can maintain our culture as it is a manifestation of the unique European mind.

The cost of mass importation of foreign workers can be catastrophic to the cohesion of society as the natives struggle to make it work at the same time they lose their employment opportunities and their place in society, a process that is very clearly happening across the West.

Interchangeable populations

As is now becoming apparent, people are not interchangeable. The ideas of the ruling classes and their middle-class enforcers are being tested by reality and they are failing.

A country is not a geographical territory, a country is a people with a shared heritage and origins.

We see the endless racial tensions in the USA and none of us want this.

In Britain we have witnessed unrest on the streets of England between Indian Hindus and Pakistani Muslims over issues happening thousands of miles away.

Many of the recent protests in Western cities about Gaza are driven by immigrant populations who maintain ties with the Middle East. Other countries’ wars have been imported along with foreign workers and their families.

Things feel more alien every day. Our league is being erased and replaced, and for what? GDP? Guilt?

Yet we still have aggressive advocates for skilled immigration, the deliberate importation of foreigners to compete with us in our own territory and still trying to sell it as a positive as the natives are undermined and discarded.

A country cannot be run like a business. The social cohesion to keep a society together takes centuries to form, but can be destroyed in a few decades, a process happening now in almost all Western countries.

Is it fair to compare skilled immigration to drafting men into women’s sport’s teams? Yes, because it is cheating and then pretending there is no cost.

We don’t benefit, only a limited number profit, those who make more money from lower wages as well as activists with an ideological need to undermine white societies.

Mass immigration since the 1960s has drastically changed the West. Our countries are becoming unrecognizable while the old countries many immigrants come from remain homogenous.

Many cultural groups maintain strong ties with their homelands and laugh as we fail to stop the importation of millions more who form enclaves within our midst.

All the while we are saturated with narratives selling skilled immigration to keep us quiet as if we are crazy for being uncomfortable foreigners are here taking jobs.

But the effects are bleak. Fewer employment prospects, increased domestic competition, lowered wages, aliens in our midst and the emergence of low trust societies common throughout the world. We have imported a very wide array of people and are now losing what makes us distinct, high-trust, capable nations.

It is time to halt this destructive process, and that begins by more openly discussing the considerable cost of importing foreigners to compete with us, skilled or otherwise.

---