ECONOMICS is NOT the ONLY CONSIDERATION
Even if there were some kind of economic benefit to be gained from immigration on the balance sheet, we must ask: Why should economics alone be the sole criterion in setting immigration policy?

If economics alone determined industrial policy, for example, we would have no anti-pollution laws, we would have no clean air and water laws, we would have no endangered species laws. If economics alone determined housing policy we would build nothing but high-rise blocks.

So why should economic considerations alone set our immigration policy? Immigration impacts a host of issues.

For example we need to consider among others, its impact on national resources, population levels, the environment, levels of congestion, levels of crime and violence, health, language, infrastructure such as schools and housing, and its cultural and ethnic composition, which has political and social consequences.

A model of immigration which disregards these concerns, is harmful. It means that economic immigration today will destroy our quality of life tomorrow.

  ECONOMIC MIGRATION DAMAGES the IMMIGRANT'S HOME COUNTRY
To argue that Britain needs economic migrants because of their alleged energy, talent and skills, is to ignore the flip side of that coin which is that the country they came from is going to be deprived of their energy, talent and skills. Every economic migrant who comes here is depriving his or her country of their ability, and is prolonging their own country's agony. It is irresponsible and immoral to deprive countries in this way. Economic migration on these terms is a form of piracy, which should be outlawed!

Morally speaking, developed countries should not encourage a brain drain from the developing world, especially not of those who have been described as hard working, educated and entrepreneurial.

Immigrationists need to explain why they advocate the economic piracy and brain-draining of the developing world. They need to explain why they advocate a policy guaranteed to keep the developing world in poverty.

  MIGRATION is a CONSEQUENCE of GLOBAL ECONOMIC INJUSTICE
An effective strategy to deter migration needs to consider why people are immigrating. We need to ask if the policies of our country have anything to do with creating the poverty which is pushing the migrants towards us.

If so, then a long-term solution, which should begin now, is to work to relieve, and remove, as much as we can, the economic conditions that breed the poverty. Policy should be based on helping people achieve a decent standard of living, where they live, in order that they do not have to migrate for economic purposes.

  MIGRATION is NOT a SOLUTION to GLOBAL ECONOMIC INJUSTICE
Some immigrationists point accurately to the injustice of the present global economic system. But their "solution" is to call for open borders and promote mass migration! This suggests that they are more concerned to effect demographic change in the West, than to address the roots of the economic injustice. For some, this "solution" is motivated by an anti-white animus.

Instead of imagining these problems can be solved by mass migration and demographic change in the Western world, they should be advocating cancellation of international debts, localised economic policies, and national economic freedom from the IMF, World Bank and WTO, while acknowledging the moral principle and democratic imperative that every People of every Nation have the absolute right to control their borders -- physical, economic and ideological.

To deny this to the People is immoral and anti-democratic, and when it is motivated by an anti-white animus, then it is also hateful.

  REDUCE POPULATION PRESSURE WORLDWIDE
We need also to address the population pressures throughout the developing world, which are forcing people to the West. Stabilising and reducing this pressure is necessary and possible.

We do this by supporting and promoting policies in the developing world which will empower women, provide access to family planning assistance, and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls.

The people who promote open borders and migration, either as an imagined "solution" to global economic injustice, or population pressure, or because they want to effect demographic change in the Western world, are in the wrong. Here are some of their frequently heard myths:

"We need economic migrants to keep the Health Service going"
The only reason nurses from Asia are being imported is because we don't, and won't, pay a living wage to nurses from this country. This is a new form of 21st century slavery. Britain abolished the Atlantic slave trade. Let's not start a new version.

Why are we importing teachers when we have teachers on the dole? It's not because we have a shortage of labour. It's because we have a shortage of people willing to do these jobs at the low wages offered.

"We need immigrants to pay our pensions"
Immigrants age too. Who is going to pay the pensions of the millions of immigrants who are coming to Britain and Europe? With this reasoning we will need more and more immigrants to pay the pensions of the new ones. It's a vicious circle which cannot be squared within this false economic paradigm.

"Many companies couldn't survive without immigrants"
So what! If the company is only employing immigrants then what good is it doing for anyone other than immigrants?

"Immigrants do the work we won't do"
This is not necessarily true. Are we to believe that without any immigrants we would have no cafes, no waiters, no cleaners. Of course not. The only reason immigrants are doing these jobs is because they don't pay well enough for indigenous people to accept them.

Relying on immigrants to do this work is a form of slavery. Instituting a modern form of slavery is immoral. It is not a sign of a progressive society. It is certainly not something of which we should be proud. Instead, it is morally right to do our own drudgery work.

"Britain has been one of the foremost exporters of 'economic migrants' in history. What right have we to speak against this process today?"
The benefits of British emigration tell us something about the value of British people at a particular time and place in history, but tell us nothing about the value of immigrants to this country today.

The British left in small numbers over a long period of time to build new nations on some of the largest and emptiest continents on earth.

In contrast, immigrants and asylum seekers arrive here, in large numbers, every day, to an already existing nation which is one of the smallest and most over-populated on earth.

It took great effort, and much hardship, for the British to populate largely virgin continents. No virgin continents await today, and advances in communication and transport mean that huge numbers of people are available to move at little expense, and in relative ease, anywhere in a matter of hours.

And let's look at the numbers: The British experience of the past doesn't compare in any way. For example, over the 58 years between 1717-1775, Scots emigration to North America totalled approximately 70,000-80,000 (David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America, [Oxford University Press paperback, 1991] p. 609). That is less than the number of people who applied for asylum in Britain in the year 2000 alone.

The lesson is: If we really want to use history as a guide, we should be closing the door, not opening it wider.

"Many economic migrants are highly skilled and have a lot to offer"
Again, this demonstrates the extent to which their home countries are missing out on their talent and skills. If a talented person flees his or her homeland then they become part of their home country's problem, not part of the solution.

"Immigrants create jobs. Look at Marks and Spencer, for example"
Simply because a tiny handful of past immigrants went on to found high street chainstores, does not mean that all immigrants are potentially able to do this, will do this, or that it is something only immigrants can do.

If there is a genuine need for more shops and businesses then that need will be met, without the help of immigrants.

Secondly, because something happened in the past does not mean it will happen again.

And thirdly, in the past, levels of immigration were much lower and there were periods of almost zero immigration, where new immigrants had the time to settle and assimilate into society.

"When economic migrants are forced to enter illegally, they become prey to criminal traffickers, and so the answer is to make it easier for them to apply for entry legally"
Are we to believe that all illegal immigrants, many of whom do not even speak English, would be granted admission if they applied legally?

So long as there are any kinds of border controls whatsoever, then there will always be people attempting to enter Britain illegally. That is because such people simply have no skills to offer legally.

If we really wanted to cut out criminal traffickers then we would simply open the doors wide so everybody could enter in ease, and that is the inevitable logic of this kind of thinking. That would be the irresponsible and immoral act of a government, which had abdicated any concern for the political, social, cultural, environmental and quality of life consequences of its policies.

"But surely the Ugandan Asians are an example of how important and successful 'economic migrants' can be"
Granted, many have made successful lives for themselves, but it remains a fact that the well-being of the economy was not, and is not, dependent upon the Ugandan Asians, or indeed any specific immigrant population.

Such immigrants may make successful lives for themselves and contribute to the economy, but that doesn't mean that their presence is necessary for the wellbeing of the economy.

In short, harping on about the success of some individual immigrants is a case of missing the forest for the trees.

The forest is mass immigration and it is transforming society.

  TO CONCLUDE
  A Sustainable Immigration Programme is an Immigration Programme guided by the Moral Principles outlined in our Declaration, which includes affirming the absolute right of every People of every Nation to control their borders.
  A Sustainable Immigration Programme acknowledges global economic injustice, and works to deliver global economic justice, while acknowledging that migration is not a sustainable solution either to poverty or population pressure.