So, what has Britain got out of the expenditure of more than four hundred British lives, seven thousand grievously maimed, thousands traumatised and countless billions of pounds flushed down the drain?
Well, we’ve got yet another mass immigration of people alien in race, religion and culture. Anything else? It’s hard to think of anything except the pitiful spectacle of one or two MPs making tearful exhibitions of themselves in the House of Commons. All for a country which is not worth the price of a single bullet – alright, I know Afghanistan is said to be rich in copper, lithium and other minerals, but it’s the Chinese who will reap the benefit of those riches, if they in turn do not get bogged down in that hideous quagmire ( somehow I doubt if the Chinese would be so unwise as to try to convert the Afghans to the “blessings” of liberal democracy).
What advantages can we expect from this new mass immigration? Well, our maternity hospitals can certainly expect plenty of new business. Afghanistan has one of the highest birth rates in the world with an average population age of 19, compared with 47 in Britain. No doubt you’ll have seen the news reports that local authorities must find “large” houses to accommodate the new arrivals – the average Afghan family arriving at Heathrow in the airlift had seven members, and one family was reported to have twenty members. It’s just as well that we don’t have a shortage of housing in Britain.
It doesn’t stop when they get here: in 2015 the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported that Afghan women had the highest birth rate in England and Wales, but as the population was then so small the actual numbers of births was insignificant. But that was then, all of six years ago. ONS has recently reported that among children born in England and Wales with foreign fathers, Afghan fathers had moved into the top ten. Afghan born people (as distinct from their children born in this country) have increased from 15,000 in 2001 to 62,000 in 2011 and to 79,000 in 2019. These are all official figures and therefore to be taken with a large pinch of salt, but they certainly won’t be lower; what they do illustrate is the rapid multiplication of the Afghan population in this country. As the majority of these people will have arrived since the original overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, probably as asylum seekers, we have to wonder what persecution they were suffering in western-ruled Afghanistan? Clearly, whatever it was, it wasn’t so bad that they couldn’t go back for visits.
Now another 16,000 have arrived under “Arap”, the resettlement scheme for Afghan interpreters, contractors etc. Originally, we were told that 7,000 were eligible but somehow that figure has more than doubled and, we are now told, there may be as many as a further 5000 eligible to come to our poor old homeland if they can get out of Afghanistan. And another 20,000 are to be resettled over the next few years under another scheme – Priti Patel says that many more “may” come, I doubt if there’s any “may” about it.
Britain’s Imperial history should have given ample warning of the folly of intervening in Afghanistan; it is said that when handing over the office of Prime Minister to Alec Douglas-Home in 1963, Harold McMillan assured him that “so long as you don’t invade Afghanistan, you’ll be fine”. Sadly, it’s a lesson we’ve had to relearn. Anyway, the wisdom or otherwise of the intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 is now water under the bridge.
But we should still be asking ourselves “should we be housing all these people?” Clearly we do owe a duty to those the Taliban regard as collaborators with the occupying power. But why here? Surely they should be re-housed in neighbouring countries with a compatible culture – in Pakistan (the original home of the Taliban), in Iran, in Tajikistan, in Uzbekistan. That is the course which the EU intends to follow, so why not us? As for the other 20,000 to be admitted over the next few years, following the 20,000 Syrians admitted in 2015/ 2019, there is no reason whatsoever for them to be accommodated in Britain beyond the compulsive virtue signalling of a centre-left political establishment.
The Spectator magazine published a piece by Lionel Shriver on the 28th August. Picking up on the theme of this imminent immigration from Afghanistan, Shriver also referenced the three reports recently published by Migration Watch detailing the dire effect on Britain of the last two decades of mass immigration. I can do no better than to quote these two paragraphs from Shriver’s article:-
“Unsurprisingly then, a third of British schoolchildren are already from ethnic minorities; in 20 years, ethnic minority children will constitute more than half the students in state schools. As of 2018, 90% of immigrants were under 45. That means that the ethnic transformation of the UK, whose white population is far older, is destined rapidly to accelerate.
“Even delivering these dry statistics feels dangerous. As for their implications, none of you readers is supposed to care. In particular, white Britons who greet these figures with anything short of delight know perfectly well to keep their traps shut. The lineages of white Britons in their homeland commonly go back hundreds of years. Yet for the country’s original inhabitants to confront becoming a minority in the UK (perhaps in the 2060s) with any hint of mournfulness, much less consternation, is now racist and beyond the pale. I submit: that proscription is socially, and even biologically, unnatural.”