Too often in recent years the call for a rational debate on mass migration has degenerated into name-calling and charges of racism. Even the campaign for Balanced Migration, which I have supported, representing cross-party politicians, has barely been heeded by party leaders who have run scared of the issue.
This is why we have launched a declaration calling on the leading political parties to make manifesto commitments to prevent the UK population reaching 70 million, which is projected in official figures by 2029.
The fact is that a rise in the UK population by ten million in two decades will put our nation’s resources under considerable strain, stretching almost to breaking point the enormous reserves of tolerance and generosity of the British people.
The declaration by no means spells out a halt to immigration. In fact we welcome the contribution of both economic migrants and asylum seekers to our lively cosmopolitan culture. But we urge a return to the levels of the early 1990s, about 40,000, compared with 163,000 in 2008. Failure to take that action could be seriously damaging to the future harmony of our society.
Agreed.
Does anyone at all recognize the inherent racism of this headline?
Certain strains of actual DNA were once thought to threaten Germany.
“DNA” as a synonym for culture needs to be deep-sixed.
Spot on, Br’er Rabbit. A curious cod-science of eugenics in Germany around 1900 onwards believed that there was an inherent link between the cell, the individual, the community and the nation. Hence the Nazi phrase ‘Blood and Soil’. I am certain that Lord Carey would have nothing to do with such nonsense, and he is clearly opposed to the British National Party. But he does use the phrase DNA in the article, perhaps aware that the other word he uses, ‘ethos’, comes from the Greek and might not mean very much even to readers of The Times. Still, as you say, it would be wise to stay away from such usage.
It’s ethos that he’s comparing to DNA, as determining what kind of nation GB is going to be in the future, my friends, not putative skin-tone. The English are extremely mixed, genetically, and tend to be class-based in their prejudices, and less so vis a vis skin tone, which is a particular American obsession.
Thanks, Terry,
and I’m sure you’re right, Senior. But his use of the currently popular “DNA” catch-word in his article invites the short-sighted shorthand of the ubiquitous headline writers, which in this case can invite the intentional misinterpretation by the minorities to which he implicitly refers.
I really like and respect Lord Carey. I realize that he is a member of the House of Lords, which participates in the governing of Great Britain. Still though I wish that he would focus on the preaching of the Word. One was to look at immigration is that it presents an incredible opportunity to share our Christian faith with so many from all over the World.
“The English are extremely mixed, genetically, and tend to be class-based in their prejudices, and less so vis a vis skin tone, which is a particular American obsession.”
The first statement isn’t true, at least historically; prior to 1960, the ‘English’ were very homogeneous and had been since the Norman invasion – the arrival of French Huguenots in the 17th century and East European Jews in the 19th were the only significant changes to the genetic stock of the country in 900 years.
Amazingly, Carey gets through the whole article without using the M word – which is what he is really talking about; towards the end he does talk about the dangers of Sharia law in the UK.
The problem isn’t really overpopulation – although England is very crowded; it’s the fact that it is becoming increasingly non-English.
Incorrect, azusa #7- Current YDNA studies show Celtic, Roman (including Greek, and so forth), Angle, Saxon, Jute, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, (Norman period) French, (post revocation of the Edict of Nantes – I know lots of people whose male line ancestors came then – many of the farmers in my former rural parish, as a matter of fact) French, Dutch (I have several friends whose male-line ancestors came over from the Netherlands with William III), (Georgian) German, etc, etc ancestry for the English people. There’s one Somerset dairy farmer whose YDNA is indubitably African though his ancestors have lived in his village for hundreds of years. The supposition is that his ancestor came over with the Romans. I have two friends in England who are descended from Pocahontas as well as Charles II. One could go on proving my point ad infinitum. However, prior to the ’60s, England had a homogeneous culture, which should have been rigorously maintained.
An afterthought, if I may. The article talks about the United Kingdom ie Britain. Contrast, if you will, the way the bloggers above talk about England. The two are not the same. I sometimes wonder if part of our difficulties with national pride in Britain are to do with the fact that we have four distinct national communities. We have successfully arrived at an enhanced British identity enriched by people of Caribbean, African and Asian descent. But, somehow, the idea of being English remains associated with something more exclusive, as Senior Priest unwittingly illustrates above. (The English soccer/football team would be an exception to this.)
Don’t know why this should seem controversial. Britain is certainly not nearly as noticable “British” as it was when I first visited in the early ’70s. Of course, we’re no longer the same nation we were then either, and for much the same reason. Unbridled immigration. In the case of the UK it may be legal and in the case of the Us largely illegal, but failure to impose strict limits has changed the face of both nations (and the rest of western Europe) to a remarkable degree.
#8: no, I think you made my point for me – as I said, the Celts etc to Normans were all up to 1066, while the Huguenots and Jews came after in two distinct waves. The Huguenots assimilated pretty fully, the Jews less so – but most now ‘marry out’, so British Jewry looks fairly parlous now, % wise, immigration from outside the UK was not really significant until c. 1960, and those who had come before were mainly white Christian Europeans.