www.

Roots of Radicalism

.com

Goodhart re-opens the debate

MIKE STONE

THE OFFICIAL statistics for 1986 record legal immigration at its lowest level since the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962. Nationalists have recognised for some time that the growth of the non-indigenous population is due largely to its higher rate of natural increase, rather than fresh immigration. In this respect, Thatcher's promise to close immigration loopholes during the recent General Election Campaign is of little significance.

The National Front's policy of compulsory repatriation of all non-Whites is its most well known one - some ill-informed people think it is the party's sole concern. Arguments in favour of voluntary repatriation have been put forward by Enoch Powell and the Monday Club for many years now. Despite a brief mention in the 1970 Tory Election Manifesto, a sop to the Powellite elements in the party, no such scheme has ever made it onto the statute books.

The former, and now disgraced, MP for Billericay, Harvey Proctor, made a name for himself in anti-immigration circles by becoming the chief advocate of such measures. However, his private members' bill in the 1979- 83 parliament attracted very little support from backbench conservative MP's and none from the party hierarchy.

So it is a little surprising that the Conservative member for Beckenham, Sir Philip Goodhart should choose to nail his colours to the voluntary repatriation mast. As far as I'm aware Sir Philip is not linked to the Monday Club or any other organised repatriation lobby group. Yet, indeed perhaps because of this, his proposals were given great prominence by the Sunday Telegraph in a piece entitled "Subsidising the Caribbean to take back its own".

FALLS SHORT

Of course, what he is suggesting falls far short of the full blooded measures demanded by the National Front - but this is only to be expected. After all, he is a Tory MP not an NF one! However, I think his proposals deserve to be treated seriously and should be welcomed by all Nationalists as an opportunity to focus the public's attention on this subject. The value of his contribution should not be underrated since, when the subject is raised by a 'respectable' establishment figure like Sir Philip Goodhart, it can't be so easily dismissed by opponents.

Powell, despite his reputation as a distinguished parliamentarian, is a political loner and has not been taken very seriously in recent years. And if we are honest, we have to admit that the National Front, even at its peak, failed to achieve the political credibility necessary for influencing the policy process. When its leadership was discredited in 1978, it was easy for the mass media to dismiss its programme as 'extremist' or just to ignore it.

The trouble with voluntary repatriation – what if they don't all volunteer?

Since the above does not apply to the Member for Beckenham and there has been no hint of the scandal attached to Harvey Proctor, One can only hope that his proposals do not suffer the same fate. The Goodhart proposals envisage about 50,000 West Indians returning home to the Caribbean each year over an unspecified period, depending on the demand for this scheme. As an inducement, a figure of around £5,000 plus the right to draw unemployment benefit in the West Indies for a limited period would be offered.

While many Racial-Nationalists may consider this too generous, it is probably a realistic package – considering the fact that many West Indians in the inner cities are in any case long-term unemployed who would receive this benefit if they were still here. Nor is £5,000 an enormous sum for a family starting life again in another country these days.

It is tempting to compare this offer to the position of White Rhodesians – many of whom were only able to take out £1,000, or even less, of their own savings. However, there is little point in being vindictive. The West Indian community cannot be blamed for taking advantage of our lack of immigration controls during the 1950's and '60's. If widespread support is to be mobilised for a repatriation scheme it can not be too 'extremist'. This is not to say that the Goodhart proposals are satisfactory as they stand.

Any proposed scheme must not be restricted to immigrants and their descendants from the West Indies. The single largest source of current non-white immigration is made up of relatives of existing immigrants from the Indian sub-continent, particularly those from Bangladesh. Asians are also a significant source of migrant workers; some 20,000 migrant workers were admitted last year (reported on the 'World Tonight' BBC 4 radio programme, 27.7.87), many of these were Filipinos recruited to work as domestics. Apart from being used as cheap domestic labour, the latter are also favoured by certain marriage bureaus which specialise in third world brides. This phenomena has also occured in Scandinavian countries and has obvious damaging consequences for racial homogenity.

Where we must part company from Sir Philip Goodhart is over his stated desire to integrate "... the hundreds of thousands of blacks who can compete and whose path to fuller assimilation into British society is made more difficult by the angry lamentations of an unhappy minority within a minority." While it would be more popular to simply advocate the repatriation of anti-social elements among the immigrant population, this can not bring about the conditions necessary to safeguard the Anglo-Celtic character of the British people.

As the NF Statement of Policy puts it, "we recognise that the great achievements and unique character of the British people can, to a great extent, be attributed to its racial composition." So while from an individualistic perspective an employed immigrant is contributing to our society; collectively such individuals pose a threat to our national identity. The Racial Nationalist State can only accept immigrants as full citizens who are assimilable by the nation without radically altering the composition of its genepool.

"OBNOXIOUS"

In a recent Sunday Telegraph the Conservative candidate for Lambeth, Vauxhall, David Lidington, attacked the Goodhart article in a letter claiming that repatriation was "obnoxious in principle . . . irrelevant to the difficult challenge of integrating the different ethnic minorities into British life."

This comment ignores the fact that many Blacks wish to return home. A survey conducted last year by Dr Ashton Gibson, Director of the Centre for Caribbean Studies and founder of the West Indian Homeward Bound scheme, showed that of those born in the West Indies 85% wanted to go home. Surely it is beyond all reason to actually keep people in this country who would rather be back in the country of their birth!

Lambeth has among the highest readership of Flag and Vanguard of any borough in the country. The 12,345 voters who gave their support to Mr Lidington should be made aware of his pro-immigrant views and even more important – that there is an alternative in the National Front.