The more advanced liberal internationalists justify mass immigration into the UK by saying something along the lines of “We went to their countries when we had an empire, now it is only right they should come here”. Leaving aside the fact of mass white immigration from the EU to UK which has no colonial implications, the claim that those from countries colonised by Britain with black and Asian populations are now simply returning the compliment ignores the fact that Britain acted an Imperial power and mass immigration to the UK can only occur because the British elite permit it and they have done so against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the native population. Moreover, there is also an awkward statistic which is ignored in the liberal’s false equation: the number of white Britons in most of the British Empire was very small. The British Raj in India is the best example of this.
The 1921 census of the Indian Empire (which included Burma and the states which became Pakistan and Bangladesh) showed a total population of 318,492,480. The total British (white) population was 115,606. This represented 0.036% of the population or one white for every 2755 Asians.
The total population of the UK in the 2001 census was 58.8 million (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=455)
The majority of the UK population in 2001 were White (92 per cent). The remaining 4.6 million (or 7.9 per cent) people belonged to other ethnic groups. There were 2,083,759 people of Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi origin . This represents 3.5% of the population of Britain or one subcontinental Asian for every 28 whites. The figures must have been significantly understated because of illegal immigration and the fact that the census relied on self-reporting of racial type. In addition, it is probable that quite a few of the “Mixed” and “Other Asian” categories – who comprise 924,781 individuals – have some sub-continental ancestry. The true 2001 total of sub-continental Asians may well have been nearer 3 million than 2 million.
With another ten years of mass immigration and higher breeding rates amongst those with sub-continental ancestry – due to differing cultural norms and the young population profile of those with sub-continental antecedents – it is not unreasonable in 2011 to think in terms of a sub-continental population in the UK of 3 million. Indeed, that is probably a conservative estimate. However, even if the figure is 3 million in a UK population now estimated at around 62 million (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=6), that represents 5% of the UK population or approximately one sub-continental Asian for every 20 whites.
The total subcontinental population of the area covered by the Raj – India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma – is around 1.6 billion today. If whites were represented in that population in the same proportion as subcontinental Asians are in the UK population today (assuming 3 million is a good estimate of the UK sub continental derived population) , that would mean 80 million whites on the subcontinent. Does anyone imagine that the peoples of the subcontinent would accept that?
It is also true that the nature of the two settlements is not comparable. The Imperial British in the sub-continent overwhelmingly did not spend their whole lives there, or bring up their children to expect a life in India. Asians in this country both intend to stay here permanently and raise their children in the expectation that they will remain here.Settlement on the scale of sub-continental Asians in modern Britain is a form of conquest because the numbers are great enough to allow the immigrant groups to set up culturally separate communities within Britain, communities which are at best quietly unengaged with British society and at worst actively hostile to it. It is an insidious form of conquest.
The profound impact that post war mass immigration has had on the UK generally and England in particular is shown most dramatically by the comparison between Britons in the sub-continent at the height of the Raj and Asians from the sub-continent in the UK now. But non-white immigration goes far beyond sub-continental Asians. The 2001 census showed 7.9% of the population as non-white. That was an underestimate because illegal immigrants would not return the census and the question on ethnicity was voluntary. With higher breeding rates in the non-white population than in the white population of the UK and continuing mass immigration over the past ten years, it is probable that the percentage of non-whites in the UK population is now in the region of 10-12%.
The 1991 census showed that “In Great Britain the number of people who came from an ethnic group other than White grew by 53 per cent between 1991 and 2001, from 3.0 million in 1991 to 4.6 million in 2001. In 1991 ethnic group data were not collected on the Northern Ireland Census.” (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=455). If the current percentage of non-whites is 10%, that would mean there are over 6.0 million non-whites now in the UK, a doubling in twenty years. If the same rate of increase is maintained over the next twenty years, by then more than twenty per cent of the UK population would be non-white. Is that what the native population of Britain really wants?