BNP Immigration policy - something tells me it's not just about immigrants

I have a policy of not linking to the BNP's website. If you want to see the BNP documents I'm referencing here, google 'Preserving British Identity: The British National Party’s Immigration Policy' and 'Countering the smears'.

You know, it's weird taking apart a BNP document about their immigration policy. Normally, trying to make head or tail of a political party's policy statements is an exercise in stripping out the jargon and meaningless glittering generalities to try to arrive at the core of what the party will actually do. How will they 'get tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime'? What does 'vote for change' mean? What changes? That sort of thing.

You have the same sort of thing with the BNP, of course, but on top of that you have the added layer of wondering what they've left out and what the words they're using actually mean.

This isn't just idle paranoia at work. Nick Griffin has openly spoken about how the BNP's current tactic of trying to appear reasonable and normal is just a front. In an address to supporters of former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, he said:
There’s a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas. The British National Party isn’t about selling out its ideas – which are your ideas too – but we are determined now to sell them. That means to use saleable words
In the same speech, he admitted:
If you hold that [fascist policy] out as your sole aim to start with, you’re going to get nowhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity we talk about identity.
He's also given speeches explaining that attacking Muslims rather than Jews and other groups 'trying to do us down' is a tactic to get power that will work better because Muslims are in the news. Earlier this year, he appeared on Radio 4 to defend his idea that there can't be black or Asian Britons.

So we know that whatever the document appears to say probably has a darker meaning, and we know that because Nick Griffin himself has given us the decoder ring.

Using Griffin's handy hints, the very title of the BNP's 'Preserving British Identity: The British National Party’s Immigration Policy' gives us one or two problems. Remember, 'instead of talking about racial purity we talk about identity,' and when the BNP talk about things being 'British', they're not including people who arent white, who they regard as being 'racial foreigners'. Gee, I wonder if they mean anything racial with that heading?

In the bones of the policies, we get:
According to figures released by the Office for National Statistics, at least eleven percent of all people living in Britain today were born overseas. This figure does not include their second or third generation children.
Well done to the BNP for spotting that figures for the number of people in the UK born overseas doesn't include people not born overseas. It must've come as a shock when they realised that.Joking aside, the document goes on to say the following (I've stuck what the real meaning might be in square brackets):
All these facts point inexorably to the overwhelming and extinguishing of Britain and British identity [racial purity] under a tsunami of immigration. To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people [white people - ethnic minorities aren't British] retain their homeland and identity [racial purity], we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants [including second and third generation children] who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin [when we say 'immigrant' we really mean 'ethnic minorities'] assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question.
Quite apart from the coded language here, this begs a couple of questions.

What are the 'generous financial incentives'? What happens if nobody takes them? What if the scheme doesn't reduce the numbers of dark skinned people by enough. In another BNP document, 'Countering the Smears', they talk about reducing the number of ethnic minorities to no more than 2-3% in any given area. Given that in some areas, the level of ethnic minorities is approaching 50%, that's a whole heck of a lot of people to get rid of. That leads to a couple of questions - first, why haven't they been up front about that level in this document, and second, what do they do if their undefined financial incentives to leave don't work? If you get a chance in an online discussion or something to ask a BNP person that question, please ask them. You won't get an answer.

We will also clamp down on the flood of ‘asylum seekers’, all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries.
This category would have excluded Jews fleeing Nazi Germany and defectors from the Soviet Union. Nice.

After a bit more waffling on about racial purity identity, they go on to say:
Can anyone imagine Saudi Arabia allowing the mass immigration of Christians, so that in a few decades it would no longer be an Islamic country?
Nice, subtle focusing on Islam. But remember, Nick Griffin himself has told us that they only do this because Muslims are in the news, and if the BNP attacked the other ethnic groups who are 'trying to do us down', we'd think they were a bunch of nutters.

All it means is that they [other countries who want to retain an identity] wish to preserve their identity and national existence.

This is all the British National Party seeks for Britain - the right to be British.

All they want is the right for Britain to remain British. But remember, to them Theo Walcott, David James and Amir Khan aren't British. They're racial foreigners. And remember - according to Griffin himself, the BNP talk about identity instead of racial purity.

To round up - the list of published policies:

- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally; [How is this different from current policy? How will the BNP find out who's illegal?]

- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British; [What if their countryt of origin refuses to take them?]

- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate; [Does this mean 'still appropriate given the BNP's new rules for who qualifies for citizenship'? Can refugees who were successfully granted asylum expect to be sent away? What about other people here perfectly legally?]

- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently; [How generous? What happens to people who don't take the offer?]

- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases; [What is an 'exceptional case'? Are people actually born here to be counted as 'immigrants'?]

- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain. [That translates to e'every asylum seeker', since the countries immediately adjacent to us are stable].

There are a lot of unanswered questions here, and they're questions that never will be answered. Because, as Nick Griffin himself said, The BNP are trying to sell you policies that they're keeping to themselves. They're not about telling us what those policies actually are.

For more about other BNP policies, see 'Fisking the BNP's published policies' at Bloggerheads.


No Sleep 'Til Brooklands said...

"Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases; [What is an 'exceptional case'? Are people actually born here to be counted as 'immigrants'?]"

I'd love to see what an 'exceptional case' represents, given that the BNP were just about the only party to vocally oppose settlement rights for the Gurkhas.

"Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain. [That translates to e'every asylum seeker', since the countries immediately adjacent to us are stable]"

A worrying number of 'serious' commentators use this gambit too, knowing full well that adherence to the 'first safe country' principle would mean, what, the odd Irishman with a serious claim to being targeted by the IRA? Everyone knows that applying such a principle would mean countries bordering on war-torn nations getting all the immigrants and Britain getting zero.

Spudman101 said...

I wonder if we could offer 'generous financial incentives' to members of the BNP and have them leave the country instead?

I would donate money to that cause.