Migrants should assimilate and swear oaths of loyalty, says new UK report
A report compiled by the Department for Communities and Local Government exposes the truth about the harmful social and cultural effects of unsustainable immigration and political correctness. Undertaken by Dame Louise Casey, it not only highlights the dangers resulting from a lack of assimilation, but also recommends the introduction of oaths for migrants to pledge loyalty to Britain. Casey explicitly blames political correctness for the current social and cultural issues that characterise a turbulent United Kingdom. This is in addition to the problems posed by current immigration levels to British society. The report focuses on the need for assimilation by migrants in order to avoid further tension.
The incompatibility of various foreign cultures and religions with a native culture is a major problem characterising immigration in the Western world. The report underlines the concerns regarding this problem, stating that some “cultural and religious practices in communities…run contrary to British values and sometimes our laws”. Evidence, as cited in the report, suggests that immigration has resulted in greater divisiveness and more anti-immigration sentiments, with “negative judgements about the cultural impact of migration” increasing from 33% to 48%. In 2011, 60% of respondents in a NatCen Social Research study perceived the settlements of migrants as negative.
Such opinions are well justified considering the fact that over 100 000 British Muslims “sympathise with suicide bombers”, 52% believe homosexuality should be illegal and 1 in 4 support the 7/7 London attacks. This even explains why more than half of those who actually perceive migration as beneficial still want lower migration levels, as stated in the report. It also helps understand controversial poll results, such as a YouGov poll showing that 55% of British adults perceive a “fundamental clash” between Islam and British values. These findings sent alarm bells ringing within the left-wing. The left likes to react to these polls with its usual rampage that includes keywords such as “racist” and “Islamaphobic”, which further contributes to social division.
The fact that many British Muslims are “expressing greater sympathy for violent extremist action”, along with a correlation between such Muslims with Muslims who deviate from British values, is adding to greater divisiveness according to the report. This phenomenon comes as no surprise to the right, which has always issued warnings and emphasised caution when it comes to migration, particularly Muslim migration. With more than half of British Muslims deviating from British values in a number of areas, the positive relationship between the number of those who deviate and the number of those support terrorism is strikingly concerning.
The report also states that various communities and local governments have been unable to effectively handle an unforeseeable amount of new migrants, and “the pressures they faced in their communities as a result of high numbers of asylum seeker placements and refugees”. Apart from highlighting the unsustainable nature of maintaining current migration levels, this emphasises the reckless nature of high migration levels due to the unnecessary demands it places on the British people.
However, it should be noted that, according to the report, social and economic exclusion are also factors contributing to social tensions, as logic would dictate. However, how is a society expected to cooperate with migrants who pose a threat to its people? How could various statesmen, particularly those on the left, expect native British people to welcome such people with open arms? This dilemma brings to light a fundamental problem with today’s Western society, which Casey elaborates upon:
Too few leaders in public office have dealt with this key issue, perhaps hoping it might change or worrying about being labelled racist; or indeed fearing that they will lose the support of minority communities…Too many public institutions, national and local, state and non-state, have gone so far to accommodate diversity and freedom of expression that they have ignored or even condoned regressive, divisive and harmful cultural and religious practices, for fear of being branded racist or Islamophobic.
And therein lies an essential part of the answer related to today’s problems regarding immigration in the Western world. The same issue was discussed in an earlier study also headed by Dame Louise Casey, which was followed by a damning report saying that Britain will lose its culture if political correctness prevailed. One part of the answer lies in controlling the UK’s borders and reducing the intake of migrants so as to ensure the preservation of the kingdom’s culture. The other part involves the eradication of political correctness in order to foster constructive discussion as a method of solving the current crisis of migrant assimilation and lack of social unity.
The report cites Ted Cantle’s final Community Cohesion Panel study in 2004, which emphasised the need to avoid condemning opposition to migration as “racist”. The left’s infamous use of such labels to shut down free speech and prevent open dialogue is not only divisive, it has emboldened more and more people to join a movement against political correctness. It has contributed to the dramatic increase in supporters of the alt-right movement, as well as contributed to actual racism. The regressive left’s words and actions has directly contributed to the growth of the exact thing they were trying to suppress. This should not be viewed as a bad thing, it should be heralded as the main force guarding and protecting Western civilisation.
Casey’s report provides various recommendations to tackling this issue, such as promoting the English language, focusing on British values, and introduce an ‘Oath of Integration with British Values and Society’. Furthermore, Casey provides further advice to increase “standards of leadership and integrity in public office”, including a new oath for public office holders and a greater effort by public office holders to “ensure these values are enshrined in the principles of public life”.
Dame Louise Casey and the Department for Communities and Local Government are making a fundamental contribution to a currently divisive British society by publicising these findings. The report raises awareness on the disastrous impacts of political correctness on social structures and cultural foundations, and while not stating explicitly, provides information that justifies the questioning of current migration intake. Migration levels must be reduced in order to preserve British culture and traditions, as well as protect Britain’s ethnic identity. While certain levels of migration are tolerable, the government must ensure that native citizens are treated well and prioritised over migrants during appropriate circumstances. Assimilation and allegiance to the kingdom are important values that must be excepted from migrants, as migrants would expect from British people who are migrating to their countries of origin.
About The Author