Thursday, December 31, 2009

Blast from the Past: Thatcher on Immigration

Here are a couple of great articles, sent in to us by our friend Lime.

Interestingly, the prophetic Enoch Powell accurately predicted the numbers back in the 1950s..


Story Image

Thatcher privately voiced grave concerns 30 years ago

MARGARET Thatcher privately voiced grave concerns about the numbers of immigrants arriving in Britain 30 years ago, confidential Cabinet papers reveal today.

In a foretaste of the current ­controversies over border controls, the former Tory Prime Minister insisted that “too many” people were being let into the country.

Mrs Thatcher expressed anger that many newcomers got council houses at the expense of “white citizens”.

And she even suggested liberal proponents of more immigration should be invited to provide accommodation in their home. [very good... -ed.]

Her forthright views on race and immigration, expressed to senior ­Cabinet colleagues in her first year in Downing Street, are revealed in documents released under the 30-year rule from the National Archives at Kew, west London.

Her demands for strict limits on immigration were rejected by her Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington and Home Secretary Willie Whitelaw.

But her views will today be seen as prescient given the intense debate over the policies of mass immigration and multiculturalism pursued by Labour.

Indeed ­contemporary critics of Labour’s ­border controls are almost certain to regret that her warnings were not more seriously heeded.

Mrs Thatcher, the “Iron Lady”, raised her concerns at the height of the influx of so-called “boat ­people” from South East Asia at the end of the 1970s. Hundreds of thousands were fleeing to the West from ­brutal communist rulers in Vietnam.

Whitehall minutes of a meeting in July 1979 between Mrs Thatcher and her two senior colleagues paint a vivid picture of conditions in ­refugee camps Lord Carrington had visited in Hong Kong.

He suggested Britain should accept 10,000 refugees over two years and was concerned that if the UK did not come forward with a significant offer, there would be a “damaging reaction” both at home and abroad. Anything less than 10,000, he said, would be “difficult to sustain internationally”.

The suggestion drew an angry response from Mrs Thatcher who said there were already too many people coming into the country.

She said that “with some exceptions” there had been no humanitarian case for accepting 1.5 million immigrants from South East Asia and elsewhere. It was essential to draw a line somewhere. Mr Whitelaw intervened saying that categorising refugees with immigrants in general was mistaken.

He further antagonised Mrs Thatcher by adding that his constituency post was showing a shift in opinion in favour of accepting more boat people.

Mrs Thatcher then raised the issue of an expected exodus of white settlers from Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, once majority rule was established. She said she had “less objection to refugees such as Rhodesians, Poles and Hungarians, since they could be more easily be assimilated into British society”.

Now Baroness Thatcher, she celebra­ted her 83rd birthday in ­October.

And from the Telegraph:

The Thatcher papers: 30 years ago, we had a proper Prime Minister

Wasn’t she brilliant? As the release of documents under the 30-year rule demonstrates, no sooner had Margaret Thatcher arrived in Downing Street than she started blazing away at this country’s enemies – many of them ostensible allies.

She told the wretched Giscard d’Estaing that Britain would henceforth decline to be ripped off by the EEC.

She laid in to “President” Jimmy Carter for handicapping Britain’s attempts to control terrorism in Northern Ireland.

She condemned the American public’s disgusting support for the IRA.

She attacked the Republic of Ireland for failing to protect Lord Mountbatten from his murderers.

And when Kosygyn told her that the Soviet Union was a peace-loving country, she laughed in his face.

In short, she was magnificent – and the last British prime minister worthy of the office.

11 Opinion(s):

Islandshark said...

Thatcher & Reagan - had South Africa any leaders of this stature, things might have been different.

Islandshark said...

Ahhhh yes, old Jimmy. The most obnoxious being the white race has produced, with the Kennedys a close second.

Anonymous said...

If anyone is in any doubt...

This man would have saved the world... From Kaffirs at least.

Viva White Pride!

Anonymous said...

Thatcher and Pik Botha are very good friends and we know they are New World Order.

Just a sham!

Anonymous said...

It is really quite disturbing to learn that a PM cannot get sensible views on immigration accepted by a right wing party.

I am trying to come to grips with the explanation for mass-immigration; is it because the "thought-leaders" are accountable only to "the international community", or because of something more unsavoury? Does anyone know? Or care? Certainly, no electorate on earth would willingly vote for it.


Viking said...


I think there are multiple reasons, and am halfway through a great book on the subject right now (review to follow) which analyses those reasons very well.
On the other hand I think there is a sense of despair about what previous governments did in inviting such large numbers of incompatibles to our countries.
The charitable view is that they miscalculated, and assumed the newcomers would go home after a while, and didn't realise that their children would, uniquely, become LESS integrated than their parents had.

Liberals are still waiting around for Muslims to 'integrate' !

Anonymous said...

They will never integrate. Why would they? It is utterly against their principles.


Viking said...


We like to think of religion as something private, which should be allowed to influence 'society' (which is what Mrs.Thatcher said, incidentally), and liberals get frustrated the Muslims don't embrace our Enlightenment category-boundaries!

as you say, why would they? Particularly then they want to integrate us to Islam! And it's working, too. thousands of Europeans are converting each year to Islam, some to extremist forms. Why not? Islam is strong, coherent and anti-modernist. Prevailing liberal-multiculturalism is, in comparison, weak and pathetic. What chance is there when we don't believe in anything?

Interesting, Muslim in Europe, when polled have infinitely more respect for hardline Christians than for multi-culti know-nothings.

Viking said...

sorry, that should be "...shouldN'T be allowed to..."

Anonymous said...

Those were the days.....

Anonymous said...

It will come to a head soon.