The sentencing of Axel Rudakubana is the latest reason to think ill of British immigration policy. The official response to the evil crimes of this evil man has been wholly predictable. Rather than addressing the causes of these crimes, the ruling class has deflected blame, offering minor administrative tweaks while refusing to confess the failures of mass immigration.

Rudakubana’s crimes were entirely preventable. His family’s admission to Britain remains unexplained, and the results were catastrophic. His father, a former Rwandan military officer, allowed his son to accumulate weapons and poison under the same roof, yet the authorities acted only after lives were lost. Even then, their priority was to protect Rudakubana’s parents, moving them to a “secret location” at public expense.

The Southport killings are not an anomaly. Violent crimes disproportionately involve immigrants or their descendants, from common assaults to stabbings and murders. Recent cases include a Kuwaiti asylum seeker paralysing a bride-to-be, a Zimbabwean murdering his partner, and Trinidadian drug dealers heaping up weapons alongside their stock—for the avoidance of doubt, drugs should be legal: this does not make the present dealers in drugs other than human trash. These crimes are not exceptions; they are the inevitable consequences of policies that put immigration by the undesirable before public safety—public safety in terms of the immediate facts, public safety in the widest sense.

Now, if you look at my name and photograph, you may ask what I, of all people, can have against immigration. The answer is that, if my ancestors were Chinese, and if I am proud of that most impressive achievement which is Chinese civilisation, I was born in England, and I am glad of that. When they left China, my parents might have settled anywhere. I doubt they would have tried their luck in Turkey or Russia. But I might have been a Frenchman, or a German or Italian. I take it to their credit that I am an Englishman. It is my right and my duty to speak out in defence of the nation of which I am a voluntary member. And I am not denouncing some accident, but a deliberate policy of the ruling class—a policy to enable and encourage the importation of people with little ability or inclination to adapt to an advanced society.

Yes—mass-immigration is not the modern equivalent of what people commonly believe about the barbarian invasions of the fourth and fifth centuries: floods of people overwhelming the best efforts of the authorities to keep them out. The British ruling class could easily enforce sensible immigration controls, admitting only those who contribute to Britain and respect its traditional values. Mass-immigration is the chosen policy of a ruling class that may actively hate the British people. I believe that it does—but this is not a necessary belief to explain what is happening. It is enough to say that the ruling class is simply indifferent to the welfare and survival of the British people. Mass-immigration serves its interests, creating a fractured society that is easier to control and providing a steady supply of cheap labour—that is, when the incomers show any inclination to live at other than the taxpayers’ expense. The resulting crime and social instability are not unintended consequences: they are features. A population that fears crime or struggles to put food on the table and to keep warm in winter has little time or energy to challenge its rulers. In the long term, reducing the British to a minority in their own country will ensure they can never mount an effective resistance.

The contrast with China is striking. For all its terrible record before 1980 and in some degree since then, the Chinese ruling class would never consider making its own people a minority in their homeland. Its members act ruthlessly to preserve their dominance, but their dominance is always intended to be over a unified and stable society of the Chinese. Britain’s rulers, by comparison, appear intent on dismantling the nation, using London as their base while neutering opposition from the country at large.

A truth accepted in all times and places outside the modern West is that a nation has the right to protect its identity and ensure the safety of its citizens. And its rulers draw legitimacy from their willingness and ability to discharge their corresponding duty. I am sometimes astonished how the British people have tolerated this refusal of duty. In part, it is an effect of fear. The prisons are filling up even now with men who spoke out of turn after the Southport killings. Hardly anyone else wants to risk joining them. But, even before the police state really bared its teeth, opposition was feeble. For this I suppose we can blame the ludicrous but established ideologies that go under the generic name of political correctness. For three generations, these have been propagated for the express purpose of blurring perception of an otherwise clear truth: dividimus muros et moenia pandimus urbis….scandit fatalis machina muros feta armis.

The Southport killings are a grim reminder of the consequences of ignoring this truth. They are part of a broader pattern that will continue until the British people demand change. If they fail to act, they will find themselves powerless—a minority in their own country, betrayed by those who should have protected them.