The Indian Government recently bundled unwanted Rohingya into a naval ship. It sailed them to their homeland, forced them overboard with life jackets. In May 2025, credible reports emerged that Indian authorities deported around 40 Rohingya refugees by tossing them into the Andaman Sea from a naval vessel, after transferring them to Port Blair under mysterious circumstances. Survivors described being treated like captives on the boat before being thrown into the water. The United Nations and Human Rights Watch protested; the BBC broadcast wails of injustice. Human Rights Watch condemned the expulsions as “unlawful”, while the UN human rights expert launched an inquiry. New Delhi ignored the noise. India has made clear that it does not intend to dissolve itself in a tide of aliens.

Britain has made the opposite clear. Migrants land daily on the Kent coast. As of 20 August 2025, nearly 28,000 migrants had crossed the English Channel in small boats that year, surpassing the figures for the same period in 2024. They are given pocket money to buy what their hotels do not already provide at our expense, and put into a bureaucratic limbo where appeals stretch across years. Looking at the whole picture, provisional estimates show net migration at 431,000 in the year ending December 2024, down from the record 906,000 in the year to June 2023, but still nearly double pre-2022 levels. In 2024 alone, there were 948,000 arrivals offsetting 517,000 departures.

Our rulers excuse this as incompetence. But mass-immigration is not incompetence. It is not a mistake of misplaced humanity. It is policy of state at the highest level. The people who oversee it have never denied that it transforms the face of the nation. They simply claim that the transformation is enriching. In truth, they welcome immigration because it dissolves the conditions in which opposition could form.

For centuries, England had cohesive communities with deep roots in industry and farming. It had autonomous local institutions. Thatcher’s economic policy, with its deliberate destruction of much viable industry, eliminated those structures. What was left could still have re-formed into some counterweight to government. Mass-immigration prevents that possibility altogether. If the population of a town is Albanian, Pakistani, Nigerian, and a diminishing group of native English, it ceases to be a political community. The newcomers look inward to their own kin and patrons. The natives despair. The police and the welfare system become the only arbiters between mutually suspicious groups.

What is hated by the people is useful to the rulers. When public opinion says “our towns are unrecognisable,” the response from above is not embarrassment. It is satisfaction.

This strategy reflects the transformation of Britain into a rentier base. The City of London exists to channel global capital. Its profits are detached from the condition of the native workforce. Property markets thrive on demand from abroad and on relentless population growth at home. Retail chains, landlords, and public-service contractors draw incomes from managing an ever-expanding clientele of strangers.

In this order of things, the British nation is an encumbrance. The old industrial working class once made demands for wages and security. Even the middle classes could be awkward. They valued continuity and resisted managerial intrusion. A fragmented, rootless population of migrants makes no such demands. They are grateful or simply indifferent. The institutions of government and finance prefer them.

This is why every party that takes office continues the flow. Labour dresses it in humanitarian slogans. The Conservatives once wrapped it in talk of economic dynamism. The rhetoric differs. The policy does not. We are told about “tougher visa rules” and “stricter English tests.” We are promised caps and thresholds. These measures are theatrics. They may slightly change the composition of the inflow but never the volume. Each year, net migration rises.

The British State has no intention of dealing with the asylum backlogs, or the overstayers. It prefers to manage them. The charities, funded directly or indirectly by government, depend on them for work. The civil service uses them as justification for further powers. The police demand new surveillance systems in their name. Immigration is a pretext for every extension of authority.

In particular, mass-immigration also justifies censorship. To object too loudly is to be suspected of “hate speech.” Employers scan social media. Banks close accounts for political dissidents. Police record “non-crime hate incidents.” The inflow itself creates the excuse for further repression of dissent.

This is why it continues. The people hate it. The rulers rely on it.

India acts differently because its ruling class still has some attachment to the nation. Congress and BJP may quarrel, but both are committed to India as India. They will crush separatists in Kashmir, as in the revocation of Article 370 in 2019; they will suppress Sikh militants, as in Operation Blue Star in 1984; they will drown Rohingya in the Bay of Bengal. They do not intend to preside over their own eclipse.

Britain’s rulers have no such attachment. They see the island as a portfolio of rents, a safe jurisdiction for finance, a theme park for international capital. The English people are not a constituency to them. They are a nuisance.

India is poor but intends to remain Indian. Britain is rich but intends to become nothing. This is not weakness. It is strategy. A people without solidarity is a people that can be managed. The migrants are not the invasion. They are the garrison. The real invasion took place long ago, when power was transferred to a financial oligarchy without loyalty to the nation.

So long as that oligarchy governs, dinghies will be escorted ashore, hotels will be filled, and protests will be criminalised. We will not copy India. We will not throw migrants into the sea. We will pay them to stay. We will pay their lawyers. We will pay their guardians. And we will pay for the police who knock on our doors if we complain.