Third World immigration is in no Western country's interests

I must firstly point out that I am a resident of a 3rd World country myself, although I am admittedly of European (Dutch, German and French) descent.

We are often told, usually by liberals and left-wingers, how immigration from the 3rd World "benefits" recipient nations. The large-scale immigration to America from Europe of the 1800's and 1900's is often used as an example of these benefits.

The problem is that immigration today has a very different complexion to that which happened in the case of America. The immigration America experienced, starting with the Mayflower, consisted mainly of European Christians, most of whom came from advanced, Western cultures.

Immigration today is of a radically different nature. In the case of Europe, it is experiencing large-scale Muslim immigration, in other words by people from a radically (in every sense of the word) different culture, religion and skin colour.

America is also experiencing an unprecedented stream of people who not only look completely different to what was previously understood to be an American, but who also belong to a different culture entirely.

Whereas it may have been true that immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island tended to cluster in ethnic neighbourhoods or even ghettos, this soon changed as the 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants became upwardly mobile.

The above does not seem to be the norm with for example Pakistani immigrants to the UK, or Muslims in the Netherlands. They remain bound to the same area for generations, seemingly unable or unwilling to integrate with what is an alien culture to them. They are disproportionately dependent on welfare, at the cost of native inhabitants. These ethnic ghettos become breeding grounds for hostility towards their hosts, and even led to the terror attacks on London in 2004.

The immigrants' culture is often so at odds with Western values, that cultural and racial conflict is the inevitable result. Almost without exception, so-called racists in the recipient countries bear the blame when conflict happens, never the immigrants themselves, but the root cause is ignored. If there were no Turks in Germany, the skinheads would have nobody to attack. Remove the cause of the so-called racism, and it will simply disappear.

Furthermore, if immigration really benefits the host country so much, would staying behind not benefit the donor country even more? If those who have enough ambition and drive to board rafts and boats to cross the Mediterranean, were to apply their ambition and drive in their own country, would that not be of immense benefit to the host nation? Almost without exception the sources of immigrants are countries in dire need of skills and ambition. Almost inevitably, the flight of people of working age exacerbates the load on Western donor countries, who not only have to play host to the immigrants on their own soil, but also have to pump billions into foreign aid.

On the economic front, there is increasing resistance to immigration in European nations and the USA, and this is for good reason. It is unjustifiable for the United States to give an Indian programmer an H-1B visa if any American programmers are out of work.

Once again, as was the case with my previous column I fail to see the upside of immigration for any Western country.