Ethnicity and migration

Yesterday the Commons heard about the “collective failure” to address concerns about the ethnicity of grooming-gang members.

Casey’s report states: “Child sexual exploitation is horrendous whoever commits it, but there have been enough convictions across the country of groups of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds to have warranted closer examination. Instead of examination, we have seen obfuscation.”

For libertarians, a defendant’s ethnicity or cultural background is of no concern. Individuals are individuals; the circumstances of their birth need not dictate their own actions or how they should be treated by the state.

The problem with the grooming-gang crisis—as the full inquiry will no doubt uncover—is that concerns over the ethnicity of perpetrators resulted in the shameful white-washing, victim-blaming and inaction we have seen on one of the most horrendous crimes in recent history. This is a direct result of the woke left’s dominance in our judiciary and police forces—those like Labour MP Naz Shah, who once endorsed the view that grooming-gang victims should “shut up for the sake of diversity”.

We now hear that ethnicity data will be recorded for all those convicted of child sexual abuse. There is, perhaps, an argument that data should be recorded for other metrics as well. Denmark has for years been recording data on the nationality of social-benefit claimants, and the results are stark: migrants from MENAPT countries (Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan and Turkey) are a net drain on public finances across all age groups. The MENAPT group is also considerably over-represented in violent and sexual offences. It is, then, a simple fact that opening one’s borders to different parts of the world will have different effects than opening up to others, though it is important to remember that over-representation is not evidence of inherent traits, but is often linked to poverty and failures in integration.

The libertarian position remains that entry be based entirely on individual merit—not ethnicity or nationality. Yes, some cultures probably do, on average, adhere more closely to libertarian moral norms than others. But an ethnicity- or nationality-based migration policy serves only to tarnish applicants with the brush of their collective group, thereby violating the right of the individual to be considered as an individual.

Open borders are possible only with a complete dismantling of the welfare state. One suspects a significant proportion of grooming-gang members would not have been resident in the UK had our background checks been more robust and policy had been to refuse welfare payments to those who had not first paid in to the system for a set period. Those who are foreign nationals have forfeited their right to residency and should be deported immediately—without regard to ethnicity or nationality.