The Migrant Lottery: Entrepreneurs or Grooming Gang Leaders?

For the last two weeks, there has been at least one daily headline that reads, “Child raped by hotel migrant.” The response of the British public—those who care enough to get enraged—has been divided between those who call for “Mass deportation now!” and those who rebut by saying, “What about the white rapists?” I then proceed to watch the ‘progressive and tolerant’ Left and ‘bigoted and intolerant’ Right exhaust themselves in the comment section over who is the more sensible and righteous human being.

Since I am not concerned with being perceived as progressive or kind, I thought I might as well circumvent the daily exhaustion and lay out the arguments being made by the (nominally) Left and the counterargument being established by the (nominally) Right, if only for the ease of those making the case online and in the public square.

The statement “What about the white rapists?” is intended as criticism against those who call for mass deportation. It can mean, “I think you are putting an undue focus on immigrants committing these crimes” or “Let us deal with all the rapists at the same time!” In practice, however, this statement is intended as an insult and reads closer to something like, “Until you deal with your white rapists, white people, you have no right to talk about black and brown rapists.” The existence of white rapists seems to preclude the ability of the progressives to address the issue of rapists who are black or brown. They insinuate one is a racist and a hypocrite if one does not talk about rape and rapists in equal terms. 

The counterargument of those who are more conservative about immigration? Rape is not happening on equal terms.

The 2021 Census projects that 16.9% of the UK population have an ‘immigrant’ status—people born outside of the UK to parents who are not native to the British Isles. Yet, The Telegraph revealed last month that 25% of rape convictions in the UK are committed by foreign nationals. The Centre for Migration Control found that, in 2024, 34% of convictions of “sexual assault on a female” were committed by people with a migrant status, meaning that immigrants, at present, are over-represented in sexual assaults against women by a factor of two. 

What does this mean in practice? This means that a woman walking down the street is twice as likely to be attacked if she encounters a migrant than if she encounters a native Englishman. For those who need the point belaboured, this does not mean every migrant she encounters poses a threat to her safety, and this does not mean she is immune from attack by a white man. It means that when going about her daily life, the more migrants there are in the local population, the more increased is the likelihood that she will be attacked—and that the perpetrator will be a migrant.

When people say, “Not all migrants,” they are, statistically speaking, correct. Not every migrant to the UK is a rapist or rapist-in-waiting. Some demographics are more responsible than others for these inflated figures. A freedom of information request revealed that per 10,000 people, “Afghans and Eritreans were more than 20 times more likely to account for sexual offence convictions than British citizens.” The public has also been made aware that the majority of perpetrators behind ‘child sexual exploitation gangs’ or ‘grooming gangs’ are Pakistani-Muslim. White grooming gangs exist, but white offenders account for only 17% of prosecutions whilst making up 86% of the population. In the meantime, 75% of offenders in “sexual offences against children targeted for their vulnerability by non-related adults” were ‘Asian’—a term tending to denote people of Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi heritage. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 7.5% of the UK’s population are ‘Asian.’ 

To some extent, the exact ratios are immaterial to the argument in that the investigation and prosecution of white grooming gangs is not being avoided on account of the perpetrators’ race or religion. Victims are not sent away or called liars for the sake of “maintaining community cohesion.” But given that a disproportionate number of migrants are being charged with certain sexual offences, the statement “Not all migrants” otherwise reads as, “It is necessary to tolerate a number of rapes by ‘bad migrants’ to ensure no ‘good’ migrant or “refugee” is turned away from the West.”

This attitude makes itself manifest in ugly statements like, “Shut up for the sake of diversity.” For those unfamiliar with this slogan, it paraphrases a tweet shared by UK Member of Parliament Naz Shah in 2017: “Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.” In translation, it means that as a modern and “anti-racist” society, we are obliged to obscure, deny, or otherwise obfuscate those statistics which undermine the grander and more important narratives of universal human goodness and indigenous wisdom—theories that mass immigration and multiculturalism are supposed to prove correct. 

“Everyone is born with a blank-slate potential to be a doctor or an engineer. If they are not a doctor or an engineer, then society has failed them or they have been the victim of discrimination.” This is the approximate story recounted by activists who seek to defend mass immigration. Statistics like “foreign nationals were 71% more likely than Britons to be responsible for sex crime convictions” and “half of all social housing in London goes to households headed by somebody who was not born in Britain” are considered “racist” in that they at least undermine the bleeding-heart pronouncement that most migrants are (i) only deeply unlucky in life, (ii) fundamentally innocent and honest people, and (iii) net contributors to the UK’s economy and culture. 

Whilst I might have been more sympathetic to the argument that each must be judged according to his merit, the scale of mass immigration has become immense, and processing people one-by-one has become not only an unmanageable task but an undesirable one. 

The willingness to accept an infinite number of immigrants into the West in the name of “equality of opportunity” and “man’s humanity to man” has diminished in public opinion for a vast array of reasons—but to limit it to the critical few: People in the Western world have discovered that not all cultures are equal; that some religions and cultures are not compatible with Western culture and morals  that the desire to integrate into another culture is rare; and that there are a lot more basket-case countries in the world than previously imagined, and it is not possible or desirable in terms of quality of life or aesthetics to accommodate everyone in a handful of Western countries. 

If it is racist to attest to the reality of crime, then so be it. This does not mean that those who repeat these facts find it easy or comfortable or that there is any joy to be gained by repeating them. I do not deny that sometimes, innocent people get lumped in with the guilty, and this should be avoided wherever possible. But fear of offending the innocent prevents one’s ability to apprehend the guilty. Every time one is kind to the guilty, one is cruel to the innocent—and in the case of child rape, a young girl’s life is ruined for an older man to have a few moments of pleasure.

Those that insist on the gates being flung open to stop innocent and talented people being excluded from Western society insist Britain—and other countries across Europe—play ‘the migrant rape lottery’: “Will he be an entrepreneur, or will he be the ringleader in a grooming gang? Tune in next week to find out!” As radical as it sounds, this is not a game that Britain actually has to play. To be more blunt about it, I no longer care for misplaced doctors, academics, and engineers: none are worth our children being kidnapped, molested, raped, or killed. 

Mass deportation will not solve all of Britain’s and Europe’s problems. In raw numbers, the majority of rapes will be being perpetrated by native Britons. This will remain the case whilst white British people constitute a significant majority of the population. But those who wish to increase the safety on the street and reduce the total instances of rape and sexual assault as quickly as possible will go after the ‘per capita’ offenders first. 

To some extent, the numbers argument is wholly immaterial to the question as to why mass immigration into the UK and Europe must stop—and why an element of remigration is going to be needed. It would not matter if migrants were under-represented in sexual violence convictions, the argument against their being accepted into Europe would be the same: every rape and assault committed by a migrant is wholly avoidable, because that migrant did not have to be in the country. 

Any homeland will produce monsters of its own. And whilst efforts can be made to preempt and subvert their activities, there will be no permanent and perfect solution to the proliferation of psychopathy and narcissism in the population. Home-grown problems require home-grown solutions: they can only be apprehended and dealt with in the monster’s homeland. But when it comes to monsters created in the homelands of other people, Britain is under no obligation to tolerate their presence or make petty attempts at reforming or liberalising them. 

No-one is entitled to come to the UK, and anyone who wants to come to the UK via illegal routes, and hide their identity whilst they are at it, cannot expect the host population to believe their hearts are pure rather than exploitative. At least some are going to assume the new arrivals have malintent for the nation. To make the case more concrete, I’m not going to wait for these individuals to further demonstrate their bad intent—further than they already have by crossing the channel—by waiting for them to rape or kill a child. It is guilty until proven innocent, I’m afraid.