Griffin's argument against immigration is stuck in "catch 22" land and he knows it.
If he states immigrants must go because the British are the true citizens of this country, then he must account for those of different creed born in this country needs to stay.
If he makes the mistake of saying the immigrants must go because white British citizens need support, then it shows his policies are geared on race, this leaves the BNP open to be attacked for being a racist party and it becomes unfair to those whose ancestors where here in Britain even before some white people moved to britain and had children here.
He cannot use the argument of indigenous britain because it falls flat when history shows movements of civilizations from country to country and it also falls flat that the UK has been invaded time and time again to allow a mix and diversity of immigrants. He would need to pick a correct time or date on where indigenous would be correct, but then again it leaves him slipping back to "white" Britain again.
His only strong point is to decrease or stop the flow of immigration to this country, but at what cost? One of the points of immigration is to allow those to do the jobs no other British citizen wants to do, although I am sure some immigrants take advantage of the welfare system, you cannot possibly believe that other British citizen's do not do the same.
If the party even refuses entry of those persecuted by other countries then the BNP will automatically align themselves with tyranny and other countries "especially the US" will look down on us, even when the US bailed the UK out of WWII.
I am all for immigration being controlled, but not this way. Thanks, but NO thanks.