What the left has in store for us over migration was made clear (24.11.21) on Channel 4 evening news when an interviewer asked various cringing, evasive politicians why, in the light of the drownings in the channel, why Conservative or Labour were not prepared to establish a safe route to Britain for all asylum seekers where their claims for asylum could be assessed and, if merited, granted.
No politician on the programme would answer this perfectly straightforward question. The reason ? If it were allowed millions of people from all over the world would buy tickets to London, knowing that once you get here your chances of being deported are vanishingly small.
The politicians mouthed on about ‘the evil business model of the smuggling gangs’ but failed to mention, ‘the evil business model of our lawyers and judges’ who use the law to their profit at the expense of their country. It costs up to £200,000 in legal fees and other expenses to deport a migrant and it can take 10 years. Why didn’t they answer ? Is it because there are a lot of lawyers in the House of Commons ?
These House of Commons placemen, quango servers and back bench sleepers, also know that the Human Rights Act, enacted in Soviet times for a handful of of people fleeing the Soviets, is as out of date as the witch drowning rules drafted in the times of the Witchfinder General.
No free country, in a world where you can travel from a paddy field in Bangladesh to Heathrow in half a day, on money raised if the family clubs together to buy the ticket, can keep this law on its statute books and remain a free country. Simply put the Human Rights Act does away with borders and countries replacing them with a right to settle anywhere, even in your front room when things get too crowded on the streets, as they will if Channel 4 and the left have their way.
Subscribe to the quarterly print magazine
A YEAR LATER.
Dishi the Indian Hindu wants “immigrants” to help the UK “economy” grow and Cruella the Mauritian Buddhist wants “safe routes” into the UK for the world’s refugees.
So nothing new there then.
The End of England, courtesy the “Con” party.
Thisthe big problem:
The West offers more freely available goodies than the Rest.
Free money, free healthcare, free everything, including freedom.
And the word is out. The seven billion non-Westerners have heard all about this. And among the one billion Westerners there are too few who realise that the Wealth, in all its forms, that is created only in the West, is actually insufficient to share around the other 7 Bn in such quantities such that all 8 Bn can live at levels as high as the One Bn.
With this, there is no critical mass of Western self-interest to force Western politicians and Western lawyers and judges to save the place.
The fate of Europeans was decided by the outcome of the Second World War … too late now!
Thermopylae, Lepanto – now the political rather than military effort is required.
Why privilege the small numbers who have managed to turn up on our shores or airports when there are millions in far worse conditions around the globe who also would just love to come into these multifaith, multicultural, multilingual and multiracial islands? Shouldn’t what is left of our naval and aeroplane facilities be used to go and get them all and bring them here to safety and prosperity?
We have so many benefits from refugees: Manchester Arena,Borough Market,Reading,Parsons Green,Liverpool,Southend
It is only too obvious that there is a coalition made up of people traficckers, human rights lawyers, NGOs, the French authorities, Rejoiners, Lefties who consider that national frontiers are not legitimate. So the question is: why is it not possible to challenge the lawyers? They always chant “rule of law”, but they mean “rule of their interpretation of law”. The UN Charter expressly gives states the right to ensure their own security. That is enough to turn migrants round and transport them to the place they came from. Let’s look into the finances of the lawyers, who pays them, what prices etc. ie blow their cover. But simultaneously return migrants. If the vessel they are in is not seaworthy, provide a different one.
Priti Patel is a lawyer
So is Dominic Raab, who promises ‘spicy’ reforms to Labour’s Human Rights Act, to stop the ‘pull’ effect.
One suspects that it will be the migrants that provide the spices.
And Priti useless so far.
If you want to read about the iniquities of the law, the lawyers, the judges, read Terry Frisby’s book ,”Outrageous Fortune” where he finally had to be a litigant in person as the stitch-up between barristers and judges became so pervasive he had no other course. The law has the country in a headlock, and only Parliament can fix it. Too bad about the lawyers there. You are absolutely right.
We hear from the mainstream media at last, we hear from the politicians, we hear from the virtue-signalling metro-liberals, we hear from the NGOs, we hear from the migration charities, we hear from the lawyers. But we haven’t heard from the British people. No one asks us. No one cares what we think. This has to end.
The ‘right’ of asylum trumps all other rights the asylum challenger once held dear:to family rights, nationalism, public security, private property, privacy, freedom of speech and thought, the rule of law, and not least any tolerance and empathy we o ce had for our fellow man, now our deadly invading enemy and would-be conquerer.
Combine the western birth-strike (cf Douglas Murray, Sunday Telegraph, 28 November) with the “human right” of anyone and everyone on the planet to live where they like (i.e. HERE), and the result could be called a racial catastrophe if that expression is not a punishable “hate crime”.
Now go to the letters-page of The Guardian, 29 November, where one Titus [sic] Alexander, author of “Unravelling Global Apartheid”, complains that western governments prioritise their electorates, while the world’s majority is ignored” and the media ignores “millions of refugees languishing in countries much poorer than ours”. We need therefore to “focus on the structures that perpetuate global equality” and build “an international community” with “supple and inclusive global institutions” (from Buenos Aires to Beijing, Malabo to Minsk??). Incidentally, this POC/BME/LGBTQUIA++ agitprop “newspaper” publishes a weekly mag called “Feast” which helps to enable the ambrosial North London dinner parties, at which Tarquin, Tristram, Torquil and Titus can deplore (say) the current famine in Madagascar which seems to have escaped its usual attention.