Under Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak immigration will continue to rise, until eventually it overwhelms our country’s services. Why? As soon as somebody sets foot on British soil, however ludicrous their story, however bogus their papers, even without any papers, their chances of being deported are vanishingly small. Except for the law abiding, we have no borders. Our corrupt legal profession sees to that.
The solution is obvious for Channel migrants. Our border force vessels on stopping a migrant raft in the Channel should tow it back to France, disembark the migrants on a beach and take the empty raft back to England and dispose of it for charitable purposes. Is anybody seriously suggesting the French are going to fire on a British Border Force vessel, or try to board it ? They are France’s migrants not ours, we are merely returning them to their owners.
The alternative policy which we have been pursuing ever since Tony Blair opened the doors to the world goes like this:
In 2000 I attended an immigration hearing, one of many I went to, for a study I wrote for Civitas called, ‘Tomorrow is Another Country.”
One appellant claimed he escaped from a maximum security jail in Kenya dressed as nurse, hitched a ride to Nairobi Airport and took a plane to London. He was unable to explain how he came by a nurse’s uniform in jail, where he got the money for a plane ticket and why nobody at the check-in desk in Nairobi thought it strange that a man dressed in a nurse’s uniform without luggage was getting on a plane to London or thought to detain him.
The tribunal listened politely and turned his appeal down. It then rose and everybody, including the appellant, left. The latter no doubt to a fresh address where he could not be traced. Even if he had been, my experience of immigration appeals were that they were a sort of expensive running legal joke, however many times he came back to the court, unless he was exceptionally unlucky, exceptionally stupid, or ran out of lawyers, he would never be detained or deported.
Nothing has changed in the 22 years since.
On 21 August 2022 “The Mail on Sunday” reported the National Strategy for Maritime Security expectation that up to 250,000 are set to make the Channel crossing by the end of 2026, and published a page of promises by Johnson, May, other top Ministers and MPs that voting for Brexit would give Britain control of our borders.
“Issue a false prospectus in business and you go to prison. Issue one in politics and you go to 10 Downing Street.” (I leave you to guess who said that.)
Dear Miles; regarding your experience at an Immigration hearing…
“Let’s kill all the lawyers!”, said Dick the Butcher. Shakespeare understood that lawyers are in charge and that they are parasites as far as popular opinion goes. The present legal travesty you describe could only exist had the lawyers made the rules…
Your grimly prophetic study has only been confirmed by 20 years later by the complacent and optimistic CIVITAS stuff from Richard “Demos” Norrie.
Migration Watch UK (online) records the latest evidence of public concern about immigration.
As the ethnic minorities increase, and the indigenous population cowers in despair, it is remarkable that any opposition can be voiced at all in the Police State gradually forming in Britain.
I don’t see why these boats should not be returned to the safe country across La Manche, exactly as suggested, if necessary under escort from what is left by “Conservative governments” of the Royal Navy.
There is a limit to the number of applicants that can or should be resettled in our asylum. It is not to be drawn at the point when this island itself reaches the same state of the failing homelands that drove out the refugees. The few who reach our shores (we have a lot of them) or airfields or tunnel transport are the “lucky” ones. There are over 100 million other DPs (UNHCR report just in) around the world, apart from innumerable others (including transnational criminals) who would just love to “escape to the country” of England, or at least its NHS and economy “of colour”. Should we let them all in, or go and get them all, as the previous socialist and “non-theist” vicar in our seaside parish suggested?
The simple truth is that we must close the door, deport criminals, and work with other nations on solutions that can mitigate though not solve the worst humanitarian problems (e.g. send more contraceptives). A good combined dose of Garrett Hardin, Patrick Buchanan, Richard Lynn, and even William McDougall a whole horrible century ago, is needed, even if has the good luck to make the Justin Welbys of this horrible world weep into their tikka masala.
The case for immigration boils down to two “arguments”: (1) “We” need “them” as workers; (2) “They” need “us” as refugees.
Are there or have there been any numerical or other limits?
Can you ever have enough of a good thing, like an endless supply of labour?
Can you ever have enough of a good ethos, like an endless supply of victims?
Correlation is not causation.
But isn’t it curious that after a dip in crimes recorded per 100,000 population during the 1950s the graph rises thereafter almost pari passu with the continuous growth of the immigrant/ethnic/foreign population?
And how nice for Rotherham of all places to be chosen as the Children’s Capital of Culture?
Next up Bradford as the Most Law-abiding City of HM Realm?
@ Karin Gammon
Ethnic gang fights in England are noted unavoidably in local news, but not in the mainstream media. The latest horror is the prevalence of machete fights, although white scum are also often involved. We shall see what fizz and fuss that Liz Truss will bring to the appalling degeneracy destroying our country.
The direct connection between foreign immigration and increased crime is best illustrated by Sweden whose “government” has replaced its notorious “boredom” with an unexpected “vibrancy”; see e.g. Peder Jensen, Gatestone Institute, 25 August, online.