New Year's Eve! The World has gone round in a Circle. And Britain's Immigration Policies go round in a Vicious Circle!

In order to have a sensible immigration policy it's necessary to close the loopholes. Otherwise that's what people take advantage of. The biggest loophole is asylum. The next biggest is marriage. It's not right or just that foreign men can live in the UK through marriage while British men can't live in their countries through marriage. It's also not equal. Mrs Thatcher promised to close this loophole in 1979, but didn't. The answer, that British men be allowed to live in foreign countries through marriage is also not equal. Because the ability to live in two different countries is an obvious great asset in a turbulent world, and it is one that most Brits don't have. (Please see this blog of 25 March 2020.) But what is worse is that it defeats the object that was originally intended, namely to reduce immigration. Because it's an obvious incentive for transnational marriage... and therefore, obviously, an increase in immigration. The very thing that closing loopholes is intended to prevent....

Never Mind the Language, Do the Deed

Britain's new Home Secretary, Mrs Suella Braverman, has been taken to task by Opposition MPs for calling illegals crossing the Channel an "invasion". In terms of numbers and what it looks and feels like to many Brits it is an invasion. But never mind the language. An Invasion. A Welcome Source of Income for Immigration Lawyers and Hoteliers. What matters is that it is brought to a swift end. And it can be done if the will is there. Deport the next boatload. (They could've claimed asylum in France so they;re clearly not genuine refugees.) This would then free up the UK Border Force from bringing them to these shores and it could then do the job it is supposed to do; which is arrest the many young men who land on our beaches and, often with the help of people already living here, disappear into society.

Will Britain's new very Un-Indigent Indigenous Indian Prime Minister see the Light?

So now (Sunak, very rich!) Britain has an Indian Prime Minister, born in Southampton. Can he do what successive Conservative Prime Ministers have signally failed to do? Secure our borders! Over 30,000 illegals have crossed the English Channel so far this year with a lot of help from this Government which has provided them with a Free Ferry Service and legal aid to ensure they can contest immigration decisions they don't like and can set up home here permanently. It's just not right that British people provide funds for our own occupation. It would be right if just one of Britain's thousands of immigration lawyers saw the light (much is being made that this is Diwali! - Hindus' Festival of Light) and took the Government to court for failing to protect our borders. It just requires: a lawyer, an indigent indigenous plaintiff, and the Law Society to approve legal aid.

Britain's Constitution

Britain famously doesn't have a written Constitution. (Law makers are guided by precendent.) Why? Because times change. What seems a sensible idea now may not seem so sensible further down the line. The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees was written during the Cold War with the Second World War very much on everyone's minds. Its devisors could not possibly have imagined it would be used by so many Asians and Africans to take up permanent residence in Europe. So it's time to get rid of it. Adapt or die! It wouldn't end refugee status. But it'd change claiming refugee status from a "right" to a concession. Resettlement Programmes, decided by Government, would also continue.

Britain's Lost Marbles

Britain has lost her Empire. But that is no reason for Britain to lose her marbles. Or her sense of justice. Which is portrayed by a female figure over the Old Bailey in London holding a pair of scales to show that balance is the essence of Justice. Illegal aliens, mainly young men, are daily (weather permitting) helped by the British Government to cross the English Channel into England and acquire permanent residence here. These "sans papiers" pay thousands of pounds to people traffickers, so they're not poor. Nor are they genuine refugees, because they could have claimed asylum in France. Justice and commonsense would be better served by promptly deporting them back to their own countries.

Asylum is a Scam

Asylum is used to get around normal immigration controls. Britain has an eleborate and costly (to the taxpayer) legal system involving lawyers, NGOs. tribunals, and translators. But this system can only be accessed from inside the country. Consular officials know this, so they'll not give visas to applicants who they suspect of wanting to take advantage of this system. But visas aren't necessary for entering the UK on uttering the magic word "asylum". Except that the Government acted swiftly to demand visas of Ukrainian women and children. So why on earth can't it require all asylum seekers (mostly young men exploiting this means to get around normal immigration controls) to have visas before entering the UK?

Morality ... and Asylum

Lithuania won't allow asylum claims by Russians trying to avoid conscription. (BBC Radio 4 "Today".) Does Lithuania grant asylum to young men from other countries avoiding conscription? If so, that severely undermines the morality that is the basis of asylum. Britain gives asylum to avoid conscription. Which can be said to be hypocritical, because when Britain had conscription young men who avoided it were treated with contempt, if not jailed.... Perhaps Russians could come here instead.... Russians are going to countries where they don't require visas, like Georgia. But visas are not normally required when claiming asylum. Some 30,000 people, mostly young men, have entered Britain so far this year and successfully claimed asylum. They had neither passports nor visas. An exception is for real refugees - Ukrainian women and children - who can only claim asylum in Britain if they have passports and visas. Will the same now be required of Russians?

Privilege? What Privilege?

We're told (BBC1, during her funeral procession) that one of Queen Elizabeth's "achievements" was the ending of male privilege - that is, the ending of male primogeniture. We're not told that, during her reign, foreign men are allowed to live in the UK through marriage even though British men can't live in their countries through marriage, and that despite "equality" laws it's legal to recruit/promote native British men last. So, we're not just underprivileged, we're second-class citizens in our own country. Some achievement!

Britain's New King

King Charles III ascended the throne on 8 September. Britain's politicians and media are consumed with dealing with the passing of Queen Elizabeth and Britain entering a new era.... So the creeping invasion of these islands is ignored. 45 boats bring 2,120 illegals to these shores over the weekend.... The only constant in this world is change. sot it's time - it;s long overdue - for Britain to leave the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. The world is a very different place than it was in 1951. Asylum is now used as a scam. On an extensive scale. Mainly young men who, if they were genuine refugees could have claimed asylum in France, prefer to take up permanent residence here by claiming asylum. The UK, unlike other European countries, doesn't have ID cards so in the unlikely case of their asylum claim being rejected it's easy to lose themselves in society here. Another attraction is ... we speak English! And we're perceived as being weak and divided. Unlikely to change.

Britain's New Government

Now that native British men have been excluded from the 4 great Offices of State - Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign and Home Secretaries - in the name of justice and goodness it's time the unjust law known as "positive action" which, despite "equality" laws, makes it legal to recruit/promote native British men last be revoked.... It's also time to end the long ongoing invasion of these islands by illegals (who could have claimed asylum in France). Or is it all part of a wicked plot by the Conservatives to diminish further the status, power and influence of native British men in their own country?... This new Government emphasises the importance of saving the NHS; both the Prime Minister (Liz Truss) and the Health Secretary (Therese Coffey, Britain's new Deputy PM) have outlined their priorities, but neither has said a word (not a dicky bird!) about stopping Britain's NHS from being used as the world's International Health Service. (Which it is since other countries have medical ID cards, and Britain doesn't.)

Pretty Pointless Patel

It's pretty pointless having a system of passports and visas which have time/work constraints if foreigners who don't have either are allowed to take up permanent residence in the UK. It's also pretty pointless having armed forces which are supposed to protect these islands from foreign occupation if occupation is given away. It's also pretty pointless in having Priti Patel as Home Secretary since there's no sign of her ever deporting any of the over 25,000 illegals who've crossed the English Channel so far this year. Her days may well be numbered, since Britain is to have a new Prime Minister next week.

An Appalling Account

Well-fed, well-dressed young men looking nothing like refugees cross the English Channel in small boats in large numbers and run up the beach at Dungeness to be taken away in waiting cars, says a woman who lives nearby (BBC Radio 4 "Today" this morning). These boats aren't being escorted by the UK Border Force or the RNLI. They are coming in "under the radar". This is an appalling neglect of Britain's borders, which can't be explained away as being international law, in the same way that escorted illegals are. Boris Johnson, no longer Britain's Prime Minister from next week, has shown great concern for Ukraine's borders while being totally indifferent to Britain's porous borders. He should be held to account for this. It's very serious. But there seems to be no machinery for bringing this about. Why isn't there? And there's no evidence of top politicians wanting to end this flagrant breech of justice and the law. Why not?

Desperately Deceitful Disinformation

Activists working (at taxpayers' expense) in Britain's thriving immigration industry argue, to gain sympathy for their cause, that asylum seekers are "desperate". They surely are. But not because they fear persecution back home. They're desperate because they've spent a lot of money (£4-20,000 for the Channel crossing alone) and so if they're returned to their own country that's money down the drain. Just as important is that they've bade farewell to their friends and relatives saying they're going to live in the UK, so if they are returned home (which doesn't happen under this Johnson Government) they'll be seen to have failed and will feel humiliated.

Parliament Rules - OK?

Britain's armed forces & immigration rules purport to have the same main objective - prevent foreign occupation of these islands.But the Royal Air Force flies in thousands of Afghans to live here and the Royal Navy brings an assortment of "sans papiers" (mostly young men) ashore from the English Channel. While the hundreds of British servicemen killed and maimed in recent years are mostly in the Army. The UK Border Force, an arm of British immigration controls, also brings ashore illegals who have crossed the Channel from France. Which is, of course, the very opposite of what it was designed to do. The British Government gives the orders. Imagine if enemy paratroopers want to land in Britain. so the authorities clear a landing place, remove obstacles that might hinder them and any guns that may be used against them. This is what Britain's immigration controls are like: because, though there are Immigration Officers, they are rendered impotent and irrelavent by an army of lawyers, NGOs and tribunals, backed up by the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, funded by public money - us. Barmy! We wouldn't prepare a field for enemy paratroopers. Would we? These are British decisions. Made by Parliament. Which can unmake them. If there is the will. Parliament is supreme.

Will Britain's next Prime Minister come clean?

In 2 weeks the Conservative Party will have a new leader and Britain will have a new Prime Minister. Now ia the time to discover whether Liz Truss (the favourite) or Rishi Sunak (the only other contender) is conservative in the sense that he/she will not reform Britain's chaotic/unjust asylum system which brings illegals into Britain (over 20,000 so far this year) and provides them with hotel accommodation, allows them to roam free and provides them with legal aid once they are "lawyered up" for the numerous appeals until they get the decision they want. The Government says it has international obligations, but these are British decisions. There's no international law that says legal aid has to be given or that any appeals are necessary. Truss and Sunak should have to make it clear to the electorate whether they will end these concessions. And, just as important, explain why illegals who could have claimed asylum in France and are clearly not genuine refugees aren't promptly deported.

Citing International Law is Deceptive

We're told everyone is entitled to claim asylum. But that doesn't mean everyone should get refugee status. There's nothing in international law to say that lawyers have to be involved, or legal aid given, or that appeals (until a favourable decision is arrived at) can be made. These are British Government decisions. The Government could and should end these concessions. In which case, the Home Secretary could instruct Immigration Officers to promptly deport any illegal who could have claimed asylum in France, Belgium, etc. on the grounds they're clearly not genuine refugees. Then this long ongoing (since 2018) invasion of these islands by thousands (over 20,000 so far this year) of illegals crossing the English Channel in small boats would soon stop. ... A year ago we all saw on our TV screens that thousands of "British nationals" had to be brought back to the UK from Kabul when the Taleban took over the city. These thousands were, of course, Afghans. There's nothing in international law that says refugee status results in permanent residence, let alone in British nationality. So why does the British Government do it? TV and radio interviewers never ask senior politicians this question. Why not?

Why isn't the Government held accountable for its Deceit?

Many Brits (particularly in England/Wales) are unhappy with immigration. If that were not so we would still be in the EU. But net immigration has gone up since Brexit! Both Leavers and erstwhile Remainers are victims of deceit by this Government. This is very serious. It shouldn't be ignored. Or swept under the carpet. The Government should be held to account.

Political Deception

"Criminal gangs bring vulnerable people on a perilous journey across the Channel." This could have been said by Britain's Home Secretary Priti Patel but was in fact said by a senior female Labour politician. It is disinformation worthy of George Orwell's Newspeak or Vladimir Putin denying there's a war in Ukraine.. Because what it really means is that thousands of determined young men pay thousands of pounds to (mostly) foreign individuals who are (probably) legally selling boats so that the aforesaid young men can cross the Channel into England safely escorted by first the French and then the British, whose UK Border Force is supposedly meant to prevent illegal immigration into these islands. Therefore the criminality is being carried out on the orders of the British Government.

Why does the British Government Perpetrate and Perpetuate a Scam?

Refugee status is a scam. Operated on a large scale. By the British Government. Politicians say they have to honour international obligations. But there is no obligation for refugee status to be other than temporary. So why does the Government give them permanent residence? Let alone lead to British nationality. But it does. So they can't be sent "home" once the supposed threat of persecution is over. .... In August last year thousands of British nationals had to be evacuated from Afghanistan. They were Afghans who had acquired British nationality via the refugee route and had gone "home" for their holidays and to visit relatives, etc.

Where is the Normative Legal Remedy?

Everyday foreigners have to leave Britain because their visa has expired. And everyday Brits have to leave other countries for the same reason. But everyday the British Government allows illegals to come here and get permanent residence! It's not just unjust, it's complicity in criminal activity - which requires a normative legal remedy in the courts.

We Wuz Tricked!

This Government is in power because of Brexit. Which would never have come about but for voters' concerns about immigration. Which has gone up since Brexit! Conservative MPs currently vying to become Prime Minister will talk about anything to boost their chances, but none of them will say a word about immigration. Why? This wilfull ignoring of the problem makes them appear as if they are dissembling - like Putin. We wuz tricked out of Leaving the European Union. But nobody'll notice if we just talk about the Cost of Living, Energy Prices and Raising/Cutting taxes. And the War in Ukraine.

"Rights" mean only what lawyers want them to mean

"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law." Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This means that countries that are signaturies of the Convention and have conscription - like Russia and Ukraine - are breaking the law. Either that or the concept of "rights" is a nonsense. Which is it? (Come to that, what about volunteer armed forces? They are put in harm's way, so how are they legal?).... "Is there any point in having armed forces?" is on this blog on 1 July 2018.

Jarring

The privileged position of women has long been recognised by the international community, according to the Council of Europe, because they can live in other countries through marriage - while men often cannot. Foreigners can live in Britain while Brits often cannot live in their countries. "Equality" laws then entitle them to deprive Brits of work, housing, etc. But do the British complain? No..... Instead actresses complain about being called actresses. so we have to endure the BBC and others calling actresses actors. This is ghastly, jarring and offensive..... Please see this blog of 18 April 2017 for more on the power and misuse of language (i.e. disinformation) and 26 July 2018 for more on the politicisation of the BBC.