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!