Bogus Britain

Bogus refugees (who could've claimed asylum in France but have chosen to pay a lot of money to get in a dinghy to cross the English Channel) are given bogus decisions to allow them to live in Britain (because it saves on having to deport them) and bogus deportations (56,000 failed asylum seekers aren't being deported - BBC Radio 4 "Today").

Happy New Year! (Ongoing Inequality Notwithstanding)

Every working day (which this isn't) foreign men marry someone so as to live in the UK. Either British men can live in their countries through marriage .. or they can't. If they can't that is clearly a gross inequality. If they can then that makes Britain's immigration problem worse. Because the intention of British Governments over many years has been to reduce immigration. But in these turbulent times the attraction of being able to live in two different countries is an encouragement to have a transnational marriage, and thereby increase immigration! And since most people on the move in search of a better life are - and always have been - young men the long ongoing surplus of young men in these islands compared with young women is exacerbated - another gross inequality.... (This continues the theme of this blog of 31 December 2022.)

Only in Britain?

Wouldn't you just know it?! Britain now has a Minister for Illegal Migration, which, just like the recent Illegal Migrants Act, is surely a contradiction in terms. If they're illegal they shouldn't be here. Britain prides itself, like all Western democracies, on abiding by the Rule of Law. Being in a country illegally is a serious crime. It's unjust to those who return home when their visa expires (most illegals are overstayers). It makes mockery of the passport system, the purpose of which is that border control be mutually advantageous. And what's the point of having armed forces if a country can be occupied by illegal means? (Please see this blog of 1 July 2018.) Furthermore, since most illegals are young men, it aggravates the existing disparity of the ratio of the sexes of young people in Britain (there already being more young men than young women - which is surely one reason why suicide is the most common cause of death among young men in Britain.)

Foreign Dependencies

This Conservative Government, elected to cut immigration, allows the recruitment of foreign students and of care workers, both categories of whom are allowed to bring their dependents to live here. In 1970 the fees of foreign students were increased. This was because too many foreign students were depriving British students of university places. This was denounced as discrimination. Now, however, because they pay more, foreign students are actively recruited! Thus reversing the original intention. But are foreign students so rich they actually have dependents? They can afford to bring here? And who can, of course, in due course, become British citizens. As for care workers, why is Britain recruiting far and wide to bring them here? Before we left the European Union many care workers were East European who could come and go between the UK and their own countries at will. Now they can't so they don't come. And their places are taken by others... who insist on being able to bring their dependents. Or they won't come. Britain left the EU mainly because of England/Wales voters' desires to cut immigration. Instead it has resulted in increased immigration. As I thought might happen: Please see this blog of 10 June 2016 "Kamikaze Saga"..... It has long been recognised that foreigners have obtained student visas to attend non-existent colleges. This is clearly a very successful scam that ought to have been clamped down long ago on by even a not-very conscientous Government. Now it is revealed (BBC Radio 4 "Today", this morning) that visas are being given regarding non-existent care homes. (!) .... My poor wife passed away on 4 June 2023 in a care home after 9 and a half years of dementia caused by a stroke. None of the care workers in the latter years were British, mostly they were Indian. There was a rapid turnover of staff. I got the impression that, having established themselves here and found their feet, they soon moved on to more amenable and lucrative work. (Doubtless illegal, but who cares? Who's going to do anything about it?) Instead of subjecting themselves to this scam and saving money in the long run, why doesn't the British Government attract British workers to this vital industry by improving the pay of care workers? Or have they given up because it's all too late?!

Reds Queer

Marriage is used for immigration. So if (for example) an Indian man with British nationality or residency marries a foreign man that man can live in the UK - and ultimately get British nationality. Lord Cameron, Britain's new Foreign Secretary, said his greatest achievement as Prime Minister was allowing same-sex marriage. In the 3 TV debates prior to the 2010 General Election, which resulted in him becoming Prime Minister, he promised to cut net migration to tens of thousands a year. But of course he didn't. The excess of immigration over emigration continues to be hundreds of thousands a year. Russia allows homosexuality. But a court decision in Moscow has just clamped down on promoting it. Does Russia allow foreign men to live there through marriage? (Younger men - without a disability - probably wouldn't want to these days for fear of being conscripted.) And if it does, does it allow a foreign man married to a Russian man to live in Russia?.... (David Cameron resigned as Prime Minister in 2016 after the Referendum he called on Britain being in the European Union resulted in a Leave vote. He didn't want Britain to leave. But voters in England & Wales were taken in by the Leave Campaign's promise to "Control our borders!" which Mr. Cameron failed to refute. Please see this blog of 10 June 2016 "Kamikaze Saga".)

Why not Rwanda?

The British Government's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is in disarray because of the Supreme Court's ruling on 15 November that Rwanda might return them to their own unsafe country. But some countries, we're told, (Iran, China?) won't take back their illegals. So, why not send their illegals to Rwanda? If their own countries won't take 'em back the Supreme Court's objection falls away.

18 November. International Men's Day. No mistake. Not much publicity either

Hurray! Today is International Men's Day! This was revealed by BBC Radio 4 "Today" in an item on prostate cancer (which I have). Some years ago I complained on Twitter that while there is an International Women's Day there is no International Men's Day. Only to be informed that there is, and that it is on 19 November. I never heard of any mention of it, but naturally I've long thought it to be on 19 November. Until now. 1975 was International Women's Year. But there has never been an International Men's Year. Of that I'm sure.

A Foreign Perspective

Wars are mostly caused by men (e.g. 4 August 1914).It's mostly men who covet others' territory. Most of the illegals who come to Britain (helped by our Government!) are young men. Foreign men who come here legally armed with a passport and visa can hardly believe their luck that they can obtain permanent residence simply by finding someone to marry. How can the British be so stupid as to allow us to take their territory and their women into the bargain! In 1979 the Conservative election manifesto promised to end this concession. But Mrs Thatcher broke her promise. Some 10,000 men a year exploit this loophole. So about 400,000 men are living in these islands. Just as politics is war by other means so is immigration....

"It's insane!"

40 years ago, in January 1983, the Immigration Act allowed foreign men to live in the UK through marriage. This was despite Mrs Thatcher's 1979 election promise to end this concession. Conservative opposition to this Bill, because many Tory MPs thought they should honour their election promise, succeeded in defeating its passing in December 1982. (The year of the Falklands Conflict!) But in January '83 much of this opposition fell away because Mrs Thatcher persuaded MPs that the Conservative Party had to be united in an election year. One Conservative who continued to vote against it was Ivor Stanbrook who described allowing foreign men to live here through marrige as "insane". Some 10,000 foreign men a year exploit this loophole in Britain's immigration system. So there are now some 400,000 men living here because Mrs Thatcher did not keep her 1979 election manifesto promise. The Equal Opportunities Commission led the fight to oppose the measure. Paying NGOs and lawyers with public money to contest Government decisions made by politicians, who are also paid by us, is a bit daft. We also pay for legal aid for immigration. So we ourselves pay for much of the occupation of these islands. Foreigners don't mind. And we don't seem to mind. A bit daft? Or insane?

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.