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.