Migrants

[Undried Plum]

If there was a loophole in the Law which allowed tens of thousands of criminals to commit burglary, thuggery, buggery, incest or rape with total impunity, what would the government do?

Plug the loophole, perhaps?

The incumbent government has a huge majority in the Commons, though no longer in the Lords. BLiar's constitutional change made it quite easy for the HoC to bulldoze legislation through a recalcitrant HoL, so why the hell isn't Boris plugging the damn loophole?

That massive inrush of criminals isn't only swamping the communities in the vicinity of those shingle beaches in Kent and Sussex, y'know. As far North as Falkirk entire large hotels have been taken over to house these criminals, to such an extent that legitimate travellers such as businessmen are having to scratch around to find accommodation.

That Torygraph article is quite right. Bumbling Boris risks blowing the biggest majority the Tories have had in decades because an awful lot of people are thoroughly pissed off with the South-to-North flow of criminals in such huge (and growing) numbers.

Bring back Laura Nawder, I say.

[Undried Plum]

From The Torygraph:

Alexander Downer is a former Australian high commissioner to the UK. He is now executive chair of the International School for Government at King’s College London

Around 20 years ago, people smugglers set up a racket designed to game the Australian asylum system. Australia had – and still has – a rigorous immigration regime. Migrants can come as skilled workers, as part of a family reunion scheme or be re-settled as refugees. In every case they need to get a visa. That way, we can control who comes to our country and the number of people who arrive.

The people smugglers dreamt up a fourth pathway. For a considerable fee, they brought people to Australia by boat from Indonesia and prepped them on how to be accepted as refugees. The migrants were told to throw away identity documents and make claims that they were being persecuted in some far off land. This game was not only hugely profitable for the people smugglers but was making a mockery of Australia’s immigration policies.

Finally, enough was enough. The Australian government decided it wasn’t going to allow this racket to continue. To start with, we tried to persuade the Indonesians not to allow migrants to set off in little boats to Australia. The Indonesians made some effort to stop them but without great success.

So we knew we had to act ourselves. The key to success was going to be the destruction of the people smugglers’ business model. We had to find a way of stopping potential customers buying passages on boats to Australia. We had to send out a very simple message: under no circumstances would an unauthorised person who paid a smuggler to get to Australia be allowed to settle there.

Initially, the smugglers told their customers that it would be impossible for Australia to stop the boats. So we did two things.

First, when the boats were intercepted, we took the asylum seekers to an offshore processing centre. There were two, one in Nauru and the other in Papua New Guinea. If the asylum seeker was found to be a genuine refugee, then we would look for somewhere to resettle them, ideally not in Australia. If the asylum seeker was found not to be a refugee, he or she would be sent straight back to their country of origin. The advantage was that the smugglers were unable to guarantee to their customers delivery to Australia. The demand for this racket started to decline.

To supplement this tough approach, the Australian government turned back boats when it was safe to do so. Obviously, if the sea was turbulent or the boat was sinking, it wouldn’t be practical to turn the boat back. The smugglers soon got onto this and gave guidance to asylum seekers on how to sink the boats or sabotage the engines so that they couldn’t be turned back. This was a tough problem to solve. We bought a number of specially designed boats whose engines could not be sabotaged and which could not be sunk by the passengers. We then transferred the asylum seekers to these boats and sent them back to Indonesia.

The combination of these techniques destroyed the people smugglers’ model and now there are almost no incidences of small boats bringing unauthorised arrivals to Australia.

To be frank, there was a lot of opposition in Australia to these policies. But the point is: the vast majority of the public were supportive because they wanted the government to decide who should come to Australia to live, not people smugglers.

[SOPS]

It’s not hard to stop them. Just takes some balls to send them back, or stick them on some God awful island first….and then send them back. You don’t book them into some 5 star hotel, that’s for sure.

[AtomKraft]

But send them back to where?
In our efforts to be 'nice' we have become weak.
I think the only solution is to treat them harshly- then they might not be so keen to come.
Maybe prison-like camps in Northern Scotland? The Orkney islands would be my choice, or maybe house them all on Fairisle?

I don't blame the illegals. If I lived in a shithole like Syria or Iraq, I'd come to the UK too. Hot food, free accommodation, comfy beds, running water, spending money....rule of law, fair treatment, human rights.

You'd be crazy not to.

Trouble is, if we import enough former shithole country people, we will turn the UK into a shithole.

Import the third world: Become the third world.

[om15]

I am perplexed about this, the vote for Brexit was in the main due to the ordinary people becoming aghast at what was happening to their society, uncontrolled immigration, diversity laws discriminating against them, assertive religions being given free reign in schools, overloaded NHS, all this and they voted out, and turned to the Conservative Party to address these issues.

With an 80 seat majority in the HoC what have we got, an establishment that is completely woke, a national broadcaster that is so bias their news is risible, a NHS that can't cope and needs urgent reform, a Government that is pursuing green agendas at the cost of everything else and to cap it all our RNLI (a charity) has been hijacked by the establishment to help the Border Force do everything they can to help over a thousand unknown people with no right of abode here ashore, everyday.
The Government then gives them 4 star hotel accomodation, food, health care and pocket money.

Johnson derseves to be slung out, he has got his position under false promises, I just can't see how he is so stupid that he can't see this, what on earth did he think we were voting for?

we will turn the UK into a shithole.

Parts of it are, and those areas untouched by the invaders soon will be.

[Undried Plum]

we will turn the UK into a shithole.

Parts of it are, and those areas untouched by the invaders soon will be.

Peterhead, for example.

As to the question of where to send them 'back' to, I think the question answers itself.

There are airfields in Iraq and Syria where the RAF can operate transport aircraft with impunity. Dump the Syrian and Iraqi illegals, with the aircraft on the ground of course, at those airfields and photograph them being so delivered. Publish that imagery on the BBC World Service so that the message gets through.

Criminal entrants from other countries can similarly be so delivered. In some cases they will have to be delivered to adjacent countries, preferably ones which they travelled through to get to ffrance.

There are plenty of nasty places where we can set up holding pens for the bastards. Peterhead is only one example. There are plenty of freezing cold abandoned airfields in Lincolnshire where holding pens can be set up. Other places such as St Kilda, South Georgia and bits of West Falkland and its adjacent islets are also suitable venues.

Be sure to photograph the buggers being miserable there and use the usual propaganda outlets to make sure that the message gets back to the sources of these criminal caravanserais.

What is happening at the moment is the opposite. The bastards are grinning into selfies in luxury hotels, posing in new clothes from Primark and smoking luxury cigarettes, and sending the images back to their home shithole and thereby guraranteeing millions more of the bastards making what is actually, for most, quite an easy trip.

[Rwy in Sight]

There are two difficulties with the idea presented over the last few pages: one is how immigrants are welcome / supported by many entities (which also push the governments to make arrangements for better accommodation for the uninvited guests) and two that deportation flights are vastly expensive and ineffective.

There is a lot of money involved with NGO who as the late Capetonian used to write about their executives and post-holders are enjoining a very good standard of living thanks to donation and EU money. Cape did mentioned stories about top executives from those organizations who were insisting on First Class tickets and other perks. They will use a lot of resources to keep the money flowing offering assistance to illegal immigrants who their application has been rejected, instructed them how to create unrest around the camps and during deportation flights etc. Plus the Leftist political parties very strong in continental Europe, need to have those immigrants as potential new voters by offering asylum and then citizenship and allowances - in exchange of votes later on. And obviously those NGO know how to manipulate the public opinion and the media to show only mothers and kids risking their life at sea and not the very troubling young males wanting to create havoc in Western Europe. Similarly they insist on excellent conditions for the refugees camps and housing at state's expense for those people whose applications has been approved.

I had a chance to talk with a person involved with a deportation flight, I think, to Pakistan. The point made was that there is at least two officers per deportee and the country where illegal immigrants are destined has a right not to accept its citizens back. Pakistan only accepts its normal passports and not the travel documents issued by its embassies when a deportation flight arrives in Islamabad. So half of the deportees did return to Europe in the flight described.

I still think the best way is to link acceptance of refugees to the development aid from EU and rich countries and make immigration visas the most attractive option by refusing immigration status to any one entering the country illegally. Additionally it should be made very difficult for money to be send from Western Europe to those countries sending of illegals (as countries like to have their citizens overseas and receive money from them).

Denmark has/had some good ideas: they ran advertising campaigns in Lebanon refugee camps with the message "Denmark will not welcome you". Also they are trying to create overseas camps in Central Africa where refugees applications will be evaluated so refugees can't escape in the country.

[4mastacker]

I've written to my useless MP and suggested he starts looking for an alternative career in readiness for the next general election. The current situation is just not acceptable - it's a ****ing invasion and should be treated as such.

[John Hill]

Why not do the obvious and that is reduce the supply of immigrants at the source?

[om15]

You have previously objected to the B52 option, but you are right, it would work

[AtomKraft]

John
You're not suggesting that we nuke the Middle East are you?

It's not really feasible, but I like the way you are thinking!

[Rwy in Sight]

Why not do the obvious and that is reduce the supply of immigrants at the source?

Those suggestions to make the conditions of stay at the arrival countries much much less attractive are close to your idea. I hope you are not suggesting spending billions to offer them for free good living conditions they don't deserve in their countries

[prospector]

I would have thought that not bombing, burning, their home countries would have done a lot to have made them want to stay in their home countries. And remind me again who financed and used all these munitions in the countries where these migrants are having to leave?

[John Hill]

If you do not want them in Britain, for example, why not just bomb Britain?

[Undried Plum]

Why not do the obvious and that is reduce the supply of immigrants at the source?

That is very exactly what I'm proposing.

Make clear to the bastards that their scam won't work. Film and photograph them being being dumped right back where they came from and then broadcast those images throughout the whole of shitholedom.

That's what the Strines did, and it worked.

[om15]

It was fashionable among the leftie champagne sippers to mock and deride Nigel Farage, he was right over Brexit and he is right over immigration, here is an article that he has written for the Telegraph. Not so many voices raised against him now I notice.

Since March 2020, I have spent a lot of time monitoring the illegal migrant crossings in the English Channel. On repeated occasions I have ventured out to sea to film the dinghies. I have also watched the “official” arrivals into Dover Harbour and found evidence of “unofficial” arrivals by walking the Kent shoreline. By chronicling events in this way, I have been able to make various predictions, including that worse is to come. Indeed, originally I estimated that 20,000 people would arrive on our shores uninvited this year. As we all know, that number has been comfortably breached already and there are more than five weeks to go until 2022 begins.

At nearly every stage of the last 20 months, I have found the overwhelming majority of newspapers and broadcasters to be reluctant to attach the same level of importance to this issue as I do. I know why. It is because they fear being labelled “racist” by the Twitter mob, even though race has nothing to do with it. Yet as the official number of arrivals for 2021 heads towards 25,000 (we still don’t have the Home Office figures for Tuesday 16 November) it does seem as though something is beginning to change. Reports are circulating that the Prime Minister has become fretful. As well he should. On his watch, the mantra of “taking back control” of our borders has descended into farce.

The biggest problem Boris Johnson faces is not the sheer impracticality and cost to the public purse of housing, clothing, feeding and giving free healthcare and education to huge numbers of people who have chosen to leave the safety of France to come to this country. Neither is it the daily expense of conducting the Channel operations. Instead, it is the threat to Britain’s national security and the safety of its citizens. Johnson is ultimately responsible for guarding his people. This is the sacred duty of any prime minister. It should override all others. Yet the present occupant of 10 Downing Street seems to have abandoned his post.

When will Johnson and his Cabinet admit that some of those coming into our country could do us great harm? Just consider what horrors other European states have unearthed. So far in 2021, 4,000 illegal immigrants have crossed into Lithuania from Belarus, a very substantial increase on 2020. Already, the Lithuanian authorities have discovered that 24 of them — all young men — have links to Islamic State or Boko Haram. It's no wonder Poland is thinking of building a wall to keep such terrorists out, but why is Lithuania so far ahead of Britain in understanding the threat? How is it that the Lithuanian authorities can identify potential terrorists arriving illegally at their border when the UK cannot?

One possible explanation is that when the immigrants are in the Channel and first catch sight of England, they throw all of their identity documents overboard, allowing them to self-identify on arrival at Dover and therefore to slip through the net. All I know is that our Baltic State friends are discovering that Islamic State fighters are being smuggled into Europe by gangs, just as happened in 2015 in the Mediterranean. Indeed, in May 2015, an adviser to the Libyan government, Abdul Basit Haroun, revealed as much to the BBC.

When I raised these concerns at the time in the European Parliament with the then President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, the Europhiles who were present just stared at the ground. They did not want to know. Just a few months later, in November 2015, Paris was set upon by gunmen and suicide bombers who slaughtered 130 people and wounded hundreds more. Five of the eight men who committed those barbaric acts had entered France in small boats across the Mediterranean Sea.

Well over 20,000 undocumented males have arrived in Britain already this year and we don’t know anything about any of them. More to the point, it seems that once they set foot in this country, it is rare that deportation is even attempted, even if their claims have been rejected. The Liverpool suicide bomber, Emad Al Swealmeen, is the latest known example. He was yet another failed asylum seeker. He used fake documents to get into Britain in 2014 and was able to run rings around officials for seven years, staying in this country and living off taxpayers. He is the proof that deportation has become a very rare phenomenon. Why? Because Britain has remained attached to the European Convention on Human Rights.

If this is what the Left calls "diversity", I can assure them that the vast majority of us don't want it. On Saturday, I watched 45 young men land on a shingle beach in Kent in one of the new-style dinghies which have been designed for winter conditions. Every one of these men appeared to be of Middle Eastern origin. There wasn't a woman or a child in sight. Did some of them fight for Isis? The answer is that we will almost certainly never know. None of them had identity documents.

When will Boris Johnson wake up to the reality of looming disaster? Why is he content to put the rights of people who have no link to this country above the safety of his own people? Who is he trying to please? Politically, he is playing an appalling hand because by refusing to tackle this issue, he is alienating his own natural supporters and the Red Wall voters who lent him their vote in 2019. But more importantly still, in security terms he is putting his own people in jeopardy. He needs to get his head out of the clouds and realise that he is presiding over the systematic importation of people, some of whom hate us and our way of life. I dread to think what the consequences of this could be.

Over the last few weeks, I have been approached by several high-ranking donors asking me if I am considering getting back into the political arena. My gut instinct is not to do so, but I will have to give it some serious thought.

[John Hill]

Emad Al Swealmeen was born in Iraq so what connection did he have with the UK? Apart of course from the little matter of the British and their masters deciding to have a war there.

[Nick Riviera]

Emad Al Swealmeen was born in Iraq so what connection did he have with the UK? Apart of course from the little matter of the British and their masters deciding to have a war there.

So he had absolutely no connection to the UK and had no right to be in the country. Thanks for clarifying that.

[SOPS]

The UK is under attack. We had the same sxxt going on in Australia… strong young men ( no women) arriving on boats, along with designer clothes, iPads and iPhones, claiming they were refugees. Off Shore processing them…have a nice holiday in a shithole..soon stopped the boats. ITS NOT HARD.

[Pontius Navigator]

I agree that camps are better than hotels. But then what? We have our western, christian attitudes so our camps may well be better than where they come from - food, shelter and safety.
As for shipping them back, back to where, many deliberately destroy their documents. There are means to identify them but we seem reluctant to do things like DNA profiling etc.
Putting Border Force on French beaches was mentioned but you need agreement to do that.
You only have to look at how migrants are now equipped. They are in proper boats and wearing proper life jackets etc. Where could you buy 25,000 life jackets without the French noticing.