Patel must act now or Britain will pay a terrible price

By Pete North - July 30, 2021

Nobody wants to see migrants drowning in the sea. Only an actual psychopath would want that. But all the same, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The influx of illegal immigrants is not morally or politically sustainable. What we’re dealing with is a daily influx of people who have paid criminal gangs to facilitate their entry into the UK with a view to gaming our asylum system. Some may be refugees, but in all probability they’re economic migrants. They may be seeking to escape poverty and hardship but that doesn’t entitled them to migrate to the UK nor does it qualify them as refugees.

For legal reasons we can’t tow them back to France, the RNLI feels obliged to provide a taxi service whether they’re in distress or not (if only to clear the shipping lanes), and once they arrive we cannot deport them immediately. Once they get here they’ve been briefed on how to game the system and have the full support of various activist NGOs and charities, including a number of propaganda outfits.

Thanks to legal activism, the use of barracks was been ruled unlawful, and the government is now compelled to direct migrants to hotels. The High Court ruled on 3 June that Napier Barracks provided inadequate and unsafe accommodation for asylum-seekers, and that a major COVID outbreak there was inevitable. The ruling also found that “residents” of Napier Barracks were unlawfully detained there.

Clearly, the use of hotels is not a sustainable avenue, particularly as tourism cranks back into gear following the lifting of Covid controls. The sheer number of arrivals rules it out as a policy. The Home Office says the use of hotels to accommodate new arrivals will end and we will introduce new asylum reception centres. There we shall see renewed legal activism to frustrate the process any which way they can including further cases to prevent rapid processing and deportations.

One could be forgiven for thinking that they won’t be satisfied until all interim detention is ruled unlawful, and asylum seekers have full rights to live and work in the UK – including the statutory provision of accommodation. Within five years one can well imagine them succeeding being that the government seemingly doesn’t win these cases. It refuses to assert national sovereingty over international conventions. The system also becomes stressed as reception facilities quickly fill up and we’re back to using hotels and temporary facilities. The NGOcracy in the interim will bring a case to have the use of hotels ruled unlawful citing poor conditions.

We are then in the curious position where immigrants who have worked to meet the entry requirements and paid the necessary fees and followed the law can expect worse treatment than those who paid thousands to criminal smugglers in Calais. Unless something radical changes, it will be entirely possible for virtually anyone, including returning ISIS fighters and foreign criminals to simply dispose of their identification, make the right payments to smugglers and be brought into the UK and given a home.

This, no doubt, incentivises further illegal crossings. It is argued that there would be fewer crossings were we to provide more legal routes, but that will still have inherent criteria, meaning those who don’t qualify will still turn to smugglers – and for as long as it works, and as long as there is a taxi service to ensure success, the numbers making the attempt will grow exponentially.

That then invites questions over the fairness of our legitimate channels of immigration, leading to relaxation of immigration requirements, in defiance of the public demand to bring numbers down. Meanwhile, there are presently 1.6m people in England alone on waiting lists for social housing. If we end up giving houses to anyone who turns up with no limit on the number of incomers, then we will see a well of resentment leading to further political turbulence and very possibly violence. Without a radical overhaul, going far beyond the upcoming measures, the dinghies will keep coming – and we will in effect have open borders.

One can only wonder what the cumulative effect of this is likely to be on wider society, when scarcely a week goes by where there isn’t a machete attack on our streets or a case of violent rape, as local and national media continue to withhold basic descriptions of the perpetrators. The left will insist that the disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities in jail for violent crime is a product of systemic racism, rather than the fact we let absolutely anyone in from anywhere.

The epidemic of violent crime will require targeted policing, being that the the most frequent knife carriers are black youths – and the most frequent victims of knife crime are black youths. That, though, will attract the ire of the race relations industry and race grifting politicians who will put a stop to it. We are therefore in a position where the culmination of human rights rules prevent us from having borders, and racial sensitivity prevents the police from retaking the streets from violent thugs. Arguably, we are already there. But it can only get worse.

Naturally, anyone who speaks up about this will be branded as a racist, and the police will focus more of their attention on containing expressions of public disaffection. It will be a greater crime to point out the ethnicity of a rapist than to actually rape someone. The response of the establishment will be to crack down on discussion of the problems rather than resolving them.

Further down the line we can expect suburban politics will be overtaken by inter-ethnic rivalry, with both Labour and the Tories captured by the dominant ethnic minorities, where whites are simply not represented at all and local elections turn on candidates attitudes to foreign conflicts rather then local services. We can therefore expect a crisis of confidence in representative democracy.

Meanwhile we can expect to see a further militarisation of the police as they’re expected to enter areas of ethnic street violence where the writ of the law does not really extend. Meanwhile we are unlikely to see an abatement of organised child sexual exploitation among ethnic minorities, particularly as Pakistan regresses further into the dark ages.

The decision for Britain, therefore, is whether we get over our squeamishness about enforcing the borders now, even if that means dispensing with international protocols, or whether we become a multicultural zoo where enforcing the law is all but impossible – and a common framework of civil law is impossible to establish.

If we allow the latter, it is highly likely we will see the emergence of a “far right” movement, the likes of which we have not seen before and additional outbreaks of vigilantism. With politics dictated by the culture war and in a state of perpetual deadlock, while conditions worsen for the white working class, abandoned by both main parties, we could very well be looking at a low level civil conflict.

If the intention of the NGOcracy is as they say; to uphold liberal democratic values, to what extent do they imagine those same values will survive after they have successfully dismantled all the legal means by which to enforce our borders? Or are we not meant to ask that question?