Main Edition
US
FR
There is nothing humane about this (Carlos Gil/Getty Images)
Itâs been a tough 10 days for Elton John. First, it was revealed that our Rocket Man is having to part ways with his beloved condo in Atlanta (on the market for a cool $5 million). Then, as if that werenât stressful enough, Elton was forced to take on the entire British Government, leading the charge against the alleged homophobia unleashed by its Home Secretary.
Was Suella Bravermanâs speech on Tuesday so outrageous? Was her suggestion that âmanyâ asylum seekers pretend to be gay âhomophobicâ, or âdog-whistlingâ, or an âinsult to refugeesâ? Did it have echoes of Enoch Powell?
Not really. For anyone whoâs been paying attention to Europeâs immigration crisis, the only surprising thing about her speech was that it has taken so long for a politician to air the unsavoury truth about the mess in which we now find ourselves, and how we can possibly fix it.
Braverman wasnât making a political point when she observed how Britainâs broken asylum system creates huge incentives for uncontrolled illegal migration, which, inevitably, has a serious âimpact on social cohesionâ. She was merely stating the truth. Once upon a time, this was an argument acknowledged by the Left. Iâm old enough to remember when the Joseph Rowntree Foundation argued that âboth our immigration and asylum systems make people destitute by design and need urgent reformâ. It was this July.
What might that reform look like? Braverman made two recommendations that, seen in the clear light of day, donât seem particularly radical. The first was that Britain should consider removing itself from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), an unaccountable legal factory housed in Strasbourg which issues more than 4,000 judgements a year. Given Britainâs recent and historical aversion to being ruled by unelected European institutions, withdrawing from the ECHR would hardly be out of character. The same can be said of Bravermanâs suggestion that the United Nationsâ Refugee Convention, which came into force in 1951, might merit a rethink.
And yet, after the speech, the deluge. Sir Elton issued a stern statement that he was âvery concernedâ by what she said about gay migrants, believing it would legitimise âhate and violence against themâ. Many on the Left denounced what they saw as Bravermanâs betrayal of her background as the daughter of immigrants. Even a number of her fellow Conservative MPs criticised her âalarmistâ rhetoric.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI find it bizarre that anyone would listen to Elton John or any pop star for that matter.
What always pains me with any discussion about this topic is the complete lack of thought for the people left to do the integration.
Does migration on this scale impact on Elton. No. Of course it doesnât. In the same way it doesnât impact on most of the people who crow so loudly in favour of it.
Our politicians would do well to remember who they serve. The people of the UK and not the peoples of the world. It would appear Suella understands this. Many of her contemporaries clearly do not.
Teachers are the ones I feel sorry for. No one asked them whether they really wanted to be the foot soldiers of integration, having to deal with high numbers of kids who can’t yet speak the language of tuition and the inevitable clashes in basic values on grassroots level.
Well said, Katherine! Our daughter found herself having to teach Shakespeare to a boy who had arrived in the UK with his uncle from the DR Congo speaking no English. The uncle was refused permission to stay; the boy remained (not sure why this is allowed). Such arrivals don’t get appropriate education; their classmates are denied a lot of teacher attention. This is ostrich-head-in-the-sand policy, like most of our policy on refugees and asylum.
Clearly additional tuition is essential.. this is what we call special needs. It’s not a new phenomenon is it?
Who pays?
It’s an investment.. the investor pays and reaps a rich reward..
And what reward would that be? Care to elucidate us?
Not sure this post deserves downvotes. Itâs a reasonable point and on this platform we should all be civilised enough to give it a measured response. That makes life far more interesting and pleasant.
Liam, you are correct, up to a point. Our country has welcomed non English-speaking children into schools for over 70 years, and theyâve assimilated into our culture remarkably well and quickly.
The problems now are ones of cultural dilution and economics.
A country can only absorb a certain number of migrants without undergoing a seismic shift in culture. This may be resented by its original inhabitants who would quite like their culture to remain.
There is also a tipping point, beyond which people become unwilling to support additional immigrants economically, not just in terms of increased taxes but in housing shortages, GP waiting times, job availability etc.
Resenting a single immigrant child in a class of 30 might be due to racism. Resenting 15 of them is far more likely to be economics and concerns over cultural balance. A school canât afford that additional level of teaching support, so nobody gets to learn Shakespeare.
I donât imagine youâd be particularly keen to see Irish culture undergoing such dilution as to be unrecognisable, particularly if it was costing you money and giving your children huge class sizes and costing you a house or a job.
I remember news reports a few years ago about growing anti-Chinese sentiment in Oslo, sparked by the large number of Chinese recently immigrating there. Norway is not particularly notorious for being racist, and I had some sympathy for the complainants. There must be forty metropolitan areas in China larger than Oslo, and it’s not unreasonable for Norwegians to hope that their sole city of any size shouldn’t become indistinguishable from them.
On the other side of the planet, my wife and I recently visited New Zealand, and while the spectacular scenery was expected, the friendliness, wealth and obviously high educational level of New Zealanders themselves were the real revelations. New Zealand has somehow developed a fantastic culture with a national population less than Atlanta’s or Miami’s. Yet, every tour-guide point of interest we visited was overwhelmed with fleets of busses disgorging Chinese tourists–entire families of them. Nothing against them: I’m sure they loved the experience as much as we did. But the thought of what would happen to New Zealand and its unique culture if it embraced uncontrolled immigration is disheartening. Is it really in diversity’s interest for Auckland to become Canton South, or for Paris or Rome to become Tripoli North?
It’s a problem, for sure.. but it does have a solution..
What is it?
No, it doesn’t have a “solution” except radically reducing migration levels of all kinds. Waving a magic wand is I suppose, a solution in your uber liberal books! It is completely obvious to anyone with eyes to see that public services are being overwhelmed in some areas by the huge increase in immigration levels. And the “asylum seekers”, boat people etc contribute only.are a small minority to this. Over 1 million gross per annum lest we forget, the 600,000 net takes into account native or well integrated migrants leaving the country and being replaced by others who on many cases have no connection whatsoever with the UK.
The UK never for example meets its housing targets. We can discuss the reasons for this at length, nimbyism, whatever, but it is a reality.
It is indeed a reality but it does have a solution.. you hinted at just one.. there are many.
My grandson with his hard won special needs granted to the primary school had this sum of money shared around for extra language lessons for the many children there who had no English.
How much did the British cruise missiles cost? ..all 12 were used in one day on an act of aggression (not defence) on Svastipol.. How much did the Chieftain tanks cost? ..and all the other killing material?
How much did Liz Truss’s debacle cost? What about the Tory mates on PPE and Test n Trace? Hundreds of ÂŁbillions! There’s no shortage of money, just all spent on the wrong stuff and the wrong people! So much better to look to the real culprits and stop crapping on the poor unfortunate scapegoats!
I would agree with you regarding money wasted on pointless, unwinnable wars except you forget that all that money was printed on the magic money photocopier – it is now our debt.
It’s not just kids that need integrating. I’m a teacher of adults, some of whom are international students, some are recent or more established residents with overseas origins. I like my students – all just want to get on in the world, most are decent people – but find that I spend so much time correcting their poor language, helping them understand British culture or teaching them about academic misconduct (many just don’t ‘get’ plagiarism) that I can’t focus on my subject. Some have been here for decades but barely speak English, and many are isolated from British culture (even the second generation in some communities). It’s an uphill struggle, to be honest.
I can totally understand how difficult it must be for you. I’m sure “an uphill struggle” is an understatement.
“Many are isolated from British culture”. My observation has been that it is voluntary self-isolation, not exclusion. Many immigrants do not want to integrate with British culture – they want to retain their own cultural identity. I am on very good terms with a fairly prominent member of the local mosque – we meet in several separate business contexts – and his conversation seems to consist of statements which all start with “My community….” followed by some specific cultural demand (halal food, or prayer spaces, or prayer times, or segregation of the sexes). He’s a nice enough guy, but does not seem to realise he is in my country – not his. On one occasion when he was complaining about the lack of halal food in the local hospital I asked purely out of curiosity if he was equally determined that kosher should be catered for. It did not go down well! (Actually I have no idea if there is a significant jewish population locally, or whether there is anyone at all, but then if there were they would probably not be shouting the odds about it. Could just be they are integrated with the mainstream.)
I agree. I don’t think it’s natives that are refusing to interact with newcomers, it’s (mostly) the other way round (especially pronounced among Muslims, even second or third generation).
Interesting : if he was a Moslem from the ME, he would probably have no difficulty with Kosher Meat; many of the same dietary taboos exist. My guess therefore is that he (another guess) was from South Asia, where they have little or no contact with Jews.
Good guess – he’s Bangladeshi. And I don’t think he has a problem with kosher – I think he has (and I know from chatting to some of his’ community’ that many of them have) a problem with Jews. Lack of actual contact seems irrelevant : that is, of course, what prejudice is. I recall a conversation with a young, British born young man of Bangladeshi descent, who was ranting about Jews (bad) and Palestinians (good). I asked ” Do you know any Jewish people?” “No”. Do you know any Palestinians, or have you ever met one?” “No, but they are my brothers.”
This prejudice and hatred is ingested with their mothers’ milk, and reinforced in the mosques.
âThis prejudice and hatred is ingested with their mothersâ milk, and reinforced in the mosques.â
And precisely that is the problem! Itâs passed from one generation to the next.
Teachers have always been the enforcers of culture.
I know I felt the belt on a few occasions.
And now they are the enforcers of woke culture!
Only with weak uncertainty, the hallmark of educators in all matters. They do what they told, which is where the problem is.
One would like to think teachers knew what they were getting into, but when you look back to your own campus experience education majors were the bottom of the barrel types who couldn’t make it into even woke corporate HR departments.
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, become regulators.
The first part of that seeping generalisation is pretty stupid, though amusing enough. You can have – and we need – excellent teachers. As with other professions, you can have good, mediocre and bad.
Any teachers among the immigrants? No? That’s odd? And (potential) healthcare providers? house builders? Fruit pickers? Hotel workers? Bar workers? Minimum wage workers ..all young, fit, healthy and keen as mustard? ..unlike the indigenous lot eh? Aged or sick or too fat? too lazy? too stupid? too opinionated? too smug? too entitled? too spoilt…
Ha ha ha! You’re hilarious! The vast majority are simply potential Welfare recipients…
You’re right – but I think the problem goes deeper. It isn’t just that privileged people don’t experience the negatives, but that they actively profit from immigration on this scale. How many property owners in Barnes, where Lineker lives, for example, are not multimillionaires – at least in part thanks to the impact of immigration on house prices and rents?
That represents a massive upward transfer of wealth – so their defence of the world’s downtrodden at the expense of their fellow citizens is both moral and highly profitable. It’s too easy.
True.. Inequality in the UK, especially the refusal to tax its vast wealth is the underlying cause of 90% of the UK’s problems.. but the sheeple fail to see this, or seeing it are too cowardly to oppose it unlike say the French!
I’m open to argument on this, but taxing wealth doesn’t actually have a particularly good track record. Investors can readily relocate for other shores and jurisdictions.
There is very unlikely to be a silver bullet to the UK’s problems, and France hardly provides a wonderful example of social and political harmony. Macron, who is undoubtedly rather patrician, snooty and unlikeable, has been spending years, and much of his political capital trying to reform France’s over generous welfare state.
Politicians like to be popular, so I doubt he is doing this for fun, or that a simple increase in wealth taxes (they already have them) is going to solve the problem.
I would like to see someone try and locate bricks, mortar and the land up which it sits to another shore and jurisdicrtion. There is ample opportunity to tax wealth which is both unearned (house prices didn’t rise x5 because of improvements…) and cannot be moved.
On the other hand wealth which has been earned by hard work, like a PAYE job, or by hard work and risk taking, like a entrpreneur should be incredibly lightly taxed. These are taxed far far to heavily and I agree we have indeed driven many of these types abroad already.
So we really need to be smart before dismissing calls for wealth to be taxed properly AND we need to be think before calling for higher taxes on ‘the rich’. But if we use our brains and define things carefully we can radically improve the situation we have right now,
Socialists havenât produced a novel idea since they came up with the concept of spending other peopleâs money on social improvement and welfare concepts that never seem to improve anything at all.
You could have been clearer 8n your comment. Were you implying that more people in Barnes would be multi-millionaires, were it not for immigration?
Barnes is a very white and posh area of London.
No, I’m saying that immigration is at least partly responsible for the inflated property values they enjoy – so why wouldn’t they support it?
Itâs part of the dissolving of Parliamentâs power to quangos, devolution and committing to international bodies who do not act in our best interests. Parliament needs to take power back and take responsibility. Our voters will be the final arbiters of whether they are successful or not
You forget, in the civilised world, once a would be migrant seeking asylum arrives in the UK they become “people of the UK”!
They really don’t. Ask a French-based Mahgrebian.
In 2009 when I worked for a French company based in London, I visited Paris in the company of a UK citizen Palestinian colleague. I was shocked at the racism he was subject to by Parisians who mistook him for a French North African.
Use your head a little bit and try to figure out why.
Even with our far too liberal asylum system, your statement is simply not true in any sense, culturally or indeed legally. They simply have a right to have their asylum claims assessed fairly. That is all
Trouble is, they often donât. Many would prefer to be a âperson of Pakistanâ living in Britain. That might mean holding onto cultural practices and attitudes that run directly contrary to our own culture or, sometimes, our laws. Thatâs not OK.
Elton John lives surrounded by security, walls & fences. His talk is ill-considered and cheap.
Elton John! Crickey does he think he can run the country now ?
No. Like you he has an opinion. It’s just that his gets more coverage.
To even take an entertainer’s political views seriously is entirely moronic. They should just shut their traps and stick to entertaining. But even in that regard, Sir Elton is a Has-Been.
A coverage that is entirely unwarranted! My plumber has opinions about medical topics, too, but I donât seek his advice on the cause(s) of my migraine headaches. I also donât go to my GP when my sink is clogged.
Crikey
Our politicians would do well to remember who they serve?
My friend, it is painfully apparent that our politicians *do* remember who they serve: ‘our’ politicians serve the globalist interests of the WEF and the WHO, both of which want to control every minute aspect of our lives; ‘our’ politicians serve the interests of the major shareholders of BlackRock, which aims to own every physical asset in the world and lease it back to us at a high rate of return; ‘our’ politicians serve the interest of pharmaceutical conglomerates like Pfizer, who bribe them into mandating their toxic products.
We live in a post-democratic world of Corporate Fascism.
We have a very limited window in which it is still just about possible – though very difficult – to vote our way out. By the end of this decade I suspect we will either have to shoot our way out or die as de facto slaves.
Best comment here so far. The unvarnished truth…
I will go with option 1 as I donât particularly care for dying as a slaveâde facto or otherwise.
Espousing pro-immigration beliefs is a classic example of a luxury belief (Henderson’s term). I’ve come to despise those who spout off about the rights of migrants who themselves are not touched by the impacts of mass migration. They are, frankly, deluded cowards. And they lack empathy for the working classes of this country.
Why do you have that big black blob by your name?
Dunno. I didn’t put it there.
Something to do with your registration/profile I suspect
I can’t seem to change it under ‘profile’. I don’t mind it anyway, makes me appear vastly more mysterious and interesting than I really am!
The Blob strikes đ
Bu**gers get everywhereâŠ
It is bizarre (and possibly insane), but, sadly, that is the reality. It might be better to convince people like Mr John of more rational ideas (perhaps decorate them with glitter and pin them to a basket of flowers) which they can then disseminate accordingly.
Problem isâŠ..not only do they listen to Elton John but also to brainless footballer, YouTubers, actors, âŠâŠin short, anyone eager to boost his career ( Elton is beyond that âŠ.of courseâŠ.but looking good canât hurt ) or stay afloat.
None of these people will have to live around the migrants they so passionately seekâŠ..it is a farce. âŠ..and a bad oneâŠâŠreminds me of the PopeâŠ.
What I really struggle with is the fact that no interviewer ever pulls them up on their statements. Theyâre allowed to spout this rubbish without being challenged.
I have great respect for the author, and her unfailing desire and ability to search for the truth, then to state it clearly and without fear or favour. However, there seems to be a contradiction in this article. She writes:
“Every man, woman and child who risks their lives to escape the place they call home deserves all the support and sanctuary they can get.”
She also cites herself as an example. But the rest of the article appears to be concerned with how Western nations – and Europe in particular – can avoid the consequences of what she advocates. I can fully agree that it’s a dilemma; perhaps the defining one of our times, broaching the same divide as that which has emerged between progressives and conservatives, with the stark matter of life and death involved.
I hope i haven’t done her a disservice in highlighting this apparent contradiction.
It’s a flat contradiction. She is confused. It isn’t the job of Western Europe to fix the rest of the world’s problems, problems created by their own failings. It isn’t possible either.
Hmm I think there is a good argument that the west has played a not insignificant part in the problems faced by places these people are fleeing from. I’m always surprised that getting rid of Gadafi – the “cork plugging the bottle to Europe” is never mentioned when there is discussions about refugees swarming into Europe
The US has destablised a large part of the globe, but most illegal migrants are from countries that are simply poor. NATO’s destabilisation of Libya opened the floodgates to illegal African migrants, but it didn’t cause their desire to come here for a better life. That desire was already present and, as you wrote, Gadafi was plugging the bottle.
Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama who did much to destabilize the Middle East and the Biden & Kamala Harris who are neglecting the USAâs borders are making all Americans pay for their malfeasance. With tremendous irony, HillaryâsâClinton Foundationâ is now going to ârebuildâ The Ukraine just like she did Haiti. These people are the poster children for grifting- they have no shame.
The migrant problem has been around since the Reagan era. Remember he granted asylum for millions of migrants. Every year has more migrants as they are coming from around the globe. At this point, thousands are crossing every day. Iâm not sure how to stop it, as Central and South American countries are not cooperating with us to stem the flow. Short of shooting them or stationing border control officials every 500 feet, there are not many solutions.
You relate half of the story. Along with the amnesty, provisions were made to penalize employers who hired illegal immigrants. The Congress didn’t provide a means by which employers could comply. Thus, the open border crowd (and farmers utilizing the cheap labor) won.
Rubbish.
Yes, and add in a dozen other great African leaders assassinated or deposed in favour of tyrannical Neocolonial puppet regimes!
If you kick the kid next door and steal his lunch for years don’t be surprised that he comes looking for you now he’s all grown up and you’re feeble!
Oh F yes. David Cameron has blood on his hands.
Pig’s blood? And not just on his hands……
To benefit from the contents of the bottle, the cork has to be removed. ‘Benefit’ depending on the winetaster’s palate.
I’m sorry to have to tell you (you should already know) but the problems of the 3rd world are NOT of their own making! USUK+ EU are the guilty parties.. if they hadn’t…
1) Looted 3rd world resources,
2) Applied a divide and conquer policy,
3) Drawn artificial borders
4) Assassinated great leaders (eg Patrice Lomumba et al)
5) Orchestrated coups and then…
6) Installed Tyrants so as to..
7) Perpetuate neocolonialism eg..
8) Strangle their economies
…those countries would be well able to fend for themselves today, with their vast mineral wealth and rich soils the neocolonialists continues to steal (if paying âŹ12 for a commodity worth âŹ218 isn’t theft then what is? I refer to Niger’s Uranium).
They did it because they could. These coun tries were and are basket cases with totally corrupt and corruptible “leaders”. Europe didn’t cause dysfunction in Africa it exploited it. Just as the Chi ese are doing today. But because the Chinese aren’t white westerners, the less said about them the better.
One could argue the Third World countries did better under colonial rule than they do now. Look at Haiti, or South Africa. And saying Western powers cause massive crime rates and civil wars is daft. If anything, these warring nations have reverted back to what they were before colonialism.
Itâs a leftist/socialist mentality, which is of course daft. It puts all the fault on the West and white people, but by completely absolving the third world of responsibility it also takes away agency, and perpetuates the racism of low expectations. Leftists are the worst hypocrites who hide behind their virtue signalling facades.
Man, you really are a broken record. A rabidly Leftist Broken record!
Unfortunately, migration is our problem. Quite literally it is on our doorsteps. And the solution is? Remember in the US most illegals arrive by plane – they overstay visas having entered legally. We can try and sort out somethings our end but the tide of people won’t stop until we look at those causes at source. So, forget the blame game or guilt trips of colonisation. We just have to fix it today with where we find ourselves.
I donât think itâs a contradiction. These people may deserve support, but it doesnât necessarily follow that anyone is obliged to give them that support. Europe and Britain can only afford to accept so many refugees. At some point, the economic drag becomes so oppressive you destroy prosperity for both residents and refugees. This doesnât help anyone.
An analogy would be like how everyone ‘deserves love.’
But the instant someone is forced to give love to another, you’ve basically created a rapey tyranny.
Are you saying that Western countries are being “raped” by illegal immigrants?
It’s an analogy, darling, as I explained.
I’m sorry mate but you’ve no idea what love is..
Have you turned off your brain for the day to save power?
The world has experienced the âloveâ you Socialists have to offer, and the tally is 100 million dead in 100 years. You can keep your love, and put it where the sun never shines!
You forget the economic benefits! Where un the UK are you going to find an ‘indigenous’ Brit who’s smart, young, fit, healthy, keen and able yo work hard for such modest returns? If you do look for them you’ll find instead: lazy, entitled, greedy, spoilt, opinionated snowflakes! Not all of course (on either side) but generally speaking.
There are two sides to this.. try looking at the positives for a change.
So youâre wanting to take advantage of cheap labor? Is that the goal? At the expense of civility! And to pay higher taxes for these needy millions?
Exactly!
All she is saying is that it is possible to understand and have compassion for the reasons why people might flee their homes while at the same time rejecting mass illegal immigration.
The wording is clumsy and makes her argument seem more contradictory than it actually is. Holding both views simultaneously is perfectly possible; they are not mutually exclusive.
I agree. It is perfectly possible to sympathise with people desperate to leave a failed or failing state, but at the same time uphold the laws which are in large part necessary for a state to uphold if its electorate do not wish to live in such a failed or failing state.
Itâs not difficult. I think the only thing that is questionable in Ayanâs article is the choice of the word âsupportâ in respect of what we should offer migrants, as that word could be interpreted in a way she surely did not intend.
The second largest group of people illegally crossing the channel to the UK is from Albania, which is in Europe. The third largest is from India, which is supposedly the fastest growing economy in the world.
The role war, conflict and famine play in driving illegal migration is massively exaggerated. In most cases it’s simply the desire for a Western quality of life. The West cannot provide this for the entire planet.
No it can’t but even if people aren’t fleeing famine and war, you can still understand their drive to find better lives outside of their own countries and the rational decisions they make to realise the dream. Living in Albania probably isn’t that great for the vast majority of its citizens. But the responsibility for making that better is with the Albanian government, not the target countries of illegal immigration by Albanian citizens. (Edi Rama can huff and puff about that all he wants, it won’t get any less true).
Shortly after Christmas last year the prime minister announced that Albanians would be fast tracked through the asylum system.
Evidently the Albanian car protest staged around Westminster a few weeks before Christmas last year, which comprised dozens of cars flying the Albanian flag, sounding their horns continuously, and driving as slowly as possible, played a part.
Apparently, the free press felt so free not to report this demo.
To your last sentence I would say “yes and no”. In the 19th century immigration waves to the US, for example, the immigrants not only wanted a better life and opportunities but they wanted to integrate into their new country. They didn’t want to have a country within a country. If somebody wants to come to the UK or US, and wants to assimilate and be British or American, that’s fine by me. They will only contribute positively. But if they don’t want to assimilate, then one has a massive problem, especially if they continue pursuing social mores that are anathema in the West. And that is the key difference between mass immigration in the 19th century and mass immigration now.
Yes, integration and assimilation are key.. but if toffs want ghettos and others want white supremacy your problem lies not where you think.
The other key difference being the 19th and 20th century immigration to the US was legal.
Moreover, immigrants were strictly tested for health; today the USA is experiencing an uptick in tuberculosis infections not to mention another wave of Covid. Also, 100 years ago, when you arrived in the USA you were on your own to survive. Right now NYC is paying $11k per month to host immigrants families in NY hotels and that doesnât include food, medicine etc. The NYC school system also had to find 20k spaces for illegalsâ children; Inner city NYC has enough problems without the Third World piling in.
And yet, a few years ago NYC declared itself a sanctuary city welcoming refugees from around the world.
The refugees that are now disrupting and bankrupting the social services of New York are a mere fraction of the millions who swarmed over the southern border after President Biden took office.
Those people of the southern states who were the early beneficiaries of our President’s misguided policies have already had their municipal services swamped with refugee demands for assistance.
That New York City is now suffering from an influx of just 100,000 of these refugees makes one wonder why it’s taken this premier “Sanctuary City” so long to realize that they really only support sanctuary as long as it’s provided somewhere else and paid for by someone else.
Hypocrisy, thy color is blue.
I hope this s**thole city collapses under its own weight! I have always loathed NYC with a passion: full of rude narcissists, overpriced, overrated, loud, dirty, uncultured, and uncouth.
Not only that but when they have become a resident they can import the rest of the family. In my apartment complex lives an old lady from Kazakhstan who was imported by her daughter who had married an American citizen. The mother now gets social security, low income housing and all the benefits allotted to a senior. She doesn’t speak English.
I wasn’t allowed to join my family in Australia because I might become a dependent, and they have no problem sending illegal migrants back where they came from.
Sending illegal migrants back is not easy if their country of origin refuses to grant them entry – especially if their identity is unclear. France has something like a million people who have “deported” status (OQTF) but who simply refuse to leave. They remain entitled to some welfare for some reason too.. And the FRench hands seem tied as they buy oil from those countries and don’t want to upset the oil cart!
Exactly, and not only that but there are just more people now than there were then. Millions more.
Billions more.
Thereâs another key difference: a far smaller global population! In 1900, this planet had 1.6 billion people. In 2023, itâs more than eight billion. A smaller population means more available space and other resources.
All such applicants are returned to their home countries under current legislation including the ECHR!
Not any more. A returns agreement has been negotiated.
Daily Telegraph, 13 Sept 2023
Great news!!
To say Cruella Braverman’s wording is clumsy is a bit like saying Göbles was a little OTT on racism.. The fly in your ointment is the term “illegal immigration” – there is no effective legal migration. Also, once a person arrives and seeks asylum then every civilized country is morally as well as legally obliged to consider their right to asylum. Even in the UK’s cruel system well over 90% of such applications are successful.. but the system is broken.
Exactly.
Agreed. “Deserve”, being synonymous with “earn” is simply the wrong word. In fact, the whole statement about what they deserve is just a platitude.
Most of us jog along happily enough with a variety of principles which are not entirely consistent. It is just that occasionally circumstances arise which force us to choose. In this case, the problem is the numbers. During my lifetime the population of Europe has risen from about 600m to 750m but that of e.g. Africa has risen from 270m to 1.4bn and is projected to rise to 3bn by 2100. Much the same is true in the Middle East and South Asia. Add a few jets and tv series portraying life in the West and the vastly increased number of potential immigrants forces us to choose between the traditional right of asylum and the cohesion and prosperity of those already living here. I donât think the author is doing more than reflecting this painful reality.
The impact of this population explosion is frequently ignored. It also played a huge role in Syriaâs civil war. Unemployment was a major factor, and that in turn is driven by massive population growth. No economic development programme can keep up with a growth factor of 2.5 in one generation.
Just imagine what the Strasbourg law factory would do if we allowed them to own the legal interpretation of the word âsupportâ âŠ. on top of their existing scope creep.
That is very much my point. AHA tends to choose her words carefully. I therefore respectfully disagree with those who see no inherent contradiction within the article.
It goes beyond “holding seemingly contradictory views” of which i’m perfectly capable. Deserving “support” rather than just sympathy… perhaps those who disagree with my point didn’t take that sufficiently into consideration. That’s also why i made a point at the outset of my comment about my respect for AAH’s integrity.
If you do someone wrong they deserve your support.. to suggest that the British Empire and Neocolonialism did/ is doing no wrong is a denial of monstrous proportions.
Our judges do that for them once they are here!
There’s no contradiction. Life is all about not getting what you deserve, or even what you think you deserve. Perhaps the “support and sanctuary” should be provided in their home countries, but that would be Western interference wouldn’t it, which doesn’t have a great track record.
There is no contradiction if you carefully define the terms of the “sanctuary they can get”. She makes the point that the terms of the sanctuary should be defined by democratically accountable means rather than the definitely unaccountable ECHR or the moribund Convention.
The very fact that they can reach Europe or the US in the first place shows that these people aren’t that poor or even downtrodden. This problem rarely arise before the 80s because they couldn’t afford to get here or that their governments often forbade travel to the west
That is the point a lot of people miss. The immigrants are not in total poverty – they want a better life and have enough money to pay for passage and trafficking. I imagine in some cases families will pool resources to send one person who then becomes the gateway for the others.
Ironically, the money Western countries give in international aid to improve lives can end up funding this.
Possibly she slipped past this contradiction because there is now no solution. I do not know how we get out of this problem. I haven’t seen a good idea on the matter. I suspect we are going to have to be ruthless and so embarrass ourselves by just putting up the barracades and saying go away. Every man for himself and never mind women and children. Oh I forgot, we’re already doing that, Afghanistan slipped my mind!
The contradiction is possibly slipped over because there isn’t a solution. I haven’t heard anything that woud make sense to solve mass immigration. We will perhaps just have to get tough and close boarders to all.
Exactly, there is no solution so far.
Totally agree, it is a contradiction but perhaps the contradiction is also the dilema.
Yes it is a contradiction. But forgivable. At least she is grateful for western hospitality and exudes a love of our way of life.
I took her to be stating the nature of the dilemma many people feel. Most people feel those in real need, trying to better their circumstances, should be helped. But the old system for helping them no longer seems to be workable.
What is stopping Italy or the UK simply arresting, immobilising and shipping back to the country they came from all the illegal migrants arriving in boats? Nothing but a cats-cradle of unrealistic conventions and lawyers and activists exploiting them. Once a firm policy was adopted that applied to all such migrants irrespective of their individual circumstances and stories the boats would soon stop as it would cease to be worthwhile paying the people-smugglers thousands to gain entry to Europe or the UK in this way.
We could then have a conversation as to whom and how many we wished to allow to take a legal path to immigration. Clearly there would be differing views on this but at least we would not be held to ransom by people-smugglers.
So the first step is to withdraw from these conventions and ignore the cryâs of distress and complaint from those whose interests are inimical to a rational immigration policy.
There’s no returns agreement with EU countries.
The ECHR is a non democratic unconstrained law factory producing ever more curious rules and dubious judgements. Our legal system is respected and admired throughout the free world. So I agree we should abandon this failed European control experiment asap confident in the knowledge that our judges are well up to the task of properly administering the rule of law. The ECHR is neither needed nor helpful – in fact it is quite the reverse on both counts.
Yes, it’s bizarre that, apparently foreign human rights laws are always better than anything we could come up with ourselves, just as any divergence from EU rules is, apparently, inevitably a reduction in protection.
I know you’re trying to be cynical but what you say is literally true!
“Even The Times, not known for its xenophobic bigotry, admitted in its leader column that âshe is right to ask the questions that need askingâ.
It is simply a matter of common sense – and I am also shocked that it has taken this long for someone to get up and say what needs to be said. Even Die Zeit, a German paper that is quite left-leaning, has on its front page this week an article by Mariam Lau which is highly critical of the status quo with illegal immigration.
In it, she points out the utter irony that plenty of Germans believe they can cool the entire planet down through their own national environmental policies. Yet, when it comes to controlling who comes into the country, they think we can’t do anything. Which lets politicians get away with ignoring the problem and hoping it will somehow go away on its own or that the people will just accept it.
To have such bold statements on the front page of a paper like Zeit which is anything but anti-migrant is a sure sign of the big shift in mood that seems to be happening among the public across the whole of Europe. European media tend to use any stick to beat the Tories with so I think Suella’s speech will go largely unreported here (haven’t seen any mention of it so far in Austrian/German media): too many people would agree with what she said. And, after Brexit, agreeing with the Tories isn’t allowed!
[Here’s the article by the way: https://www.zeit.de/2023/41/migrationspolitik-ampelkoalition-deutschland-pakt-union-asyl
Behind a paywall, but even the first paragraphs give an indication of how excoriating the rest of the article is. An open admission that there’s not going to be any European solution as promised…ouch.]
Not only do questions need to be asked but many more questions relating to causation need to be asked as well! Even more importantly, solutions need to be found; real, workable, fair, decent, humanitarian solutions, not the savage draconian solutions proposed.
You are so right. Would you care to share your proposed solutions? Please remember to comment on how many people you want to let in, how you are going to limit the number when the limit is reached, and how you are going to handle the economic, social, and political effect of a very large number of people from very different cultures arriving in the UK.
…or in Ireland….
I believe Liam O’Mahony is being disingenuous. He actually kind of likes the status quo.
.
your belief system is flawed.
No. Your thinking is deeply flawed…
Happily. Assimilation, integration and community building are key.. also training where needed.
Fit, healthy, keen young people are far more beneficial to your economy than your sick, fat, lazy, aged, entitled, opinionted, barren, indigenous snowflakes.. the former are service usually providers and the latter are alwats service drainers..
Limit numbers: ALL arrivals in Ireland are liable to deportation unless they can prove genuine asylum entitlement so any that don’t qualify (and that are unlikely to contribute) can be and are returned to their country of origin. But of course you need a functioning asylum system to make that happen.. you don’t have one in the UK!
We have 100 million Irish emigrants around the world (1st, 2nd, 3rd generation) and you have a great many British emigrants as well (you call them expats as it sounds superior).
Other countries have far more immigrants than the UK (by population) – how do they manage? The word you’re groping for is SOLITIONS.. it’s not rocket science!
Right. So how many asylum seekers has Ireland got over, say the last five years? How many have been sent back, and how long did they stay on the average? Given that no other European country has managed to send asylum seekers back to any large extent, how does Ireland do it?
Of course, you list of insults suggest that your preferred result would be to replace the sick, fat, lazy, etc. whites with young healthy Africans. I wonder how you are going to get an electoral majority for that one, though.
Like ,The undocumented Irish in America?are the “expats” considered the same?..
Obviously solutions need to be found. Any suggestions?
Yes, look to my reply to Rasmus Fogh..
The trick is to see the opportunities rather than focus on the problems. Here’s a few extracts from “Rocket Science for Dummies”
Housing shortage – get ’em to build houses.
Health services – train ’em as healthcare providers.
Labour shortage – they are young, fit, keen, healthy and definitely not workshy. Duh!
Schooling: Train ’em as teachers.. get ’em building schools!
Food shortages – get ’em farming/growing.
They already have many skills but training can be accelerated because they’re super smart, willing, able, keen, resilient, brave, focused.. etc. Can you see a pattern emerging at all? It’s a more like ‘join the dots’ that rocket science..
Of course you could do all that for Whitey English except he’s to old or too lazy or too fat or to cowardly, or workshy or entitled or opinionated to bother his arse, isnt he?
Donât waste your time. Heâs pretty clearly a troll.
The conversation can be imagined. A group a guests at table in a large residence in Lincoln in the early fifth century.
Clodia: You just don’t know the price I had to pay for the seafood!
Diana: Tell the gods about it, my dear. Marcus had the most difficult journey the other day from Corinium. All those potholes! But the provincial governor made a speech last week about the need to repair them.
Marcus: Ah, yes! The need, mind you, just the need. Just like that other speech of his about those migrants. What do they call themselves, Titus?
Titus: Only Mars knows, old friend! I didn’t know that there were so many people who wanted to share the good things of the five provinces of Britannia.
Juno: And to think that they were once described as undeserving of the good things of empire. Well, all I can say as a woman is that they make me feel uneasy. Titus had a letter the other day from Vitelius in Camulodonum. You know, his old business partner. There’s more of them arriving by the day, he says, boats are beached everywhere.
Marcus: What’s the Christian position on this, Maria? You’ve been politely quiet.
Maria: Well, how you provoke me, Marcus! They may be pagans, and they may speak in tongues. Though not perhaps as our chief Apostle meant. But all of them, Rugians, Franks, Huns, Danes, Frisians, Bructerians, Saxons, there’s plenty of space in Britannia. Why, Worcester and Cornwall have hardly been settled by us Romans. Londinium has lots of vacant properties, so I hear. And think of how useful they will be.
Clodia: Well, the Dux of Camulodonum doesn’t quite think so, apparently. Isn’t that right, Marcus?
Marcus: Yes, he made that speech about being concerned at the numbers of arrivals. Couldn’t be processed properly by the administrators, or something. But you know what these bureaucrats are like, always wanting things filed away neatly. Once something’s down on parchment it’s as if they feel in control.
Titus: On the other hand, Marcus, there’s that other fellow down in the south-west, who thinks they would be most useful. Haven’t such people always been? Just have to be practical, that’s all. Send them down to the south-west. As you say, Maria, plenty of vacant properties in Isca Domnoniorum.
Maria: Well, you see, Juno, things can always be managed, as our bishop has said to us, comfortingly. Of course, as our spiritual shepherd added, those not well off in our provinces are bound to have some apprehension about these unfortunates arriving from war-ravaged and pestilential lands. But such concern, voiced by our leaders and expressed with understanding is bound to soothe their fears. And, after all, Juno, didn’t your great-great-great-great-grandmother come from Syria?
Awesomely done!
These are just about all Islamic countries.
Islamic philosophy allows no area for a civic state. There’s no ‘give unto Caesar’.
So it’s all cruel potentates with strong clan or ethnic underpinnings, who are savagely slaughtered by the next group who rise up.
Chesterton called it the ‘awful unity’ of Islam.
They want to leave because it doesn’t work.
In the end, Islam isn’t a Western creation. It is better to force the crisis so they have no choice but to reform or ditch it, and invent something they don’t all feel the need to run away from.
With respect, a great number – perhaps even a majority – of those arriving on UK shores have a Christian worldview. Many of the Catholic schools and churches, for instance, may well have closed by now due to lack of numbers but for the influx from abroad. Where the wider Christian infrastructure doesn’t exist, it’s being set up from scratch by immigrants.
I would assume France siphons off a lot of the Muslims who arrive there, since it had more colonies in those regions to start with, hence a large local Muslim population.
Or Germany, with its large Turkish population and greater economic opportunities (tho that is diminishing.)
I agree that migrants are keeping the Catholic church alive in the UK.
Someone has to, since the hierarchy don’t seem much good at it!
Yes, good points.
However, there is a point that Islamic countries do need to be forced to a some kind of a reckoning that forces a change to some kind of a more civil society.
Or a more cultured one.
Or just a less corrupt one.
Not every dissatisfied Muslim can migrate to some country in Europe.
All religions are a problem.
That’s the position i start from.
Well, they’re a problem that isn’t about to go away. Traditional religiosity has declined in the States, only to be replaced by the new Inquisition of the woke mob.
Very true.. but the real dangers come from the crazy, Satanic (certainly not Christian) hate filled, Evangelical fanatics.
You donât say why. Or do we have to take your word for it?
That must be why a number of churches covered up their Christian statues &/or crosses to welcome many Muslims to take shelter in them!!!!!!
That is one, tiny minority in Islam. A very similar attitude exits among a tiny minority of Christians, Jews and probably others.
You should wash your mouth out with soap!
What on earth are you on about?
I’m on about your unbridled ignorance, bigotry, and racist xenophobia.. apart from that you’re probably quite an okay person?
If Margaret Thatcher were alive today she would be scratching her head. What is so difficult about denying entry to boatload of illegals coming in from FRANCE! Indeed I’m.scratching my head as are most rational thinkingi g people who haven’t been indoctrinated with a hatred of self and country. Because you have to hate your country try to happily be complicit in its destruction and call it a good days work.
That’s a mere concept.. precisely what ACTION do you propose? Concentration camps? Gas chambers? Had you not Brexited you could’ve sent them back to France under the EU Dublin Agreement but now you can’t.. pity BJ didn’t put that up on the side of his bus, eh?
Looking at the photograph above the article it would seem that the only people suffering despair are young men. Do women, the middle aged and elderly not feel anxiety about their home country? Perhaps these young men should do what ordinary Europeans had to do centuries ago and fight for a better future for their homeland.
A few years ago, on BBC Question Time, an audience member gave the game away – being a late middle-aged immigrant from the Middle East she pointed out that it was families who sent their sons to start a new life and eventually bring the rest of them over. It was âsaferâ for them to send the young men.
Young men who are fit, healthy, courageous, used to hardship, keen and willing to work hard for low wages? ..and fertile! What’s not to like?
Whitey English, is a fat, sick, lazy, cowardly, barren, opinionated and entitled snowflake.. The latter is the real crisis.. the former is the solution, not the problem!
Of course we should leave the ECHR. It is completely unacceptable for a foreign court to pass binding judgements on British law. The rule 39 decision to halt the Rwanda flights was an utter disgrace, completely undemocratic and and abject humiliation of the UK.
I predict that the Conservative’s next manifesto will contain a promise to leave the convention, leaving the Human Rights Act in place (which incorporates ECHR rights into British law) but obviously subject to modification by parliament. Northern Ireland will remain under the convention as per the GFA.
I think they might win the election too.
So you propose the UK withdraws from ALL international agreements, conventions etc. j6st because a British judge doesn’t decide the outcome? Eh, I think you don’t really understand the concept of “International” do you? The days when GB drew up the rules for the world (n/a to itself of course) are over.
That’s the prerogative of the US now.
But why should we not be able to make the laws for ourselves, particularly if current international laws don’t work.
Why is having ultimate power in Strasbourg better for you than London? You’re still a colony.
You British PARTICIPATE in drawing up and enforcing International Law.. the way you people talk you’d think you had no involvement at all! To your credit, much of what exists in International law is ‘British made’ something you should be proud of.
Hello Liam – long time, no see.
No, I only oppose treaties where the terms and conditions are not set in stone on the day of signing. The problem with the ECHR is that they can and do change and expand the definition of rights within the agreement without having to get permission from the signatories. The classic case is the “right to family life” which was invented long after we signed up and is now used by judges to justify blocking all sorts of government action.
It is clearly undemocratic and a country of Britain’s status can not accept it. This might be different in other countries (where the citizens don’t trust their legal systems) but not in Britain with a world famous legal order and the mother of parliaments. I fail to see the up-side of membership.
Two points:
1) You decry “right to family life” ..fgs why?
2) You trust the British system that has
(a) crushed TUs,
(b) banned protests and
(c) introduced Draconian laws and
(d) police state tactics..
Your focus is entirely in the wrong direction. You think Julian Assange deserves to be incarcerated, in solitary confinement, without a trial? When they come for you, you will think differently, I promise you!
The bottom line in all of this is that world poverty and strife cannot be solved by evacuating the Third World to the First.
Indeed; it simply diminishes the First. Notably lacking from many discussions about immigration is accountability in native lands where overpopulation, war, disease, etc. are the longtime norm. These countries need to set their own houses in order; instead, we hear tired historical and political arguments about colonizing and racism. At a certain point, individuals — and societies — need to be accountable for themselves. A good start would be population control, as overpopulation is the root of most social ills.
I note you omit the real causes..
200 years of exploitation and resource theft and recent assassinations of great leaders who were very successful (eg Gaddafi and before him Lamumba etc.), toppling of democratically elected governments, coups, installation of comliant tyrants etc etc.
True.. I suggest:
1. An admission that the 1st has, and continues to screw the 3rd, and
2. Massive aid and generous investment to right that dreadful wrong
3. Look to the 2nd world of China and Russia for contrast / guidance on 1 / 2.
This is ridiculous. She didnt say anything anti Gay . She said all you had to do to get asylum was to claim you were gay .
Agreed, and I’m gay. Too many self-interested people will exploit systemic vulnerabilities where they find them, whether it’s men claiming to be women, or straight people (apparently, again, mostly men) claming to be gay.
It’s curious: former immigrants and offspring of immigrants are rabidly opposed to immigration and notw gay people are opposed to gay immigrants.. I’m alright Jack, pull up the ladder!
She suggested very strongly that those claiming to be LGBT+ were liars! ..
I’ve often argue that organisations that are more than 70 years old (approximately) should be replaced. 70 years is long enough for the original purpose to be lost against the careerist manoeuverings of the senior managers and the producer capture by their minions.
Perhaps international Conventions and organisations also fall into this category? Does the United Nationsâ Refugee Convention or membership of the ECHR still fulfil the original role or is a fresh look is required? Since it may be impossible to make unilateral changes then leaving may be the best option.
Will you apply that to religions as well? How about the crazy FPP voting system? How about democracy itself? Okay I’m being frivolous…
You’re right, but let’s hope the new version is still fair, equitable and humanitarian; otherwise we’re going backwards as a civilization aren’t we?
Great with an honest and clear-eyed description of the problem – from a person who cannot be dismsissed as xenophobic. Still, it would be better if she could add some equally clear-eyed description of what we should actually do. What is the point of repatriating more power to the British state (like in Brexit) unless you know what you actualy want to do with it?
Just because your not white doesn’t mean you can’t be xenophobic! Look at Cruella Braverman fgs!
Just because you are Irish, it doesn’t mean you are right.
I am in no way involved.. so I am neither right nor wrong.. it is the points I make that are either correct or incorrect, exaggerated of downplayed: try and lose the ad hominem stuff.. it just makes you look silly.
Words of wisdom. Rational thinking. Our agony is not merely the utter moral cowardice of our elite in the face of crude accusations of raycism. It is the way that here in UK the BBC in particular – the High Septon of the Faith Militant (see Games of Theones/the Cult called The Sparrows) batters us with propagandist lies which we both know are not true. Unlike their parallel progressive hysteria over climate change (where the future is unseeable and their models uncontestable) we can SEE the falsehoods!! They talk of women and children – when we can see young adult men. They talk of fleeing a land of war and persecution when they are in France. They talk of Syrians when we see Albanians and Indians. No politician will ever be able to connect to the silent majority who want a fair but proper and controlled system of migration and genuine asylum until the crude extremism of the media is called out and true journalism restored.
Normally any rational discussion of immigration leads to “progressives” screaming racist in the face of anyone prepared to engage. Well done Suella this time you managed to get homophobe screamed at you as well.
Like all the difficult problems that face us, being unable to have a rational discussion makes them even more intractable – hardly a “progressive response!
The other problem is that you are all looking in the wrong places for SOLUTIONS if indeed you are looking for solutions at all; apart from the old King Cnut solution!
How does it even scratches the surface of the problem? Romans had no asylum conventions and little problems with killing anyone deemed as little as public nuisance but they were helpless against the deluge of barbarian tribes. Itâs a tectonic shift, Europe, as we know it , is doomed. I mean itâll eventually give rise to some new reality but as of now national states as they were designed to serve the Industrial Revolution are breathing its last breath.
The “new reality” will be chaos and conflict. Messianic liberalism is ending Western European civilisation.
There are elements of Western ‘civilization’ that badly need to be ended! ..and some good ones for sure that need to be preserved but let’s try a get a balance shall we?
I don’t accept this kind of fatalism at all.
We are an island. Perfectly positioned to control this issue, if there was any will to do so. We managed just fine for decades, as do most other countries (esp. the non-western ones).
Australia managed to bring illegal boat arrivals down to near zero, and keep it there for years despite turbulent social issues in nearby nations that were acting as ‘push factors’. They just chose a firm and clear policy, and then implemented it despite the hysterical squealing of activists and utopians.
This whole notion that having your country overrun is just the natural state of things, unavoidable really, it’s just bunkum. And very recent bunkum at that. Democracy cannot function without a stable demos to keep the cratos (the power) in check. We literally cannot have a stable and functioning democracy if we are destabilising and radically altering the composition of the demos so fast and at such scale …which makes you wonder if that’s the whole point of doing it, but that’s a topic for another day.
We live in an era of digital technology that could be deployed to bring this problem to a sudden halt, near instantly. The issue is not whether or not we can enforce a border, it’s whether our leadership (and the power layer above them, at supranational level), will allow it.
All true. But there simply is no will to control it.
No will, and no need..
Perhaps, but Australia has a geographical advantage. Europe is not so lucky and if you have a neverending push at its borders… GK might have a point.
I am Brit / Australian, I was born there. I think it’s a radical misconception that Aus had an inbuilt advantage because of geography.
On the contrary, Australia is so massive that they physically just struggle to police all the coastline they have. The UK certainly doesn’t have that problem.
Australia had years of vicious internal debate about the escalating illegal immigration, punctuated by fatuous declarations about how these things really can’t be stopped, and how inhumane it would be to even try. Well at some point the public were so peed off about the matter that the first politician to grab the nettle was able to implement a clear plan, and communicate to the world: “If you come here illegally, you will never be able to stay in Australia. The End.”
The arrivals dwindled to nearly nothing once that message got out, and it had been made clear that they really meant it. Right now, we’re doing the opposite. No doubt there are ‘push factors’ and other challenges we face, no doubt. But we are also creating ‘pull factors’ that are deeply unhelpful, and we are rewarding and subsidising behaviour we say we don’t want â illegal arrivals.
It is not beyond the wit of man to police the UK’s borders. As I say, we did it in the past, and we have many more tools now that we didn’t have then. So tbh I’m sick of excuse making and fatalism, it’s just ridiculous.
Leave the ECHR. Communicate that no person who enters illegally will ever be granted a right to stay. Enforce that by removing those who do. Endure the shrieking. Launch some dedicated drones. Turn back the boats, wait for the French hit peak squealing and gnashing of teeth, then agree something that works for us. Digitise processing of arrival and departure at all ports of entry (crazy that we don’t already do this â what is it, 1975?!). Change the laws where needed, using the 80 seat majority. Deport foreign criminals the moment their sentence finishes. Stop housing illegals on the mainland, and 3 and 4 star hotels â get them out of the country during determination of their asylum case, and only bring them back when it’s been granted; all others get returned to sender.
Of course it’s doable. If we can land on the moon, and lay cables on the floor of the ocean, and build skyscrapers …we can flipping well stop people arrive in dinghies from France!
A lot of the Aussie coastline, if you did land on it, you’d either starve to death or get eaten/ stung to death by something.
Australia does have a considerable geographic advantage. It was able to turn back the boats into international waters, whereas we are unable to turn boats back into French waters without French Government agreement.
And Australia is geographically close to poor countries it could pay to set up camps for the migrants that were seeking to land on Australian soil. We’ve tried paying France to keep the migrants from leaving their beaches – and, by extension, to accept their return. It hasn’t worked.
Nevertheless, you’re right about lack of will. Fundamentally our problem is the lack of political will to take on left-leaning thought in general (and there’s plenty of that in the Parliamentary Tory Party) and human rights lawyers and the courts in particular.
If you hadn’t Brexited you could have sent 100% of them back to France under the EU Dublin Agreement.. BJ didn’t put that on the side of his bus, did he?
Which part of thar is untrue?
Especially since we already pay the French to do so!
You forgot to mention that Australia had, at the same time, a fully functioning legal immigration system.. it’s like two sides of a coin, the waltz and the Matilda.
The UK has a fully functioning immigration system. Last year it functioned so well that net immigration was 606,000 people.
The question I really want you to answer is; how many?
How many refugees would you expect the evil, guilt-stained UK to take? A million a year? 780 million if required?
Well said.
Totally agree. If politicians need to develop the willpower to address problems with practical results, I do wish less of the UnHerd readership seemed to enjoy wallowing in a pessimistic fatalism. Quite part from anything else, it displays an ignorance of history. In democracies, problems tend to fester for surprisingly long but they have historically usually been dealt with in the end by decisive action when enough people get fed up.
Australia has hundreds of miles of sea, with lots of things swimming around in it which can kill you in less than a minute.
Britain has about twenty miles of water, probably full of shopping trolleys, sunken pirate radio stations and the odd barnacle.
Perhaps we should throw some underwater drones into the channel, make up for the lack of sharks?
âwhich makes you wonder if thatâs the whole point of doing itâ – I never used to be the suspicious type, but now I wonder if there is an agenda here. Just one example: the US (George Bush Junior) deliberated dismantled the Iraqi state. There was an alternative, one proposed by the US governor of Iraq (appointed shortly after the fall of Saddam). He wanted money to pay for the police and army to keep going. They fired him and replaced him with someone who fired the police and army. The result? Militiaâs blossomed and all hell broke loose. Why did they do that? Motives?
I’m sorry but this is standard USUK policy.. has been UK policy for hundreds of years.. The US began somewhat later.. Displacment, artificial borders, divide and rule generates migration as night follows day..
Ever thought? if only British Empire brutality had forced the natives to speak French! Sadly, such longtermism was never Col. Onial’s strong point!
The Irish played their part in the Empire. This from the Irish Times : There are several individuals with Irish connections who participated in the worst excesses of imperialism. General Reginald Dyer, born in the Punjab in 1864, was the son of an Irish brewer and educated at Midleton College in Cork. He gave the command at Jallianwala Bagh to open fire on a crowd of 20,000 civilians (officials say 379 persons were killed. The Indian National Congress claimed it was nearer 1,000). While one might question Dyerâs âIrish credentialsâ, it is more difficult to ignore that the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab during the Amritsar massacre was Michael OâDwyer, a Catholic from Tipperary who had joined the Indian Civil Service (ICS) in 1882. The historian Kevin Kenny has shown that Trinity College Dublin and the then Queenâs Colleges in Belfast, Cork, and Galway saw career opportunities within the Empire. Between 1855-63, 24 per cent of ICS recruits came from Irish universities. For the working-classes, the Army was a major employer (42.2 per cent of British Army recruits were Irish-born in 1830, though this had considerably declined by 1900).
At one time GB, the island fortress you yearn for, was in an ideal position to control and impose borders all over the world.. if you join the dots you’ll see all kinds of linkages..
Exactly.
I’m thinking a failed Austrian painter had very similar sounding solutions.. 50 million dead later there us some doubt about the viability of his solution.
..and a good thing too!
One is always going to listen and read carefully what AHA conveys on such a subject. She herself fled and was an asylum seeker.
Putting aside that currently the backlog in the UK is not held up by the ECHR, but rather our own processing capability and our own Courts (it might run into a contested ruling with the ECHR but haven’t even got that far yet), what happens if we withdraw from ECHR? Do the flows stop? Can we return people quicker? Do we have return deals? What are we really doing to stop the traffickers and stop the Boats sailing in the first place? Given the volumes is a few Nauru’s really going to cut it?
It’s a really difficult problem. Other than a few silly people most recognise the volumes cannot be absorbed. The issue is can we have some competent, multilateral responses. A few less slogans and a bit more hard-yards on policy implementation perhaps…or is this actually about perpetuating the drama for electoral and personnel gain?
It is true that leaving the ECHR does not automatically stem the flow of illegal migration. It does however make the âsecondaryâ measures regarding returning or relocating migrants far more actionable as these are invariably blocked by Strasbourg.
It is important to note also that the ECHR considers itself to be a âliving instrumentâ in law, which means it has assumed the right to extend the remit of its laws as it seems fit. Jonathan Sumption has written a superb article in the Spectator on this subject, of which you are probably aware, though many other UnHerd readers may not be.
We don’t know if the ECHR will block. It’s speculation for the moment, and it has the ability to make interpretations that reflect the times. Furthermore there are legal arguments that it can be ignored on certain points in Law.
So I think it’s being used as a bit of an excuse for the moment and it will not be the panacea even if it confirms legality of ‘returns’.