Why are We Letting Anyone In?

Tags

adults, adults posing as children refugees, asylum seekers, BBC, calais, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, dover, DTMW, EU, Europe, Facebook, Guardian, Islam, Islam and the West, Islamophobia, jungle calais, kids, london, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, photo, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Telegraph, Terrorism, Twitter

Many in the UK have been outraged (and often simultaneously amused) this past week by the arrival on our shores of a batch of Calais asylum seekers billed as unaccompanied ‘children’, yet who are in appearance seemingly well over the age of 20. As bizarre and brazen (and obvious) as the fraud appears to be, I think this outrage somehow misses the point. The bigger scandal – and the one worth focussing one’s anger on – is that asylum seekers are being allowed into Britain at all.

What obligation does Britain have – legally or morally – to those refugees (if they are indeed refugees) stationed in the safe, democratic nation of France? None is the answer, and no-one can (or has even attempted to) reasonably argue otherwise.

As opponents of asylum fraud are right to consistently point out, a central principle (even if not a law) holds that refugees should settle in the first available safe haven they come across that is willing and able to accommodate them. To illustrate this idea with reference to Syria, a refugee from ISIS-controlled territory who has been accepted into Turkey has no right to demand entry into Greece. A refugee from ISIS-controlled territory who has been accepted into Lebanon has no right to demand entry into Cyprus, and so on. If the purpose of emigration is, as stated, to avoid violence, war or persecution, then only in the first accommodating nation can asylum be rightfully claimed. Should the refugee flee from one safe haven to another, that is called migration and no country is duty bound to facilitate it.

This isn’t a very difficult principle to understand – and, to be sure, most ordinary folk do understand it, which is partly why the Calais Jungle infants have been so poorly and unsympathetically received.

Now, I am an Islamophobe – no doubt about that. I despise the Islamic religion with a white-hot passion. I’m also not over-keen on the adherents of the Islamic religion. Nevertheless, I am, like the reader will be, a moral person, or at the very least someone with a moral sense. We do have an obligation as human beings to ensure that the innocent do not suffer any preventable evil. 

To help the Syrian people, Donald Trump has endorsed a workable and perfectly logical initiative. Allied forces, he says, should carve out a safe-zone in Syria into which the innocent can flee while the conflict burns itself out. This would not be difficult to achieve. Though Assad and ISIS would inevitably object to the idea, both forces have been so degraded that neither is capable of mounting an effective resistance.

Turkey, rich in manpower and arms, must be told to do the work on the ground or face expulsion from NATO. The Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia, must be made to cough up the money to support the campaign or face a year-long suspension of Western arms sales. This is the solution. Let’s pursue it.

As for the Calais ‘children’, Britain and the West are under no rightful obligation to take in anyone. No asylum seeker, not one, whether from Eritrea, Syria, Afghanistan or the Congo, should be allowed to settle here. And we have every right to expect our government to prevent them from doing so.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Slovakia Says No

Tags

Africa, American Liberty, Asia, BBC, Britain First, calais, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, counter-jihad blogs, counter-Jihad websites, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, eritrea, Facebook, Islamophobia, Middle East, Multiculturalism, refugee crisis europe, refugees, slovakia, slovakia muslim, slovakia refugees, Syria, uk blogs

It was of course inevitable that the great nation of Slovakia would one day perform a feat of political daring bold enough to inspire Europe as a whole. The only wonder is how long we have had to wait for it. Now it is here, let us savour it and seek to deepen its impact.

As you’ll be aware, the Slovakian government announced last week that its country will only be accepting Christian refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war, and not Muslims. You’ll also be aware that this then led to kind of acrobatic stupidity only Western governments appear to be capable of.

“The attitude underlying this is to be condemned.” One EU drone remarked “It is unhelpful and does not display solidarity.”

In saying this, the drone was compacting the general response of the EU establishment. By staggering coincidence, it is also the view of the European business elites, globalist charities, humanitarian lobby groups, and (of course) the establishment media.

But outside this bubble of cheerful unaccountability, most reactions to the Slovakian stance have been extremely positive. Wherever the story has ben reported in the English press, the reader comments underneath each individual article salute and commend the Slovakian government for its bravery, timeliness and fidelity to the wishes of the Slovakian electorate. Often tacked on to the end of these commendations are hopes and wishes (against all odds) that other European states will follow suit, including – perchance –  the regimes of Western Europe. Needless to say, such fantasies are just that – fantasies.

In the face of EU criticism, Slovakia has justified its policy in the following way: Slovakia is a Christian country. There are no Mosques or Madrassas in Slovakia, nor are there Muslim schools or traditions compatible with the Muslim experience. Muslims therefore wouldn’t like it in Slovakia. They are being denied access to Slovakia as much for their own good as for the good of the native population.

I know what you’re thinking. If only our government had reasoned the same fifty years ago. How much trouble, bloodshed, innocence and economic disruption would have been spared?! As the Slovaks have shown, all it would have taken was a bit of (inoffensive) common sense.

It is of course far too late for our own countries to use this elementary good judgement, or at least to endorse it in the shrugging, devious and friendly manner in which the Slovaks have. We are five decades too late, and while other countries can get away with being sensible, it is no longer a luxury we can afford.

Given this reality, out of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Eritrean Muslims currently trekking across the green fields of Europe, I suspect a great proportion will eventually live in English neighbourhoods, their progeny eventually attending English schools, voting in English elections, and (some of them) going on to violently avenge English foreign policy.

All the while, Slovakia will carry on – grinning, living, persisting – as if nothing had ever happened. There has surely never been a greater, more saddening illustration of the failure of the European idea.

D, LDN.

Invasion of the Boat People

Tags

asylum, asylum seekers, BBC, boat people, Boats, boats calais asylum seekers, boats people, calais, Cameron, channel tunnel, Counter-Jihad, david cameron swarm, debate, Defend the modern world, Facebook, France, Immigration, invasion calais, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, sea, seawater, swarm cameron, Twitter

So, the invasion forces of Africa have now reached the shores of France and seem intent on entering the United Kingdom. As I write, and as even the Prime Minister is now publically lamenting, tens of thousands of Black Africans (mostly Muslim) are attempting to force their way into Southern England, with methods ranging from clinging to the side of lorries, to hiding in cargo boxes and sacks of fruit, to launching primitive boats onto the English channel and rowing up to the English coast.

In Kent, the quiet and genteel ‘Garden of England’, local authorities already describe their agencies as being ‘overwhelmed’ by the hordes of foreign children, homeless, hungry and without a word of English. A local official reported that the number of asylum seekers is “unprecedented” and ‘will cost tens of millions’ to process them, even if their claims are eventually turned down.

Of course, we have no right to be surprised by any of this. When the boats first started coming all those wasted years ago, we knew full well where their cargo desired to end up. No African crosses the Mediterranean to enjoy the marbled romance of Italy, or the cathedrals and sophistication of France. They all want to get to Britain, the pop-cultural lieutenant of America, with our social security, football teams, television, music and cinema. These self-starved, Chelsea-shirt-wearing illiterates don’t just want to live in the ‘West’, but in a country (even city) of their choosing. More than anything else, this pickiness proves their claims of asylum are entirely phoney. If the invading migrants simply wanted to eat and be free from government abuse, Austria would have been tolerable enough for them, to say nothing of Germany, France, Portugal, Italy and Spain.

So what to do? How does Britain get out of this? These questions are only as morally complicated as we choose to make them. The law makes the solution beautifully simple – none of these people have any right whatsoever to enter – let alone reside in – the United Kingdom, and we should deport them as quickly and efficiently as we can arrange. That’s it. No further discussion or thought required. That is what the law demands and what the citizens of this country desire and should be able to expect.

As has now been widely reported, most of the current swarm (and yes, the Prime Minister was right to use that term) are from Eritrea and Somalia, two disastrous attempts at nationhood and each the source of much global disquiet. How could a nation as developed as Britain conceivably profit by the infusion of such material? An Eritrean of 15 years will always be an Eritrean. A Somali of 21 years will always be a Somali. While it’s true that the offspring of such migrants would have the option of being British (it would depend on a secular upbringing and eventual apostasy, not merely the location of birth), that is a delayed reward, and in any case an uncertain one. We don’t need any more Muslims in the UK. We surely have far too many to begin with. End of.

D, LDN.