.jpg)
I would like to make it clear that I have the utmost sympathy for those who died; I know they're desperate, and that's why they act as they do.
The BBC and the UN seized the opportunity to say that such tragedies will continue to occur whilst the EU has a 'closed door, Fortress Europe' policy, and the only solution is to relax immigration laws and pretty much let anyone who wants to come to Europe do just that.
I beg to differ. I don't think Europe's immigration policies are strict enough. Tying people in red tape once they arrive is not the same as effectively trying to prevent them reaching EU territory in the first place. We need to prevent as many illegals getting in as possible, then make sure we effectively and speedily remove any who do slip through.
This will send a clear message back, and take the pressure off these illegal routes. Why take all that risk to be returned?
The vast majority of the people who come are illegal, economic migrants who have the funds to pay people-smugglers in the first place. The vast majority think Europe is the land of milk and honey - and the more illegals there are, the more word gets back, the more come and want to come.
Our generosity keeps the smugglers in business, not our callousness.
Yes, many unscrupulous smugglers will 'defer' the debt and make the immigrant work it off when they're here, but when space is at a premium on these boats, cash up front is preferred - not all smugglers have the connections in Europe necessary to facilitate collecting the debt.
The problem is not going to go away; yes, the vast majority of these people are fleeing war zones and desperate economic conditions; but they can't all come. It is simply not possible for Europe to maintain its current stability and take in tens or hundreds of millions of people who are not in any way, shape or form culturally compatible.
Places such as Malta, the Italian island of Lampedusa, Sicily, Greece, the Canary Islands, the Spanish enclaves in Morocco, Ceuta and Meuilla and southern Spain itself are literally being invaded. 6,800 Tunisians, 6,000 Nigerians and 4,000 Somalis arrived in Lampedusa in 2008. It has a population of only 6,000 people.
This doesn't even take into account the overland migration routes through which people from Asia and the Middle East are smuggled in; this is just from Africa, by sea.
It's all very well for the UN to chastise us for our 'strict' immigration policies and claim we need these people to make up labour shortages; but these people live in a dream world.
In 2008, the UK issued 720,000 foreigners with national insurance numbers. That does not include the number of illegal immigrants (an estimated 725,000) and asylum seekers. Government figures predict that unemployment may hit the 3 million mark soon.
There are people here who were told to leave 9 years ago, but still fight on with taxpayers' cash.
Almost all countries in Western and Northern Europe have a segment of the population from 5 - 10% which is entirely made up of Third World immigrants and their descendants. This is causing increasing tensions, yet whenever it does boil over, the hosts are automatically in the wrong.
So please tell me, by what stretch of the imagination do we have a 'strict' immigration policy?
'Fortress Europe' is a nonsensical term coined to appease a restless populace; it basically means the bigger countries pay for a few helicopters and boats for the nations at the frontline. If they catch migrants, instead of towing them back they're obliged to tow them to their own territory.
So what are we to do with all these people? Are the majority of them going to be helping the economy, or taking benefits which seems beyond their wildest dreams for doing absolutely nothing?
In parts of Sweden, 86% of the adult migrants are unemployed. Yet still the 'we need them to work!' propaganda campaign continues.
Here's what Antonio Guterres, the head of the UN's Refugee Agency, had to say:
UN aid agencies are suggesting wealthy industrialised nations should perhaps rethink their policies on immigration and asylum in the wake of the latest tragedy in the Mediterranean, writes the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.
Reacting to the news that at least 200 migrants were feared dead off the coast of Libya, after the smugglers' boat which was supposed to take them to Italy capsized, the head of the UN refugee agency, Antonio Guterres, said the barriers to legal migration had become too high.
"This is a tragedy that is multiplying itself, in the Mediterranean, in the Gulf of Aden, in south-east Asia. More and more people are trying desperately to move," Mr Guterres told the BBC.
While the trend towards globalisation was encouraging free trade, there were still lethal barriers to people, he added.
"I think it's important to recognise that in today's world where as we have seen, money moves so freely, and goods tend to move also more and more freely, there are still tremendous obstacles for people."
"People need to move because they can no longer live in their countries of origin because of war, because of environmental degradation, because of poverty, there are many reasons that force people to move."
There are many reasons increasing numbers of Europeans are leaving for Canada, Australia and America, however - their societies being changed beyond recognition by millions of Third World immigrants who are vastly incompatible with our way of life, and often simply bring the problems which blight their home countries with them.
In fact, the 'refugee' segment of the immigrant population is always statistically the most violent, most reliant on benefits, most prone to criminality and most likely to form ghettos because they come in large groups of individuals not screened for selection purposes.
Are we not entitled to stability, to our own culture, to control our own borders?
The only way things will ever get better is if the countries these migrants come from improve. Therefore, they need to keep their skilled workers, their dynamic young men - we need them far less.
The solution to the world's ills is not to overwhelm the only successful societies; it is for the rest to learn and improve.
I hope this doesn't sound callous; I am just sick and tired of being told how evil our immigration policy is when it barely exists, and how 'far-Right' I am because I think the Government should exercise one of the basic rights of sovereignty - control of the borders.
Is this likely? Well, in answer, here's more from the UNRA:
The UN refugee agency points out that of those who crossed illegally from Africa to Europe last year, a majority applied for asylum, and more than half of those were found to be in need of protection.
This proves, the agency says, that a significant number had legitimate reasons to come to Europe and should not have been forced to take the illegal smuggling route.
"Those people will take risks if the doors aren't open. They'll go in by the back window if the front door isn't open."
Ah. Soon it will be an unbearable immoral affront if we don't organise a Dunkirk style flotilla of little ships to bring migrants across ourselves.
The last quote simply sounds like a thinly veiled threat - and the tide is turning. If we don't defend Europe's borders soon, it may well be too late.
Who will help the Third World then? Or us, for that matter?
Posts
4 comments:
Under international law Britain should not be accepting ANY asylum seekers as you can only claim asylum in the nearest safe country, which means France and Ireland for us!!
Take away the incentive youtake away the danger. If there is nothing to come for they will stop trying and stop dying or selling themselves into slavery, prostitution or sweatshops to pay of the smugglers.
In one sentence: the reason Britain/Europe is a superior, desirable place to be (so far) is precisely because all those people are NOT there - and everyone involved in immigration is in total denial of that fact.
"I hope this doesn't sound callous;..."
No, Earl, it sounds way to soft!
Western countries need to get over this idea of "asylum." It was a nice idea, but it has resulted in just what we have now, the idea that western society is now the nursemaid for the entire world. That is simply not sustainable. It there were a half dozen refugees, sure, it would work. A half million is really a stretch, and a half billion is simply absurd!
What simply has to happen is that these other parts of the world have to reform their own societies. And it has to be them that do it. It cannot be handed to them. In many cases, colonial governments handed over functioning societies to indigenous peoples, and in most cases, they have made an unmitigated disaster out of them (think Rhodesia for example). The West has been told in no uncertain terms that native peoples will do things THEIR way, and so they must, and THEY must be the ones to do it. Our job is to force them to do it by keeping the out of the West.
They do not belong in the West, in our countries and disrupting our culture. We are entitled to live in peace and without them. We are totally incompatible and only a fool will try to make the case that Eastern (muzlim) and Western peoples can be integrated. It simply does not work. They must be expelled from our lands and forced back where they belong to sort out their own problems.
Some will say, "but they face persecution there." That is true. That is the price they pay for having never developed a civilized society before now. It is also the motivation to do so now. They must go.
Bravo, Dr. D. Well said. The fact is that the cultures ARE DIFFERENT, and will always be so. I like MY culture, and don't want my nose forcibly rubbed in an alien shit culture. All I want is to be left the fuck alone... to live peaceably and quietly in my little corner of the world within the confines of my white culture. I don't want the shit of the world to move into my backyard. I really, really don't. Surely, the most tragic crime of the last 60 years is the systematic demise of Western society through mass Turd World immigration.
Post a Comment