Dismantling the Borders by the Back Door

Last week there was a large demonstration in Calais against the fact that migrants sleeping rough there can't simply enter Britain at will.

Many of the protesters were hardcore anarchists, and French riot police arrested around 47 people, finding weapons such as metal poles, machetes and pepper spray.

Many of the anarchists' threats, such as tearing down the border, leading migrants to Britain through the Channel Tunnel and burning symbols of capitalism and authority never came to pass, however.

This is a situation which has been going on for years now. The migrants live in Calais, daily trying to illegally sneak into Britain so they can claim asylum here and enjoy a range of benefits simply not on offer in France, plus the knowledge that only a minute fraction of them will ever be kicked out, even if their claims are turned down.

Since the Red Cross reception centre at Sangatte was closed in 2002, it is estimated that 2,000 illegal immigrants live rough in Calais.

Many in the town are sick of the situation, claiming that women are harassed, businesses are affected and hygiene is a problem.

The solution which is most often put forward by the French government involves the United Kingdom joining the Schengen Agreement, which would abolish border controls between this country and the other signatories (members of the EU an EEA).

Well, that won't happen any time soon, but it seems that the French government and the anarchists will get their wish in some form or another; on Wednesday the UN High Commissioner for Refugees opened its first full-time unit in Calais since Sangatte was closed.

It will now begin advising thousands of migrants on the steps they should take to come to Britain and claim asylum.

This is simply tearing down the borders by the back door - by legally subverting them.

Solutions to Somali Piracy

On Sunday, French troops seized yet another vessel which had been captured by Somali pirates, and yesterday exclusive pictures were released.

The scourge of piracy in the troubled region continues apace; just yesterday a South Korean naval vessel rescued a North Korean ship which was in danger of being captured, and there have been several recent near misses, including two repulsed attacks on cruise ships carrying passengers.

In light of this, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has proposed an 'international piracy court', because the law often requires NATO and aligned forces to release the pirates after securing their hostages.

Some are tried in Kenya, the French and American governments prefer to take them to their respective home soil to be tried.

Given the fact that Somalia is a violent, tumultuous nation, the idea of 'international justice' concerns me deeply. What will happen to these people if they are jailed in the West? Will it breach their human rights to deport them back to Somalia after any sentence is served?

Seeing as the idea of coming to the West is a dream for many Somalis, it would seem pertinent for any such court to actually operate in Africa.

Otherwise, pirates will be sentenced to a life living on EU taxpayers, or maybe ten years in prison and a lifetime claiming benefits in London or harassing women in Amsterdam or burning cars in Paris.

If that's the case, we might as well forget capturing the pirates and operate the courts via a lottery system involving the entire Somali population - it's hardly the prevention I imagine Medvedev is looking for.

When the Strands of History Merge: Holocaust Memorial Day, Hitler & Ahmadinejad

Today is a national day of mourning in Israel as the Holocaust, the slaughter of Jews and others perpetuated by the Nazi regime is remembered, those who died commemorated.

There are many lessons for the modern world to be found in the suffering those people endured, the way some overcame all the odds to survive and many others were simply not so fortunate.

It seems that these lessons are never heeded until it is too late, however; how ironic that on this day, which is also Adolf Hitler's birthday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was welcomed to Switzerland by the Swiss premier and allowed to address a UN conference on 'anti-racism' in Geneva.

Many important states chose to boycott the conference; sadly, the United Kingdom was not among them.

Much was made of the fact that when Ahmadinejad began to spread his poison and outright lies about the Israeli government at the podium, several diplomats walked out, including the British ambassador to the UN.

They should not have been there in the first place, however; Ahmadinejad is a notorious anti-semite. He calls the Holocaust 'a myth', and has called for the state of Israel to be wiped off the map. What were the diplomats who attended expecting him to say?

It was fairly obvious that this run up to Durban II and Durban II itself will be an outlet for undue criticism of Israel, whilst ignoring the sins of any Muslim state. That is exactly what happened last time, and it is why many civilised nations are boycotting the conference this time, and showing it up for the joke it is.

Allowing Ahmadinejad to speak goes beyond a joke - even UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon admitted that he used his speech to 'divide' and 'incite'. I'll ask again - what did he expect?

Many states have tried to reaffirm the spirit of the earlier conference; this means that Islam will be placed beyond criticism on the pretext of protecting religions from 'defamation', and the crimes of Muslim and other regimes will be ignored in favour of spewing obsessional hatred about Israel.

Here's what Ahmadinejad said:

'Following World War II they resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering.

'And they sent migrants from Europe, the U.S. and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine.

'And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.'

He then went on to call Israel a 'cruel and repressive racist regime'.

Obviously his own treatment of Kurds, Jews and other ethnic and religious minorities, not to mention women, simply does not matter; all of our focus should be on Israel, the only free nation in the Middle East.

As this nonsense becomes increasingly mainstream and dangerous, the words of Shimon Peres on Holocaust Memorial Day ring true:

"Nazism was defeated, but anti-Semitism is still alive. The gas has evaporated, but the poison remains."

Quite. Whilst Islam is immune from the criticism it constantly issues to everyone else, it always will remain - the UN should be fighting its attempts to silence the free world, not aiding and abetting.

As Burmese dissident Daw Aung San Suu Kyi said: “Please use your liberty to promote ours”

That is the founding ideal of the UN, and it is sad to see how far it has deviated from it.

Watch the rest of Ahmadinejad's speech, along with demonstrators dressed as clowns and wildly applauding Arab diplomats, here:

A Different Perspective on the Drowned Migrants Tragedy

Yesterday it was reported that hundreds of illegal immigrants from Africa were feared drowned after an overloaded fishing boat capsized off of Libya.

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?