Multiculturalist Ideology (Part One): A Rationale For Race War Politics
An Examination Of The Logic of Multiculturalism
An Examination Of The Logic of Multiculturalism
The recent ‘Restoring Order and Control: a statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy’ document has caused some excitement. Even many political parties supposedly on the Right have claimed that the document could have been theirs – which says more about them than the merits of the document. Many Labour MPs are outraged.
The document includes a Foreword from Kier Starmer in which he says ‘For any government, the UK’s values serve as the ultimate guide, our fixed point in a turning world.’ In other words, he is not acting in the national interest, but in furtherance of his idea of what ‘UK’s values’ are. Starmer continues to complain about the ‘pull factors’ that encourage the ongoing invasion across the English Channel, and he also promotes the idea of ‘safe and legal routes’ for asylum seekers.
In her own Foreword, Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, complains that ‘in recent years, hundreds of thousands have come to this country seeking asylum. Some have come by illegal routes, most notably small boat channel crossings. But similar numbers have overstayed legal routes into this country, such as visitor, work or study visas.’ However, despite pointing out that, in 2024, asylum claims in the UK rose by 18 percent while in Europe the claims fell by 13 per cent, she advocates ‘an entirely new asylum model’ and: ‘With control restored, we will open up new, capped routes for refugees for whom this country will be the first, safe haven they encounter. We will make community sponsorship the norm, so we know that the pace and scale of change does not exceed what a local area is willing to accept.’
Given the chaos of the asylum system and the scale of it, a more normal response would be to shut it down; to refuse to accept any more asylum seekers and, instead, focus on returning the present numbers of illegal immigrants to their own countries. Notwithstanding the public outrage at the crisis, Labour prefer to repackage the asylum policy and create new routes for entry that will have the support of local communities (ie fellow immigrants). For Labour, asylum seeking is not an aberration to be dealt with in response to a crisis (such as the Ukraine war), but should be an ongoing flow to be encouraged with the UK being transformed into being ‘the first, safe haven’ asylum seekers apply to.
The document acknowledges the scale of the problem: ‘Since 2021, over 400,000 people have claimed asylum in the UK.’ The government’s ‘two central objectives’ are described as being to ‘reduce the flow of arrivals into the UK’ and to ‘increase the removal of those who have no legal right to be here’. Further, as the UK ‘will always remain a place where those who are truly fleeing danger can find safety’ then ‘this statement also sets out a new approach to receiving refugees through safe and legal routes’. Such a commitment undermines the government’s ‘two central objectives’ and prevents the obvious solution of shutting the whole system down – even if only temporarily. Instead the criminality, the fraud, the invasion and the gravy train will continue, with the government trying to bring ‘order and control’ amidst it all.
To reduce arrivals, the document proposes a shortened leave to remain, with refugees only being allowed to stay for 30 months before a review to see if ‘protection’ is still needed and if not, ‘the person will become liable for removal from the UK’. A refugee will need to spend 20 years in the UK before being granted settlement status.
Refugees will be encouraged to switch to a new ‘in-country Protection Work and Study route’, where ‘they will become eligible to “earn” settlement sooner than they would under core protection alone’. Also, ‘Under core protection there will be no automatic right to family reunion. Those who successfully move off core protection and enter a Work and Study visa route could become eligible to sponsor family members to come to the UK.’
The document proposes a consultation about how to encourage asylum seekers to work and changes to their access to benefits. The intention being to ‘deny support to those who have the right to work and could therefore support themselves’. This approach ignores the fact that immigrants rarely pay enough taxes to meet the costs they cause. They will never support themselves and will remain a drain on the English taxpayer – one way or another.
To increase removals, the new approach will be to return refugees to their home countries in the event of those countries becoming a safe place, such as with a new government. The refugees will, in future, be returned with their families: ‘The government will offer all families financial support to enable them to return to their home country. Should they refuse that support, we will escalate to an enforced return. We will launch a consultation on the process for enforcing the removal of families, including children.’ The government ‘will continue to explore the use of “return hubs” which are safe third countries that failed asylum seekers can be sent to instead of their country of origin’. It would be of more use to create refugee hubs in the Third World where asylum seekers can go, or be sent, instead of them invading the West. Africa, with a large number of failed states, is big enough to contain several such hubs. African countries in poverty might welcome the opportunity to create such hubs, or sell territory, for money.
The government proposes to ‘act against countries who fail to co-operate with the return of their citizens, including through imposing visa penalties, as provided for in section 72 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. This could include suspending the granting of entry clearance for nationals of a country until it takes back its citizens who are in the UK illegally.’ This is far too feeble. Any country that is refusing to accept the return of its citizens should not be able to get visas in the first place. Further, they should ultimately expect the repatriation of all its citizens and not just a few undesirables (usually criminals).
The document reveals that there will be a new appeals body to speed up decisions, and that there will only be a single appeal. Further, there will be ‘set out, in primary legislation, a definition of family life for the purposes of Article 8. This will set a clear framing for Home Office decision makers and the courts’; and there will be ‘new legislation on Modern Slavery, clarifying our obligations and enabling us to address potential misuse while maintaining essential protections’.
The document might commit to tweaking the law a bit, but does not commit to leaving the ECHR or the treaties that are causing so much trouble, nor to repeal the Human Right Act. Activist judges have interpreted the terms of these treaties and human rights legislation as stupidly as possible. The outcome is an asylum system that is out of control, with the interests of asylum seekers – even criminal ones – being given priority over those of the native English, whose country this is and who are having to pay for the asylum madness.
The proposal that there will be local sponsorship to ‘give greater say to communities and support refugees as they settle, become self-sufficient, and contribute to their local areas’ is dangerous. The reference to communities, in practice and intent, means immigrant communities. That immigrant communities will be able to sponsor more immigrants. The asylum seekers will not be self-sufficient and will receive large sums of taxpayer-funded subsidies. These asylum seekers might be welcome in their ‘local areas’, but the likely outcome will be the expansion of immigrant ghettos – especially Muslim ones.
The Home Secretary is expected to impose an annual cap on the numbers allowed via ‘safe and legal routes’ and will ‘prioritise global resettlement, particularly individuals identified by referral partners such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Communities and institutions in the UK will have a far greater say over who the UK supports.’ Why international bureaucracies should be given a say in who lives in the UK is unexplained. The UK is a sovereign country. It is notable that those who pay for this largesse, English taxpayers, are not mentioned at all. Once again, Labour seek to subvert UK sovereignty in favour of foreign control by other governments and globalist organisations.
The document states: ‘To achieve this, we will:
Our intention is that those arriving on the reformed resettlement routes will be on the ten-year route to settlement.’ This ‘intention’ is at odds with the previous commitment in the document that it will be 20 years before someone is granted settlement status, and is irreconcilable with the idea that asylum seekers from countries that become safe will be expected to go home.
The document might contain a few sound-bites but the suggestions advanced will fail to end the invasion across the English Channel, and meanwhile opens up new routes of entry for immigrants. It is therefore likely to make things worse. It does not so much as look both ways, but gives a quick glance at tackling the asylum problems before looking longingly towards increased mass immigration.
For completeness, the appendix of the document is set out in full below.
The full set of reforms set out in this statement are as follows: