THE LAST CHARGE OF THE DO-GOODERS

The opening remark of Rishi Sunak’s House of Commons statement on immigration set the tone:

‘The balancing of our duty to support people in dire need, with the responsibility to have genuine control of our borders understandably provokes strong feelings. And so it is my view that the basis for any solution shouldn’t just be “what works” but what is right.’

This is wrong. The duty of any country’s government is to defend the national interest. There is no balancing act between defending the interests of the nation and defending any group of invaders or vested interests and organised crime. Any assistance to foreigners is at the discretion of the giving country. There is no duty.

Sunak continued:

‘It is unfair that people come here illegally. It is unfair on those with a genuine case for asylum when our capacity to help is taken up by people coming through, and from, countries that are perfectly safe. It is unfair on those who come here legally when others come here by cheating the system. And above all, it is unfair on the British people who play by the rules when others come here illegally and benefit from breaking those rules.’

The invasion of the UK by illegal immigrants is not about playing by the rules. It is about the continued existence of the UK and of the English nation – given that it is England that is being invaded and colonised.

Sunak then dived into the ‘global asylum framework’ which he claimed was ‘obsolete’.

In the Brexit referendum, the UK voted to take back control. We did not vote for subordinating UK interests to some global entity or treaty.

Sunak then claimed that due to climate change and the actions of ‘hostile states’ then the ‘numbers displaced will only grow’. He preceded with the cliché: ‘We have a proud history of providing sanctuary to those most in need,’ which is not accurate. The numbers immigrating into the UK between 1066 and 1950 totalled 250,000. Currently, immigration is in excess of one million per year. The cliché is rubbish. Sunak continued:

‘Britain helped craft the 1951 Refugee Convention to protect those fleeing persecution. The Rt Hon Member for Maidenhead passed the world’s first Modern Slavery Act in 2015. And in the last year we have opened our hearts and homes to people from Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Ukraine. Thousands of families will be setting extra places around the Christmas table this year. No-one. No-one can doubt our generosity of spirit. But today far too many of the beneficiaries of that generosity are not those directly fleeing war zones or at risk of persecution but people crossing the channel in small boats. Many originate from fundamentally safe countries. All travel through safe countries.’

The 1951 Refugee Convention was written to deal with the refugee problem following WWII, and was for that purpose only. Sunak’s description of it is wrong. The Modern Slavery Act has been a disaster, facilitating illegal immigration.

There is no reason why the UK should be accepting people from Hong Kong and Afghanistan. Those from the Ukraine will, most likely, return there once the war with Russia is won. The Ukrainians were specifically invited. There is no control over the numbers coming from Hong Kong, and millions are eligible, and little control of those from Afghanistan.

Sunak then cited his new deal with France, which he regarded as a success. Further: ‘We’ve re-established the Calais Group of Northern European nations – to disrupt traffickers all along the migration route. And last week this group set a long-term ambition for a UK-EU wide agreement on migration.’ Once again, Sunak ignored that we voted to take back control and, like his predecessor, is keen to do deals with the EU and involve them in the UK’s affairs.

Sunak then set out his five new steps to deal with the problem:

1. There would be a ‘new, permanent, unified Small Boats Operational Command [to] bring together our military, our civilian capabilities, and the National Crime Agency.’ There would be the use of drones and there would be more than 700 new staff.
2. There would be an expected ‘increase raids on illegal working by 50%’. Steps would be taken to stop illegal immigrants getting bank accounts.
3. ‘Alternative sites such as disused holiday parks, former student halls, and surplus military sites’ would be used rather than hotels to accommodate asylum seekers. Sites capable of holding 10,000 people had already been identified. The aim was to ‘add thousands of places through this type of accommodation in the coming months – at half the cost of hotels’. Sunak also wanted ‘all local authorities to take their fair share of asylum seekers in the private rental sector’.
4. The number of asylum caseworkers would be doubled so that claims would be processed ‘in days or weeks, not months or years’. Also, ‘We will also remove the gold plating in our modern slavery system, including by reducing the cooling off period from 45 to 30 days – the legal minimum set out in the ECAT Treaty [European Communities Against Trafficking}.’ The result of this would be that productivity of caseworkers would be tripled and ‘we expect to abolish the backlog of initial asylum decisions by the end of next year’. The term ‘initial asylum decisions’ should be noted.
5. A new agreement with Albania for new measures to speed up the return of Albanian asylum seekers.

Sunak then said: ‘when legal proceedings conclude on our Migration and Economic Development Partnership we will restart the first flights to Rwanda so those here illegally who cannot be returned to their home country, can build a new life there.’

Finally, Sunak pledged to amend the law:

‘Early next year we will introduce new legislation to make unambiguously clear that if you enter the UK illegally you should not be able to remain here. Instead, you will be detained and swiftly returned either to your home country or to a safe country where your claim for asylum will be considered. And you will no longer be able to frustrate removal attempts with late or spurious claims or appeals. And once removed you should have no right to re-entry, settlement, or citizenship.’

The last batch of new legislation was supposed to have achieved all that. Ominously, Sunak continued:

‘The only way to come to the UK for asylum will be through safe and legal routes. And as we get a grip of illegal migration, we will create more of those routes. We will work with the UNHCR to identify those most in need so the UK remains a safe haven for the most vulnerable. And we will introduce an annual quota  on numbers set by Parliament in consultation with Local Authorities to determine our capacity and amendable in the face of humanitarian emergencies. Mr Speaker, that is the fair way to address this global challenge.’

At which point Sunak committed the UK to large-scale ongoing immigration. First, the UK is full – England, where nearly all immigrants settle, especially so. Second, an increase in so-called safe and legal routes will merely increase the flow of asylum seekers. Setting annual quotas embeds the continued inflow of asylum seekers rather than ending that inflow. This is not a ‘global challenge’. It is a challenge for the West in general and for the UK, for which Sunak is responsible as prime minister, in particular. The proposed involvement of the UNHCR is not helpful. They have already expressed their hostility to Sunak’s proposals. We voted to take back control, not merely to switch control from one globalist institution to another.

At no point did Sunak consider English interests. There was no mention on the vast costs of mass and illegal immigration. Sunak took a globalist stance and assumed that taxpayers’ monies and the welfare state can be used to fund open-ended mass immigration.

The continued efforts to portray the illegal immigrants as being victims of sinister people smugglers is juvenile. Those illegal immigrants know exactly what they are doing and should be held responsible for their own actions.

So long as there is the prospect of immigrants getting into and staying in the UK, then they will keep on coming. Their numbers will only grow. We do not need more safe and legal routes, which the immigrants might try first before reverting to people smugglers. We need to secure the UK’s borders and refuse to take any more so-called asylum seekers.

It is reported that within one day of Sunak’s speech that a number of immigrants died trying to cross the English Channel in a dinghy. While those who advocate more immigration might be in part responsible for that, those who oppose further mass immigration or not. Once all asylum seekers know that they will be immediately be deported irrespective of their stories, they will stop coming and there will be no further tragedies.