Asylum camp riots and the decline of British manners

by Limbic on February 15, 2002

[ Rushed out over lunch, originally a response to “Comrades! Your Nation is
in Danger!” post ]

Most of the people in those camps are not refugees but settlers. Many of
them represent the wealthiest classes of their homelands – businessmen,
gangsters, landowners – who have paid vast sums to racketeers to get them
into Europe. There was no need for most of them to leave where they came
form. Most were attracted by a lust for wealth or at last greater economic
prosperity. They do not deserve our sympathy. They do not deserve our money.
In most cases, they do not deserve or are entitled to the rights they
demand. Our principled devotion to helping refugees does not mean that
anyone can rip us off. Our commitment to human rights does not mean we must
allow our borders to be open to anyone with a sob story or that anyone can
settle here as long as they are prepared to lie.

It is most unfortunate that lust for western money does not translate into
respect for western culture. I keep reading about terrorists and other scum
supported at our expense whilst the co-ordinate local efforts against our
civilisation and people on behalf of their terrorist comrades.

Recent investigations into to the activities of the most murderous terrorist
group in the world – Al Qaida – reveals that many of their past and existing
members were granted access to the UK and support by the UK government as
they had assumed the disguise of refugees (asylum seekers) and were accorded
the rights associated with that status.

If large numbers of these settlers are openly hostile towards the people and
nation that give them refuge, then we have a grave threat to social
stability ( which is consequently a grave threat to the prosperity and
institutions that dependant on that stability like democracy).

What would improve matters?

Thanks, for a start. It would make the massive financial burden on we tax
payers less irritating to bear if we could detect some gratitude or good
faith from those apparently freeloading on us. Furthermore the social cost
of trying to settle settlers (integration is out of fashion) into existing
communities ( already resentful of that resources and attention paid to
earlier settlers ) might be lower if their host communities were accorded
the moral praise owed to those who grant refugee and hospitality (instead
they come under sustained attack for not being welcoming enough and seeking
to protect their own interests!)

We need to prioritize our operating principles. What is more important,
obedience to the 1951 Convention or social stability and the future of
British democracy. Fake Refugee rights or the security of British citizens?

Future historians might consider it a great irony that the principles of
Western civilisation and their attendant humanitarianism have made the
borders of that civilization porous and handed powerful weapons (the free
movement of fifth columnists and terrorists) to its mortal enemies.

We need to correct these weaknesses and make sure those chapters on the
decline and fall of the west due to moral confusion and mass irruption of
hostile settlers are never written.

It is right that refugees are treated as refugees, it is perverse that so
many non-refugees are disguising themselves as refugees to abuse those
rights and jeopardise our freedom, prosperity and security.

Given that terrorists are abusing those rights and large groups of settlers
are entering the country (where they often form ethnic settlements and do
not integrate) abusing those rights, then the abuse of those rights is a
grave problem which should have extremely high priority (and powerful
deterrents in law to resist such abuse).

If these settlers burn down their comfortable £100 million centres with all
the recreational, educational, legal, medical facilities – let them be moved
to an army base and live as refugees do elsewhere in the world – in tents.

The Australians have shown the way – do not relent. If people sow their
children’s lips up as part of a culturally designated protest, them
prosecute them for a GBH assault on a child. If they riot, subdue them with
teargas and truncheons. If they refuse to eat – deport them.

Is the fact that these settlers have destroyed a detention centre which was
integral to the governments plans to deal with the enormous and complex
problem of which they are a part further evidence of the core hostility of
those who profess to take refugee amongst us? Maybe.

Ought we reward them with freedom for violence and arson. No, we should
prosecute them as we would anyone else – it would ‘send the
right signal’
to the others: If you want to be a refugee in
Britain, be ready to obey the law.

Is this problem of Asylum Seekers (or more accurately mass inward migrations
into the developed world) one of the most important facing contemporary
politicians and British society? Yes.

What are we going to do about it? Over to you Brits…

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment