Slimy Sunak's Immigration Lies
You can't trust the Tories on immigration
Here we go again! Yet more empty promises and vacuous nonsense from the Tories in a desperate attempt to cling on to the votes of gullible patriots. The invasion crisis is out of control and badly hurting the government's poll ratings. So now we have had briefings from an anonymous Number 10 source leading to excited newspaper headlines proclaiming that Sunak would be willing to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR, which enforces the Convention) prevents us from deporting illegal immigrants. Except that he won't. And in any case, it doesn't. Let me explain.
The first thing you need to understand is that UK law already allows for asylum claims of those coming from, or having passed through, safe countries – such as France or any other EU state - to be declared inadmissible and thus ignored – with no right of appeal to an immigration Tribunal. The law is very clear on this point. Section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 states:
“The Secretary of State may declare an asylum claim made by a person .. who has a connection to a safe third State inadmissible”.
Also, it makes clear that: “A declaration .. that an asylum claim is inadmissible is not a decision to refuse the claim and, accordingly, no right of appeal .. arises”.
Section 80C of the Act then explains that ““a connection” to a safe third State” refers to anyone who “was previously present in, and eligible to make a relevant claim to, the safe third State”. *
So the allegation that new legislation is needed to stop illegal immigrants from applying for asylum is completely bogus. There is no value in more legislation if the government refuses to use the powers it already has. Why doesn't the Home Secretary – Suella Braverman – declare that all asylum applications from Channel invaders are inadmissible? We are told that she is a 'hardliner' – yeah, right, where have I heard that before? Conservative home secretaries are as effective at stopping illegal immigration as a hamster is at fending off a fox. But at least hamsters are cute. So what is the point of the constant promises to pass new laws to 'stop the boats'? It's all about pretence: the pretence of action and determination to disguise an complete lack of either. There is nothing new in this: on the issue of immigration Conservative prime ministers are like Hyacinth Bucket in the TV sitcom 'Keeping Up Appearances' (don't pretend you're too young to remember this!) – they are desperate to appear what they are not.
So if no new legislation is needed to be able to refuse asylum applications, what about the claim that we need to leave the ECHR? Strictly speaking, this is also untrue. Don't get me wrong, I certainly do think that we should leave it, but that is on grounds of principle rather than absolute necessity. The point is that it is completely within our power to simply ignore the rulings of the court, as we have done in the past (and many other countries do all the time!). You may recall that in 2005 the ECtHR ruled against the UK and said that our blanket ban on prisoners voting went against the ECHR. The British government simply refused to accept this ruling, and the ban on prisoners voting remained – right up to 2017, when the government conceded voting rights to a limited number of prisoners (such as those on remand or on temporary licence), which was enough to satisfy the court. And here's the kicker: Which party was in power when the UK decided to ignore the ECtHR? Labour. And who was prime minister when we backed down? The Conservative Theresa May – who had previously declared that she was in favour of leaving the ECHR!
The sad truth is that the Tories are liars and cowards and traitors and cannot be trusted to stand up for Britain. They are cringingly compliant, obsessed with obeying “international law” - even though this does not exist. Take the repulsive Tory MP Robert Neill. He stated: “If Conservatives don't believe in the rule of law, what do we believe in?” Err, how about 'the British national interest'? That is surely all that matters to a true patriot, and Britannia should be happy to waive the rules to achieve this. Instead, he went on: “Adherence to, and membership of, the ECHR is a red line for many Conservatives”. I'm not surprised at his worshipping at the feet of the ECHR, as he loves international organisations that wield power over Britain. He was an ardent Remainer who, after failing to get his way in the referendum, did all that he could to thwart Brexit being approved by parliament. Despite this he was knighted by Boris Johnson in the 2020 New Year's Honours List – proof, if you needed it, that Boris the buffoon cared not a jot about Brexit. Sweet, ironic justice then that in May 2022 Robert Neill was one of the first Tory MPs to submit a letter of no-confidence in Boris Johnson!
ECHR-worshipping Tory traitors often protest that if the UK were to leave that body we would be 'like Russia'. Their deceitfulness is sick-making. They fail to mention we would also be like America, or Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Japan, or like any of the other countries all over the world that are not in the ECHR. And it's no good them whining that these are not, unlike us, European countries. The key point of Brexit is that we do not want to be constrained by restrictive European rules – we are a global nation, not merely a European one! The whole history of Britain is one of global travel, exploration and conquest. Even the cretinous Theresa May understood this and that is why the UK was the first non-Pacific country to apply to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade area. Besides, which part of 'Take Back Control' do these ECHR-worshippers not understand? We do not want to be ruled, or overruled, by foreign powers. It's as simple as that.
Unfortunately the masochistic majority in the Conservative Party have full control, and after having obtained the favourable headlines proclaiming that Rishi Sunak was thinking of taking Britain out of the ECHR, a spokesman for the prime minister quietly but quickly rowed back and declared that “there are no plans” to leave the ECHR and that the government “will, of course, comply with all our international obligations, and we are confident the measures being worked through will tackle the problem while being compliant with the ECHR ”. So do not be deceived by slimy Sunak's attempts to be seen as pro-Brexit or a defender of British interests – he does not intend to free us of “international obligations”. On the contrary, he wants us to continue to be slaves to foreign rules that are not in the interests of Britain or the British people.
So much for what the government is – and is not – doing, but what should it do? What is the solution to the invasion of Britain by illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers? The key is to eliminate the pull factor. As long as third-worlders believe that they will be allowed to remain here, they will continue to flood in. The generous benefits, services and lifestyle that they will have here, topped up with some cash-in-hand work, are just too attractive. Only the certainty of deportation, and the realisation that the time, cost and effort of coming here will all have been a total waste of time, will stop the flow. Immediate and unavoidable deportation is the only solution. All other proposals are completely pointless. Pushing the boats back, for instance, is nonsense, as this would simply delay their arrival, not prevent it. They would just keep trying until they sneaked through, which they would inevitably eventually succeed in doing.
But if we are to deport these invaders, where would we send them? They deliberately come here without documents, so we don't know their nationality, and France has made it clear they won't take them back; they don't want them any more than we do! It is therefore necessary for us to have one or more countries willing to take them, and therefore sending them to Rwanda is, in principle, a good idea. Unfortunately, although we were originally told that the number we could send there was unlimited this turned out to be just more 'Boris Bollocks'. In fact it is limited to just a few hundred and, as more than that arrive here in a single week, this is not therefore going to be an effective deterrent. In any case, the government has said that women and those deceitfully claiming to be children are excluded from deportation, so we'll just get lots more of these.
Nevertheless, the Rwanda scheme is the germ of a the solution. We simply (and yes, it is simple) need to conclude agreements with Rwanda and other countries in Africa, or Asia, or the middle East, to take several thousand deportees. It really would not be difficult to find a few poor countries (such as Somalia, Burundi or Eritrea) who would grab at the chance to earn a few hundred million pounds to set up a camp of tents to house several thousand deportees and feed them a couple of bowls of rice a day until they voluntarily return to their home countries or find another country to go to. The difficulty has never been finding countries willing to take part, but our pickiness in choosing them and the ridiculously high standards we demand they offer the people we send them. The whole point of the policy is to make the prospect of deportation so undesirable that illegal immigrants will stop coming here! Having made arrangements with host nations we should pick up the Channel invaders, take them to an RAF airbase and fly them out the very same evening, without giving them any access to lawyers who might seek to delay their removal. Speed is the key to success. The reason nobody has been sent to Rwanda is that it is government policy to to allow those who are slated for removal five days’ notice, so they are able to get legal help to stay here. How stupid is that?! Once the first 500 or so have been deported those planning to cross the Channel will very quickly get the message! We should also start deporting those already here and being cosseted in four-star hotels, thereby encouraging the rest to quickly leave before it is their turn. Maybe they could take a boat back to France - how ironic that would be!
Of course some legal changes will be needed. Firstly, we need to abolish the Human Rights Act, so that deportations can't be blocked. Stupid Sunak does not seem to understand that it is our domestic courts – not the one in Strasbourg – which have the real power to prevent deportations. Remember that when the flight to Rwanda was cancelled there were only seven migrants on board, as all the rest had been granted reprieves by the UK courts. And secondly we need to resile from the 1951 Refugee Convention which has clearly passed its sell-by date, as it was intended to apply to European refugees, not the whole of the third world. Third world asylum seekers who come here are clearly completely bogus. If their real goal was to seek safety they would apply to stay in their nearest safe country – and that is not the UK. Their determination to come to soft-touch Britain may be understandable from their point of view but British politicians have a duty to look at it from a British point of view, and Britain is horribly, atrociously, appallingly overcrowded. We are one of the most grossly overcrowded countries in the entire world, and that is why we should publicly declare that we cannot take any refugees. Not one.
Unfortunately the government won't do any of this. It will make a load of nonsensical promises and deliver nothing. It will not stop the boats. It will not engage in mass deportations. And it will not reduce the number of invaders flooding into Britain. If you vote Conservative you are voting for betrayal.
[* If you want to read the relevant sections of the Act in full you can find them here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/41/section/80B and https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/41/section/80C ]