RICHARD NORTH
It was back to work with a bang for the political elites, as parliament re-opened after the long break and Starmer, in between finagling a micro-reshuffle, found time for a long interview with BBC Radio 5 live.
During the interview, Starmer is asked how he would feel if a hotel housing asylum seekers was at the end of his street, and the narrative goes like this: “I completely get it”, says Starmer: “Local people by and large do not want these hotels in their towns, in their place, and nor do I. I’m completely at one with them on that”.
Starmer then says he understands why people want the hotels closed and he wants that too “as quickly as possible”. Asked to put a date on it, he reiterates his commitment to do so by the end of this Parliament but, when it’s put to him that is four years away, he says he would like to bring that date forward but does not commit to another date.
And that’s the BBC’s contribution to managing the great debate, carefully skirting the issue later raised in the Commons by Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary.
There, he was responding not to Starmer but to home secretary Yvette Cooper, noting that she too did not mention her (and the regime’s) favourite phrase from a year or so ago, namely the intent to “smash the gangs”.
The point, of course, is the refrain heard outside the hotels amid the proliferating protests is not a call to empty the hotels, as such but to “stop the boats”, tackling the problem at source: no more illegal immigrants, no more sexually incontinent dregs sponging off the taxpayer.
But that is not what Starmer has in mind. Unable or unwilling to stem the tide, his master plan is to move the parasites into HMOs, and other accommodation in the “community” where he hopes they will be less visible, dumping the problem on local authorities, whose hard-pressed council tax payers have to meet the costs.
We have already seen an example of where this sinister policy leads, with the The Sun reporting that asylum seekers have been given new £300k town houses in a village in Suffolk, complete with en-suite bathrooms, electric vehicle charging points and underfloor heating, while locals struggle to get on the property ladder.
From the performance of the regime, though, there seems little alternative with Starmer trapped between a rock and a hard place of his own making. Philps refers to Cooper’s claim that action by the National Crime Agency (NCA) led to 347 “disruptions” of immigration crime networks, supposedly the highest level on record, and a 40 percent increase on the year.
This sort of claim, though, is typical of the regime’s “smoke and mirrors” approach to illegal immigration. In the absence of being able to parade the only real indicator of success – a sustained reduction in the body count- it resorts to counting “disruptions”. Yet, as Philps “gently” points out, 84 percent of these, attributable to the NCA are classified as being “low impact” – such as closing down traffickers’ websites and Tik-Tok accounts.
By contrast, NCA arrests for organised immigration crime (OIC) actually went down by 16 percent in the last financial year, amounting to a mere 26 cases, while the numbers crossing the Channel have reached 29,003, up 38 percent compared with the same time last year.
One should also recall that Channel crossings in small boats are only one means of securing illegal entry into this country. This is something which is being rather glossed over by politicians on all sides of the House, despite the ONS reporting only half of those claiming asylum entered the UK through “irregular” routes.
Currently, that amounts to 39 percent arriving by small boat and a further 11 percent coming in lorries, shipping containers or without the correct documents.
Of the rest, these entered on a visas or other forms of leave include those entering on an ETA (Electronic Travel Authorisation) to visit the UK. Breaking this figure down, 36 percent held a study visa, 30 percent a work visa and 22 percent came on visitor visas.
A small sign of success on the boat front comes from an NCA report that tells us that costs incurred by organised crime groups for delivery of boats and engines to northern France have risen substantially.
This, the NCA thinks, is likely in part as a result of law enforcement seizures, while organised crime groups are also likely to be choosing to reduce costs by providing increasingly poor-quality safety equipment, if any.
Digging deeper into this NCA report, one finds the view that “it is almost certain that the true scale of organised immigration crime is higher than detection figures indicate for entry methods other than small boats”.
The scale of difference, we are told, varies by method, depending on factors such as limited law enforcement resource to cover the entirety of the organised immigration crime threat, limitations in passenger data on certain routes, and, in some modes, the use of false documentation to bypass security measures.
And here we get some indication of the flexibility of the traffickers’ responses, as the NCA adds that it is highly likely that efforts to tighten student and skilled worker visa routes has led to increased intention to abuse visitor and transit visas by both organised crime groups offering end-to-end services and migrants self-facilitating.
It is also likely, we are told, that organised immigration crime groups have improved their knowledge of the UK visa system to support migrants, from initial application to settlement within the UK. This, they say, is evidenced by increasing numbers of sponsorship licenses enabling fraudulent sponsorship for migrants.
Major but virtually uncontrollable factors here are the opportunities offered by social media and end-to-end encrypted platforms, which continue to be exploited at all stages of organised immigration crime. Organised groups use social media platforms, such as Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram, to advertise smuggling services, false documents, and assistance with fraudulent visa applications.
Once contact is established, migrants are often quickly directed to end-to-end encrypted or private messaging platforms, such as WhatsApp and Telegram, whilst end-to-end encrypted platforms are also used to enable communication between group members.
As a result, the NCA says, it remains challenging accurately to identify the true scale of online organised immigration crime related content, from which one can also deduce that the true scale of illegal immigration also remains unknown, especially if fraudulent entry is added to the clandestine statistics.
In a recent official report on the efficiency on anti-immigrant enforcement operations, not only was it observed that “nobody knows how many migrants enter undetected”, but that, when it came to police activity, just four police forces had submitted 62 percent of recorded disruptions, leaving the rest split between the other 44 forces.
All this makes the headline interplay between politicians and the steady drumbeat of media reports and analysis all rather tedious – and irrelevant. Philp in his response to the home secretary yesterday described government efforts as a failure. “Things are not getting any better; they are getting worse”, adding that this government “are failing and everyone can see it”.
That is as maybe, but what “everybody” cannot see is the scale of failure which is far greater than anyone can imagine. Thus, while the home secretary is “tweaking” the system – including the very necessary suspension of asylum seeker family reunion – this is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the scale of the problem, which also takes in “legal” migration, much of which is actually fraudulent and therefore actually illegal.
For all the shouting, therefore, no-one is even beginning to get to grips with this issue. The hotels are only the tip of the iceberg.
This article (Immigration: scale of the problem) was created and published by Turbulent Times and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Richard North
See Related Article Below
We Don’t Need a Farage or a Badenoch, We Need an Atatürk
ROGER WATSON
Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch seem to be involved in a game of anti-immigration Top Trumps. Farage, once the scourge of illegal migrants, quite recently praised the contribution of migrants to the United Kingdom – having considered it expedient to do so. Badenoch meanwhile – whose migrant credentials are impeccable – has done the same. But that was in the past.
Farage has reconsidered his stance, no doubt as a result of the Epping protests where our judiciary have prioritised the rights of criminals (people who have broken our laws by arriving uninvited) over people who are legitimate United Kingdom citizens. Farage has announced plans for the mass deportation of illegal migrants, but fell short of including women and children.
In response to Farage’s fantasy, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch says that she would deport illegal migrants: men, women and children. What’s more, she suggests that illegal migrants should be housed in camps rather than luxury hotels. All very strange, given she was remarkably silent as the Tory government opened the floodgates to migrants both legal and illegal, was largely responsible for the present mess, and delivered absolutely nothing on the illegal migrant front except hot air. Not a single illegal migrant was deported under their Rwanda scheme…not one.
How can Sir Keir Starmer, who has finally woken up to the possibility of being given the electoral boot over migration, possibly hope to compete? Perhaps he will have to suggest machine-gunning the dinghies full of migrants as they approach the southeast coast, to have any hope of topping the trumps of Farage and Badenoch. I’ll bet, amongst the communities that have been overrun by the priapic hordes of Mohammedans running up the beaches, this would be a vote winner. But I must point out, here at TNC, where we live and breathe the rules of the European Court of Human Rights, we would never advocate such action.
The problem with Farage and Badenoch, despite the fine words, is they have seen only part of the problem, and have suggested a solution that addresses that part alone. The problem they see is too many migrants; the solution, to get rid of some. Anyone with half a brain must understand that neither of them would nor could deliver on their promises. The part of the problem that they see is one which has no solution.
We could load a million – and it is probably over a million – illegal migrants into boats and planes and deliver them to France, Rwanda or Afghanistan and they would simply return. They have done it at least once, and there is nothing to stop them doing it again. The real problem is that the United Kingdom is just too attractive a place to come. We are too accommodating to illegal migrants. We give too much support to them, and we are far too tolerant of the alien religion to which most of them adhere – Islam.
And this is where Mustafa Kemal Atatürk comes in. Atatürk – the father of modern Turkey – was a flawed man. Part brutal dictator, serial womaniser and a chronic alcoholic, but also a fearless warrior and honourable soldier. He took Turkey from the dark ages of the Islamic Ottoman Empire into the modern age. Raised a Muslim but probably an atheist, he saw that what was holding Turkey back from economic success was the adherence to Islamic ways.
While accused of trying to destroy Islam, he did not ban the religion or close mosques. But he did make it harder for Islam to control society, by prising its hands from the levers of power. He abolished Arabic writing from official documents, creating the modern Turkish language in the process. He banned the outward expression of Islam – the hijab – in educational and government institutions. Where alcohol had been restricted – although not banned – under the Ottomans, Atatürk lifted any restrictions. He also completely banned the wearing of the fez, another outward symbol of the Ottomans.
These were small steps, you may think, but it changed the culture of the country. The message was clear: you may practice your religion, but it will not dominate our society and you will not identify yourself as belonging to another group by means of your mode of dress in institutions which are controlled by the government. If you are a man, you will no longer identify with the old ways.
Imagine if the United Kingdom took the simple step of legally banning the hijab if you are employed by the government (that would include the NHS where wearing a cross is considered problematic), or attending one of our universities. I have covered before in these pages the ignominy of being greeted and shouted at when entering the UK – legally – by people who are clearly immigrants to this country. Most of the women at Heathrow and many at Manchester Airport working at Border ‘Force’ wear hijabs. On my last exit from the country via the BA First-Class check-in and security at Heathrow, both women at the two scanners were wearing hijabs; one was in a full burqa.
Along with the hijab in public employment, imagine if we banned the wearing of the burqa and the niqab completely. Once barely seen on our streets, these oppressive forms of dress are now everywhere in major cities. I think that Mohammed, Muhamed, Mohamad and Mahmoud would be less willing to take their wives and daughters here if we were to say that, out on the street, they may dress as modestly as they want but they will not hide their identity.
It doesn’t take much to change the culture of a country. Witness how ours has changed, for the worse, by dint of our obsession with compassion (for the wrong people), equality and diversity. We don’t have to hate Muslims, close mosques or burn down migrant hotels. We simply need to make this a country which sends a clear message: you are not welcome here if you do not respect our ways, integrate and appear to have integrated. Let’s start with that and see if it does anything to stem the flow of illegal migrants. If that doesn’t work, then we need to ‘set phasers to stun’ and up the ante. Suggestions (legal ones) please.
*****
Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He is a columnist with Unity News Network and writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
This article (We Don’t Need a Farage or a Badenoch, We Need an Atatürk) was created and published by The New Conservative and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Roger Watson
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply