My other half has taken it upon herself to do a PhD, and it doesn’t do to have me rattling around the house all day disturbing her work, so I evicted myself for the day to go and visit the RCAF war graves at Stonefall cemetery in Harrogate.
On the way back I cycled through the usual talk radio stations only to land on LBC, with Lewis Goodall talking about the latest developments on the Asylum issue.
The British government is reportedly planning to pay asylum seekers up to £3,000 each to move to Rwanda under a voluntary plan to help clear the backlog of refugees who have had their applications to remain in the country rejected.
This reeks of desperation and we need not dwell on how utterly pointless and futile this is. But LBC saw fit to give airtime to a Refugee NGOcrat who sounded off the usual excuses why it’s impossible to get rid of unwanted migrants. She then trotted out the usual mantra of instead being more welcoming so that “refugees” can settle, integrate and start contributing.
Again, the media passively accepts this as sound logic, despite the fact that such arrangements would reward illegal immigration and incentivise more of the same. This is normally the point where I switch the radio off in disgust. But this time, for reasons that escape me, I thought I’d call into the show.
I argued that Goodall’s previous "expert" caller was ignoring the fact that most are not refugees, and that they are gaming the system to secure permanent residence in the UK. I argued that if we are to have a fair immigration system then there must be rules, the rules must be properly enforced, and that there should be a meaningful deterrent for the system cheats.
I argued that it would be entirely possible to circumvent the Rwanda legal strife by using a facility on the Falklands, whereby we ensure migrants don't get to stay here even for a week, and will instead be very cold, and very bored, wishing they hadn't bribed a criminal to break into the UK.
I argued that Britain cannot take an infinite number of migrants, and that we should not be taking refugees from all over the world, and that the idea behind refuge is that refugees return to their place of origin, which will not happen when the system is being abused to secure permanent UK residence.
I argued that Ukraine would experience a depopulation crisis because of this exact dynamic. Refugees who have made new lives in other European countries will not be rushing to return to a bankrupt and broken Ukraine if they’re allowed to remain.
I went on to argue that neighbouring countries are the best places to host refugees so that they will return to rebuild their lives, and that Britain can have a role in ensuring refugee camps are properly funded and equipped through our foreign aid budget. I made the further point that we face difficulties integrating third worlders who are unlikely to contribute or integrate, or share our values and customs.
Goodall, however, maintains the fiction that these are refugees, and that we have an obligation to take them regardless of where they come from, as though it's our problem. It isn't. This is not what the asylum system is for. He attempted to reframe the discussion by asking whether we should have taken in Jews in WW2.
Were there time I would have expanded on this point, in that the Refugee Convention was designed to address this kind of problem, and not to facilitate backdoor entry for third world economic migrants. But I instead made the point that European Jews were at least westernised, educated and able to integrate and contribute. Which they did. We can’t say the same of the illiterate fighting age males who hop into dinghies. I further argued that these migrants are basically not wanted. There is ample evidence of widespread criminality.
I cited "machete gangs" in London, which Goodall then leapt upon, to suggest I'm saying the majority of the refugees are going to join machete gangs. This is classic LBC strawmanning to evade the point, and make a cheap shot, because Lewis Goodall is not capable of debating in good faith. He maintains the lie that dinghy arrivals are refugees, thus any debate on that premise is wholly disingenuous, and wilful misdirection on his part.
As is typical for LBC, they only posted half the clip on social media, framing it as though Goodall had a slam dunk argument - even though he was merely debunking his own straw man. Thanks to not-so-modern technology I was able to record it so you can judge for yourself.
Goodall has clearly learned the art from James O'Brien. If you can't argue the point, derail and misdirect. If you're losing, set up an ambush - then crop the clip accordingly to frame it they way you want it framed. Easy done when you have home advantage. In any level playing field, these people are easily dismantled.
The entire discourse on this issue is tainted by one fundamental lie; that those hopping into dinghies are refugees, and should be treated accordingly. We know this is a lie. There are even reports of “refugees” going back to their country of origin on holiday. The system is wide open to abuse, and what we’re witnessing is a mass fraud on the British people.
As much as this is grossly offensive to the public (who have to foot the enormous bill for this invasion), third world men with stone age values are demonstrably a threat to the safety of British people. No civilisation can withstand a mass influx of surplus, illiterate, unemployable men. That's why crime happens. That's why societies break down. That's how you end up with warring tribal factions on the streets. We already have a ticking time bomb in our cities. Pouring more petrol on the bonfire is treason.
It is not racist to want to maintain the social fabric of your country. It's not racist to keep out alien cultures who don't respect your own laws. A nation can sustain a reasonable level of immigration from compatible countries, but not at the expense of social cohesion. A refusal to enforce immigration controls is an abnegation of the state's basic duty to its people. Britain isn't a free-for-all grazing strip. It is our home. We have a right to defend it against invaders. If the government won't do its basic duty, don't be surprised when the peope take matters into their own hands.
Good article Pete.
I'm only a free subscriber at the moment. I'm waiting to see whether whether you keep going with this Substack thing before I become a paid subscriber. I guess you are doing something similar before posting something I can't read. :-)
He folded like a pussy when you told him the evidence was from people with cameras. These are hopeless, sentimental politically castrated cowards that we are dealing with these days. The veritable turkeys voting for Christmas.