It’s been exasperating to watch as, in defiance of the wishes of Western electorates, the cultural make-up of our countries is radically transformed, writes Lionel Shriver in the Spectator. It’s time to recognise that the problem is the asylum system itself and it needs to go. Here’s an excerpt.
I’ve suggested scrapping the entire postwar asylum apparatus before, if only in passing, and Patrick O’Flynn concluded an article for the Spectator website last week with the same recommendation. So let’s take up this proposal in earnest. Unlike (largely theoretical) gatecrashers in China or India, absolutely anyone can enter the US or Europe and claim to be persecuted, and then the Government is immediately obliged not only to take this often-spurious assertion seriously, but to grant the foreigner access to expensive judicial, welfare and healthcare systems – to which this stranger has never contributed and may never contribute. For the developing world, the offer of such refuge is irresistible. For Western taxpayers, it is ruinous.
It’s blithely accepted that asylum is widely ‘abused’, an eye-popping understatement. The preponderance of folks who claim ‘credible fear’ of political persecution are economic migrants coached by smugglers and gormless NGO worthies on what to tell the authorities. Hence we have scores of Muslims who’ve ostensibly converted to Christianity, whole cadres from socially conservative countries who are purportedly gay and entire boatloads of heavily bearded males who say they’re 15 years old. Why are we committed to this farce? Why should a sovereign country abdicate control over who enters its territory and usurps its resources?
The scandals are legion. An activist judge has determined that a family of six from Gaza can claim asylum through a programme established by Britain’s Parliament to shelter Ukrainians. Oh, grand. Someone tell Trump. Clearing the Strip for luxury hotels? Just send all 1.7 million terrorist-indoctrinated Gazans to Stoke-on-Trent. Infamously, a criminal Albanian can now remain in the UK because his son will only eat British chicken nuggets. Likewise, a Pakistani imprisoned for sex offences gets to stay in the UK because deportation would be hard on his children – whom he’s legally forbidden to see without supervision anyway, since he’s a paedophile. In the US, millions of the credibly fearful who crossed the southern border under Joe Biden were provided immigration appointments up to a decade in the future – at which point they’ll claim to have made a home in the US and will never be forced to leave. Meanwhile, stories about disgruntled asylum seekers ploughing vehicles into crowds in Germany are becoming practically ho-hum.
In the UK, a Nigerian woman was denied asylum eight times in a row, but just won her case on the ninth try because she’d joined what’s regarded as a terrorist organisation in her home country. This is despite the judge’s acceptance that the woman had only joined Indigenous People of Biafra “in order to create a claim for asylum”. But never mind the sly ploy. What leaps from that story is the number of appeals she was allowed – and plenty of UK immigration cases entail the same multitude of foot-dragging court appearances. How much does trial after trial cost the public, including the asylum seekers’ taxpayer-funded lawyers? …
Granted, withdrawing the offer of unlimited asylum doesn’t sound very nice. Yet a functional state puts its citizenry first. Overwhelmingly, Americans and Europeans want to curtail mass immigration. Droves of poorly educated, low-skilled arrivals are diluting social cohesion, increasing criminality, depressing GDP per capita and costing the public hundreds of thousands of dollars, pounds or euros over their lifetimes. Why don’t our governments be nice to us? And if that means would-be righteous politicians feel less warm and fuzzy, there’s nothing warm and fuzzy about being a sucker.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The asylum the lawyers, judges and gormless NGO worthies facilitating this national betrayal should be detained in, is what used to be quaintly called the looney bin.
Straightjackets all round. Minister for Energy Insecurity to be detained in the same institution. Time the rest of us got some respite from these barmpots.
Good that we can now see these quite right opinions in the main stream, but getting this view into the mechanism of government will be a whole new challenge.
‘a functional state puts its citizenry first’ says it all really.
The UK doesn’t.
Well it had to be Birmingham, didn’t it?
”Five Guys in Fort Dunlop, Birmingham are going Halal — banning pork and alcohol from its stores.
A consequence of demographic change, creating ethnic Islamic enclaves who live apart from the host population.
But this accommodation of Halal dietary requirements is not innocuous.
It is a proxy for:
• Increasing rates of cousin marriage
• A low-trust society, where lying is fine if it advantages your clan
• Honour killings and acid attacks
• Racist rape gangs
• Marital violence
These practices are in Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, and a number of other countries where Britain is getting its post-Brexit migrants.
It will only increase, by importing indigestible tribal cultures from Muslim countries, and with Muhammad now the most popular baby name in England.
We should not be complacent about these incrimental incursions on British cultural norms by a foreign imperial belief system.”
https://x.com/Con_Tomlinson/status/1892938583327343077
I agree with what you say but could I just point out that there is no such thing as an ‘honour killing’
It is premeditated murder.
It’s not me saying it, it’s Connor Tomlinson’s post. But I agree that “honour killing” is a nonsense term, made up by a misogynistic death cult to legitimise murder. After all, where is the “honour” in killing your own daughter?
Agree HP; but I’d make those championing colonisation the priority.
By a few weeks at least.
I think somebody from the DS crew fell asleep at the wheel last night and forgot to press the button, didn’t they?
Is that why there’s no News Round Up yet?
Hmm… The comment above was not a reply to Mogwai. A moderator had replied to Mogwai and I replied to that. Removing the moderator comment links my reply directly to Mogwai’s comment and robs it of meaning.
I note the same has happened to Mogwai’s reply to the missing moderator comment – it looks like she’s replied to herself.
Not sure if these are software problems or wetware problems.
I was referring to the lack of a Round-up this morning, just to be clear.
We have some software issues – on the case, thanks for your note
Thanks for the update.
Yet most people in the last UK election voted for parties that were obviously going to do nothing of the kind. Ditto France, ditto Germany most likely in the next election. Not ditto the US so it is possible.
Anyway, can we also talk about LEGAL immigration please, a LOT more often. I think it’s ultimately almost as bad and has to stop pretty much completely, now, for decades/centuries, because it also destroys our culture.
Why am I only seeing 8 comments when it says 12? HL…??? Are you not a Connor fan or something?