Migrants Are Taking Britain for a Ride – and We’re Letting Them

Far be it from me to cast aspersions upon the honour of the daughter of the Prime Minister of Kurdistan, but she would appear to be a woman of distinctly easy virtue. According to the testimony of a Home Office whistleblower revealed in the Times this week, the number of Iraqi asylum seekers who have claimed that they have been in a relationship with this highly accommodating lady, thereby necessitating their being allowed to stay here in the UK to escape the jealous wrath of her possessive Islamic father, is “in the hundreds”.

Meanwhile, a similar number of Pakistanis have likewise claimed asylum here from their notably homophobic home-nation on the sole basis that they are in possession of an Official Letter of Gayness from the exact same easy-loving gentleman back home who claims to have slept with each and every one of them; isn’t that how AIDS got started? It may be simpler for the British state, all things considered, to just give this single highly promiscuous individual asylum here in Brighton, before he can seduce anyone else and leave them in need of an immediate free passport.

The whistleblower’s account demonstrates how laughably simple it is for people from Muslim nations to gain easy access to Great Britain. Around 99 out of every 100 asylum applications “at best” are bogus, says the Times’s Home Office mole, with initial interviews with such liars after they land ashore being wholly insubstantial, allowing them months on end to concoct a supposedly ‘plausible’ story about them once having been kissed on the lips by Saddam Hussein in a public bazaar. Last year, there was even a case where one Iraqi asylum seeker, when asked why he was filing his claim, replied: “I don’t have a real reason to be here, give me some time and I will make up a reason.” Despite this fact, a judge allowed him to stay anyway. Possibly officials considered his paradoxical honesty here to be evidence of good character?

Going through the wrong channels

Cases like the above demonstrate clearly how we have allowed a two-tier system of attitudes towards obeying the law to develop in this country, according to which sector of the population you happen to belong to. Native British people must jump through endless hoops trying to prove who they really are when applying for passports, driving licences, mortgages, and, if the Government gets its way, soon to use certain social media sites. Meanwhile, random unknown Iraqis just have to wash up on a beach, say “Hello, maybe I’m a gay, I haven’t quite decided yet, just give me a free hotel room” and it’s handed over to them gratis, virtually no questions asked. Together with some complimentary condoms, courtesy of the rule-bound British taxpayer, just in case they happen to bump into the daughter of the Kurdistani PM again while they’re over here.

The standard historical Western mentality, inculcated over many generations, is overwhelmingly to obey the rules, no matter how inane or petty. The standard historical non-Western mentality is just to do things. Particularly, it seems, if you’re a Muslim, for whom far higher laws, those of Allah, apply.

A good example of the difference in outlook could be observed this week with the case of Karl Bushby, a British explorer who has been walking across the world like a slow-motion Phileas Fogg non-stop since 1998, successfully navigating all kinds of global danger-hotspots, but remaining undefeated on his quest despite facing foes like Marxist guerila rebels and killer criminal gangs – until he reached the coast of northern France, where he finally met his match.  

Bushby’s plan was to walk the final leg to England by trekking through the Channel Tunnel on foot, probably by making his way through trackside maintenance routes. But would he be allowed to do so? No, because, like the stupid white Westerner he is, Bushby had internalised the importance of obeying the law, and so had specifically applied to the Channel Tunnel operators for permission to do so. Predictably, they refused, with a Chunnel spokesperson saying they “must ensure that all activity within the Tunnel meets strict operational criteria”. As it was explained:

In this instance, regretfully we are unable to accommodate Mr Bushby’s wishes. The Channel Tunnel’s Service Tunnel is a dedicated safety and maintenance route. Closing the Service Tunnel for a period of 15 hours, or over two days [the amount of time it would take Busby to walk through], would pose a safety risk to passenger services and impact essential maintenance work. Access is also tightly controlled and any activity within it requires detailed planning and specialist support.

Unless you’re an illegal migrant. In which case, like a walking Nike slogan, you’ll just do it. Compare Bushby’s experience to that of Abdul Rahman Haroun, a Sudanese ‘refugee’, who also decided he’d like to stroll through the Channel Tunnel from France into Britain back in August 2015 – so he simply turned up and walked through it, until he was finally arrested by police right next to the Tunnel exit in Folkestone. And what punishment was handed out to him after this arrest? That’s right, he was given full leave to stay here for good. Unlike Karl Bushby, he just walked right in and took what he wanted, and so, quite naturally, he got it.

Islamist plot

The basic attitude here is ‘act first, ask for permission afterwards’ – after all, if you then just cry ‘racist!’ you’ll generally get what you’ve already taken as being yours permanently anyway. Another excellent illustration of this attitude at play has just arisen in Sowerby Bridge, West Yorkshire, where the below strange Islamic structure, covered over in Arabic script, suddenly popped up on a local allotment plot.   

What is it? A mass grave for ‘dead’ Qurans. Known as a ‘Rest Garden’, these monuments are intended as a final peaceful resting place for old copies of the holy book deemed now to be unusable, perhaps because a white schoolboy has dropped one onto the floor at school, causing it to become slightly scuffed, thereby necessitating his mother to humiliatingly beg for her child’s life in front of local imams. Videos from the site appear to show Muslims burying thousands of copies of the text in big holes, and some locals are concerned an illegal burial of a dead body may be present on the site too. The Forestry Commission suspect trees may have been illegally cut down as well.

Don’t you need planning permission to build a large marble structure like this, though, let alone to allegedly bury a corpse there? That’s what the white natives think, with their quaint primitive custom of obeying the law. In a petition to the council, residents, hyper-aware of their need to comply with race-relations regulations, because they are largely white and British, complained-cum-apologised that:

This petition is not directed against any religion, faith or community. We respect the right of all people to practice their beliefs lawfully. Our concern is that significant changes to land use and development should comply with the same planning and environmental standards that apply to everyone.

Dutifully, the council has served an enforcement notice upon the Islamic landowners, accusing them of not seeking the relevant planning permission, noting how the shrine is reportedly intended to become even larger, and how it is already an easily visible eyesore from outside the plot, making it wholly “out of keeping with the character of the allotment site and the surrounding landscape” and a “discordant form of development that fails to respect the character, appearance and local distinctiveness of the area”. Do the council think those who erected it really care?

Again, the basic mentality here (shared with gypsies, when it comes to the specific issue of defacing land without any planning permission) is to act first, and then deal with the consequences, if any, later. Naturally, the shrine’s builders have appealed against the council’s planning enforcement notice, and tried to make arguments as to why they should be allowed to keep the thing. For one thing, the site operators told the Telegraph, they had placed Union Jacks and Crosses of St George on it to pacify the locals: “After being labelled as immigrants coming on a boat and facing racial attacks, we decided to place poles with British flags to educate the haters that we’re British, not migrants who have arrived on a boat.”

It’s a classic illustration of this kind of ingrained foreign-origin mentality in action. Do something wrong, then use this as a base-point for starting negotiations with those you have already wronged: okay, we built a big illegal Quran-shrine, but let us keep it and we’ll throw you the sop of draping it in your national flags (at least for now). It’s the equivalent of illegally converting a building into a mosque, then ‘generously’ offering to pay for it to be soundproofed so all the wailing adhan calls to prayers don’t disturb the neighbours from their sleep at all hours of the night and day as a ‘compromise’. 

Act first, think later

Cases like this have actually happened in Britain. In 2007, a property owner in London illegally converted his properties into a mosque-cum-Islamic community centre, causing all kinds of predictable problems for local residents relating to noise, car-parking, sudden large explosions, etc. After complaints were made, the owner was granted retrospective permission for his new mosque by the local council once they found out about it, just with a few minor strings attached, as explained by the below summary from a subsequent court case about these matters:

Had the mosque-builder just gone to the council and said: “Hello, can I build a giant mosque in my house, please?” it would have said no. If outraged neighbours complain to the council that this same man has just gone ahead and built a giant mosque in his house anyway, however, then it is already something of a fait accompli; it would appear ‘racist’ and ‘inflammatory’ to abolish such a sacred holy site, so the local council agree to compromise with the man. “Rather than a giant mosque, couldn’t you just have a really big one instead? Say, one with no more than 100 worshippers inside at once, rather than 1,000?”  

The illegal Quran-buriers in Sowerby Bridge may well not succeed in their appeal as completely as the illegal mosque-builder of London did, but that is not quite the point: the point is their automatic assumption that this is the way to go about such things nonetheless. There is a fundamental difference in mentality and underlying cultural assumptions at work here. In Pakistan or Iraq, you act first, then try and bribe, intimidate or otherwise persuade the officials who stand in your way afterwards.  

And, increasingly, supine officials here in the West just let them. The ultimate example of just taking what you want without asking for it is, of course, rape. In Italy, a 42 year-old Bangladeshi incomer has just been released by a morally warped judge for raping a 13 year-old girl after the paedo told a court he was sorry. What sort of message do cases like these send out? Basically, that their attitude towards obeying rules and regulations – that it is entirely optional – is actually more logical than actually obeying them. At what point is the native population going to wake up and conclude that, under such invidious circumstances, it is no longer worth their while continuing to play by the rules themselves while others just merrily go around doing whatever the hell they feel like?

Judging by recent events in Portsmouth and Dover, maybe it’s already beginning to happen. One of the British Government’s and police’s chief objections to the masked anti-immigrant protests which went on across the south coast last week was that their organisers had provided “no notice” to the relevant authorities beforehand that they were going to take place at all. What, you mean those involved just turned up and did it? This could be the start of something.

Steven Tucker is a journalist and the author of over 10 books.