‹ Back

Both online and in last month’s edition of Rise Britannia, I wrote an analysis of a set of proposals for dealing with the issues in the agricultural sector. This month, I have read a set of proposals for dealing with the issues of immigration/remigration by Pete North, a known commentator in some circles. He has written what I would describe as a policy paper on the subject (which you can read in full HERE), and I will address each of the key sections in turn, followed by my conclusions on the entire topic. These are broadly the points brought out and my assessment of them:

 

Asylum and Foreign Policy

In general, the paper argues for the elimination of the asylum system, or at least the restricting of it to a highly controlled state with highly limited numbers, for people of demonstratable benefit to the country (such as intelligence assets). The latter was the case throughout most of the Cold War.

 

The concept of a duty of care is relevant. I do not consider that the British state has any duty of care to anyone other than its own people. Anything done for the benefit of aliens can only be justified if there is a benefit (or at the very least no detriment) to our own people. It is reasonable that any person wanting any kind of asylum should be directly asked why it is in the interests of the British people to give it to them, and if they cannot even begin to provide an answer, then on that basis alone it is fair to assume their behaviour is likely to be parasitic.

 

It is also reasonable that any asylum claim should be made to a British embassy or consulate, and that any person who tries to enter first and then claim such should be refused. Additionally, the onus must be on the applicant to prove their situation – their word is meaningless when, again, we have no duty of care to them.

 

The paper talks about the issues surrounding detention. Issues regarding expense can be remedied by including some kind of productive (and involuntary) labour, the proceeds of which can finance any incarceration or removal. This said, the creation of a society and economy which is unliveable to any unwanted person would severely reduce the number of people who even attempt to enter for the purposes of ‘bogus’ asylum claims.

 

Mr North raises the issue which I have previously raised of exactly where any deported person goes, especially when there is no clear place of origin (or they will not reveal it). We must recognise the role that foreign policy plays in creating the conditions for mass migration, as well as the need to arrange a clear destination for any resettled person. This is something which I addressed several months ago HERE (Deportation - To Where?). He also points out that there is almost certainly going to be a need for small amounts of foreign aid money for the prevention of mass migration by addressing the causes. Again, this is not incorrect. He also points out that there will always be some people who will abuse or ignore any system regardless, who will defy any attempt to be reasonable, who will wantonly break any law or rule that a country can impose, and who will treat any moral ‘line in the sand’ as a shield to stand behind. The treatment of pathologically asocial people such as this must be completely ruthless and the consequences total.

 

Foreign Prisoners

It is absolutely true that the majority of people want to see foreign prisoners removed from society. Anyone who is foreign and has committed a crime so serious that they would otherwise be incarcerated should ultimately be removed. The party proposes that for the most serious crimes, the penalty be death regardless, and this would obviously be applied regardless of nationality of the criminal. There should be no exemption to removal for criminals who are likely to punished twice or more severely – that is their own fault and their own problem to deal with. Likewise, for situations where countries do not want their criminals returned, or where the person is almost certainly going to be let loose to the loss of whatever society they are removed to, consideration should be given to removing them from the Earth here, especially when the crime is extremely serious and their being at liberty puts people at risk in whatever society they relocate to.

 

Illegal Immigration

The first point brought out is to highlight the problems regarding the idea of ‘privatising’ immigration enforcement. North is correct. Not only is it likely to lead to perverse behaviour, there is a real possibility that by turning the act of ‘removal’ into a profitable event, some enterprises would actually facilitate illegal immigration, solely to claim the financial reward of deportation. The problem has to be dealt with by impartial authorities, and it has to be dealt with in a completely militarised way.

 

The point regarding illegal immigrants actually working low paid jobs is correct. Although these people may not pay taxes or exist ‘on the system’, measures to deal with it still require a consideration of the economic consequences of removing a large number of low-paid employees from the workforce. This is something I mentioned previously in an article on eliminating the dependency on immigration HERE (Eliminating the Dependency on Immigration).

 

The rest of the issues highlighted surrounding illegal immigration response concern how the media, NGOs and other organisations could actively try and hinder any efforts to control the problem. The solution is the same as that for bogus asylum applicants as highlighted previously – you need to restructure the legal and political system so that such hostile actors can be pre-emptively neutralised.

 

Economic and Employment Reforms

The issue is raised of tertiary education institutions either actively soliciting foreign students, or even fabricating their own activities in order to act as visa guarantors. North suggests that it is not necessary to totally eliminate foreign students at British universities, but that the entire operation must be scaled back, presumably so that foreign students are a tiny minority. There is an argument to be made that there is some foreign policy benefit to training tiny numbers of foreign students, however the provision of these services must never come at the cost of our own people’s access, and nor should the taxpayer have any involvement in it. Any visas or temporary residency permits that come with university study must have strict conditions, and come with zero prospect of remaining, NOT be a pathway to citizenship of any kind. It is a mercantile provision of a service by a paying customer and that is it.

 

The use of immigrant labour in the care sector is brought up. It is not the only sector of the economy which has become virtually dependent on mass immigration in order to function. It is NOT a solution to simply throw out the foreign workers without actually addressing this dependency and fixing it through educational, financial and economic reforms, something I’ve touched on in detail for not just the care sector but also public services in general and certain entrepreneurial sectors.

 

As North points out, welfare reform is a topic of its own, and in terms of the National Agenda it is a Demand of its own (#19). In general, the welfare state must be for our own citizens only, that is the extent of socialism. An immigrant that requires welfare to survive would not be here to begin with. This is not out of cruelty, it comes down, once more, to the fact that we do not have a duty of care to anyone who asks.

 

‘Voluntary’ Returns

This is the point which I find the most difficult to rationalise. There already is a scheme in place to pay certain migrants a small lump sum of money to leave the country. North’s proposal (and he isn’t the only one) is the expansion of this scheme. The reality is that virtually nobody will exchange a degree of certainty and stability, and a European environment, for a potentially terrible environment half way across the world, with few prospects or ability to earn a living. The only circumstances in which 90% of those targeted for removal would ever agree to leave in exchange for a few thousand pounds, would be if their lives here were so horrendous, that they would probably either leave for free just to escape, OR who were simply being physically compelled to leave anyway.

 

The entire concept of offering people money to leave the country is inherently flawed. The system already exists and virtually nobody uses it, which speaks volumes.

 

Enforcement and Conclusion - The Crux of the Issue

The biggest question surrounding all these previous points is how they would actually be carried out. The paper reasonably highlights the issues surrounding attempts at forcibly implementing them and the fact that some people (even if by total self-interest) would attempt to resist. This is where the point must be fundamentally made:

 

The only way that any kind of radical policy can be carried out, is to pre-emptively neutralise anything that might attempt to sabotage it. The kinds of organisations and people are likely to attempt to subvert the state would have to be pre-emptively criminalised in some way so this could not occur. It is important to note that immigration and asylum are industries, and the people who lead the majority of NGOs and charities that exist to ‘care’ for these people do not genuinely care about them, but just see them as a cash cow or as a way of selfishly signalling virtue. The average person who supports these things on the street overwhelmingly does so with good intentions in mind. The average person who leads these things does not. These are the individuals to be contained.

 

What this ultimately means is that reorganising society means first reorganising both the political system and economy to make it possible. You fundamentally require a centralised, militarised state with the ability to impose economic and social controls to achieve its objectives. Anything which is likely to attempt to sabotage or hinder the state’s activities must be neutralised beforehand. The media, reporting and propaganda would have to be strictly regulated.

 

It comes down to the simple fact that anything radical is not possible except with genuine power, hence Demand #20 of the National Agenda:

 

“We demand that the British state be controlled by a strong national government, with total authority, whose legitimacy derives directly from the consent of the British citizenry by way of plebiscites and referenda of public approval.”

 

Read our National Agenda in full HERE and get involved with the Party TODAY

 

By Alek Yerbury

 

Party Leader