SOFT TOUCH UK
WHICH is the more pitiable? Mostly men (along with some women and children), crossing the English Channel in an inflatable rubber ring you wouldn’t trust to carry your child across the local duck pond, or the bleeding hearts waiting on England’s shores, waving “welcome” placards at what they claim to be “refugees”? It’s debatable, isn’t it?
For myself, I’m quite clear about this moral dilemma. There is no doubt that those whose lives are being put at risk by “people traffickers” (racketeers) deserve some sympathy, but “pity” for them is something beyond my reach. If children figure amongst the “refugee” numbers, what the hell are they doing there? What responsible parent would put their child through such a hazardous and grossly exploitative journey? They wouldn’t, now would they?
One spokeswoman for the welcoming UK placard wavers recently claimed that “the majority of the boat people are Kurds” seeking “political asylum”. I see (this paragon of “virtue signalling” has obviously being doing passport checks somewhere mid-Channel). According to her, the UK has a responsibility to “process their asylum claims”. Pardon?
Let’s suppose they are mostly Kurds, escaping “war and oppression in Syria and Iraq”. In such circumstances, who wouldn’t leave? That’s not the issue. Why have they travelled right across Europe to be “safe”, ending up in France before they left its shores? Since when was France (or indeed any other European country they have crossed) not “safe”, or able to process their claims for “asylum”? The answer is “never”, in modern times.
Yes, the UK is a signatory to international agreements on asylum-seekers and bound by their rules, as are other European countries, but those rules are clear. Genuine asylum-seekers should apply for asylum “in the first safe country they arrive in”. As most first land in Greece or Italy, that is where asylum should be sought. Last time I looked, the UK was a hell of a long way from either place.
So why do they end up on UK shores? If they are genuine, why haven’t these “refugees” already applied for asylum when they first reached “safety”? Why have other EU countries simply passed them on? Could it be they don’t want the vast wave of migration engulfing Europe any more than the average Briton does? You bet it is.
What other reason might have encouraged the latest wave of “asylum-seekers” to try to enter the UK? Could it be they see Britain as a “soft touch”; a land where once you arrive, they never kick you out, even if your “asylum” application is refused, because you can claim your “human rights” are being infringed if they do? Could it be that the majority of these boat people are simply economic migrants, looking for a better life, initially at the expense of the British taxpayer? Of course it is.
The placard-waving, virtuesignalling minority urge the UK to “rescue the refugees” midChannel, to avoid the risk of them drowning. Fine; no-one with any heart wants to see anyone die, but these exploited people should not simply be taken into the UK. If the government does that, they would only be completing the migrants’ voluntarily dangerous journey for them. What does that do, other than encourage others to follow in their wake and ensure the disgusting “people traffickers” will have an endless and growing stream of willingly exploited victims?
So what should the UK do? Pick them up mid-Channel by all means, but sail them straight back to where they came from. Strong, tough messages need to be sent to stop the exploitation. Secondly, the UK needs to toughen up its asylum procedures at home. When applicants arrive, they are held in custody until their applications are processed, then released, for fear of infringing their “human rights”. The trouble is, if they are refused and threatened with deportation, nobody in the Home Office consequently has any clue where they are. What is “liberal” or “caring” about any of this? Nothing.
Pick them up, send them back, repeal the Human Rights Act and hold any who actually land in custody until their asylum applications are decided, then deport those judged invalid. Deter this exploitation, stop facilitating it. That is the real “humane” approach. Stop being “a soft touch”.