By Dr Jim Lewthwaite
Writing this article has been repeatedly delayed, as each attempt became irrelevant due to new revelations in the newspapers or on GB News, whether they were factual or opinion-based. Most recently, Paola Diana noted on GB News that government policy is prioritising the interests of so-called asylum seekers over the safety of British women and children, which is precisely the urgent point I intended to make.
It is now widely recognised that foreigners commit violent crimes, especially sexual violence, at a rate significantly higher than that of native Britons. This observation holds true even when considering native Britons to include post-1945 immigrant-descended individuals from the Caribbean, Africa, and South Asia.
Foreigners have been disproportionately involved in racial hate crimes such as rape gangs, sex trafficking, and prostitution, as well as other violent offences like knife crime and organised mugging. This situation has not only created a considerable sense of insecurity and a decline in social and ethical standards, but it has also directly threatened the safety of British women and children, leading to feelings of despondency in major cities. In what was once one of the safest countries in the world, women—especially in London—now fear going out at night.
Recent evidence suggests that crimes often begin shortly after these invaders—because that is what they are—arrive on our shores while their legal status is processed at our expense. Not only are endless appeals funded by the victims—who are us—through Legal Aid, but the illegal migrants are also housed at taxpayer-funded luxury hotels. This arrangement is supposedly temporary, with plans to relocate them to limited social housing at the expense of more deserving local residents in the indefinite future. It is outrageous that they can immediately find illegal employment in the black or gig economy. The fact that some have committed rapes, which are then covered up, is an atrocity. There seems to be no end in sight, as successive ineffective Uniparty governments have utterly failed to either “stop the boats’ or ‘smash the gangs.’
It is evident that such invaders cannot be prevented from entering the country, and those who are accommodated cannot be deported. This is mainly due to a vast industry of unscrupulous immigration lawyers—often referred to as shysters—along with an Attorney General who displays a strong anti-British bias, a group of activist judges making absurd rulings, and a Supreme Court that overrules legislation that, while weak, attempts to reflect public opinion. Furthermore, we are bound by international agreements and unelected bodies that are completely out of touch with the realities of the 21st century.
These issues are often seen as solvable on a practical level, but they raise more profound questions: the longstanding taboo on collective punishment since at least 1945 and the legality and morality of excluding or deterring entire ethnic groups or nations from entering. Donald Trump has, as usual, tackled this head-on, and, like during his first term, he banned several countries deemed incompatible with U.S. interests and values. Do we have the courage to do the same? It is clear that we need a change in policy. Should we not only reject visa applications but also asylum requests from particularly violent and misogynistic cultures? Clearly, the brutalisation that comes with being classified as a ‘war zone’ only exacerbates the dangers but also increases the chances of an asylum seeker being allowed entry automatically.
The typical response from Western liberals is that only individuals should be punished, and only after due process has determined that an actual crime has been committed. However, this stance can leave our communities—especially women and children—vulnerable to harm. Prevention is undoubtedly better than cure; why should our people have to live in fear in their own neighbourhoods?
We must challenge the misconception that all cultures are equal, whatever that may mean. This idea reflects a flawed view of cultural relativism. The individual is fundamentally shaped by their community, as many Asian cultures recognise through their emphasis on long-term life strategies. Ironically, if we treat different ethnic groups or nations as they treat themselves, we would be aligning our actions with their cultural practices.
Join us!
Click here to join us as a member.
Or sign up for our free email newsletter at the bottom of the page.
Follow us and share our content on these social media platforms using the links below:
No Comments