We have a navy. I do not understand why it is not used to protect our borders from all illegal invasions. It should use all necessary force, including sinking if necessary, to prevent these boats landing. It wouldn’t take much demonstration of such robust force to stop the illegal flow for good.
It's concerning to imagine what this Demographic change might bring and how fast things might change. If reference is made to South Africa, Whites made up almost 25% of the population in 1980. Because of differential birthrates between ethnic groups, today Whites in S.A make up just 7.5%.
The current birthrate in UK, Feminist society is 1.5 and declining (1.2 in Italy and Spain). The replacement birth rate is 2.1.
There are just too many British people complicit in this invasion, and for as long as the State extorts money from lifelong taxpayers like me to fund it, it will continue. Just 3.5m British adults pay 60% of all Income Tax; they are not numerous enough, united enough or politically well-represented enough to challenge that extortion. But that’s what is needed. Cut off the money. Shrink the State.
I can't see why small groups of marines couldn't intercept the boats, tow them back to shallow water just off the French beaches, and puncture the boat. Smash the engine as well. I'm sure the French wouldn't like it, but as the police are not around when the boats are launched, we could find a place where they are equally scarce for returning them. And we could still claim the moral high ground. If we couple that with the Australian system outlined in the article, I don't think it would take too long for would-be illegal immigrants to get the message.
To hear Angela Eagle on TV today claiming that she doesn't know the numbers of refused "asylum seekers" was truly appalling.
And, as the article says, that's just the illegal immigrants. We are bringing in huge numbers when we know that we are facing an energy crisis, a cost of living crisis, crumbling infrastructure and failing public services. And that's before we even get onto the issues of crime, and the distortion of our political processes by the fallout from distant tribal wars.
If you care, give politicians who acquiesce in this nightmare a very hard time. Write to your MP. Vote against Labour and Tory idiots in local elections. Challenge them. And keep the issue alive on social media and in conversations. Robustly put the case to soft-headed collaborators who promote language change ("irregular migration") and signal their misguided virtues.Don't let them get away with it!
Having your armed forces operate in the territorial waters of another nation, without their authority, isn't a particularly good idea; unless, of course, you're prepared to deal with the potential consequences. It's a similar problem with 'sending them back' by air. Does anyone that's thought about it for more than 10 seconds think we can land jets in foreign countries and offload passengers without their cooperation? Maybe some do, but not anyone who's flown anywhere. The simple facts are that without the cooperation of other countries we are stuffed.
And as for the idiots who state we should gun them down or sink them, it's great sounding tough of the internet, how many of them would actually be prepared to murder people?
The only viable solution I can see is to make this a highly undesirable place to come. Unfortunately, I see no signs of anyone doing that anytime soon; and even if they did the second-order effects of the rest of the world having English as a second language (beloved of lazy English travellers) will still act as a significant draw.
Excellent article - although Rwanda taking just 200 immigrants was not quite as stark as you presented it: 'The agreement with the Rwandan government did not specify how many migrants would have been accepted under the scheme and it was reported that a facility was already available that could hold 200 immigrants, and that there was the ability to “scale up very quickly” as necessary.' (Wikipedia) I only checked because even we, surely, wouldn't pay £240m+ to send 200 illegal immigrants there ... Or would we?
We assume that people in power actually WANT to solve this problem. But alas they do not. For them it is just another prong of their all out attack on British values, heritage and culture. If we want to stop the boats, then we need to stop THEM first. Which begins by turning our backs on the corrupt and corrupting mainstream parties of Britain.
We have a navy. I do not understand why it is not used to protect our borders from all illegal invasions. It should use all necessary force, including sinking if necessary, to prevent these boats landing. It wouldn’t take much demonstration of such robust force to stop the illegal flow for good.
It's concerning to imagine what this Demographic change might bring and how fast things might change. If reference is made to South Africa, Whites made up almost 25% of the population in 1980. Because of differential birthrates between ethnic groups, today Whites in S.A make up just 7.5%.
The current birthrate in UK, Feminist society is 1.5 and declining (1.2 in Italy and Spain). The replacement birth rate is 2.1.
There are just too many British people complicit in this invasion, and for as long as the State extorts money from lifelong taxpayers like me to fund it, it will continue. Just 3.5m British adults pay 60% of all Income Tax; they are not numerous enough, united enough or politically well-represented enough to challenge that extortion. But that’s what is needed. Cut off the money. Shrink the State.
I can't see why small groups of marines couldn't intercept the boats, tow them back to shallow water just off the French beaches, and puncture the boat. Smash the engine as well. I'm sure the French wouldn't like it, but as the police are not around when the boats are launched, we could find a place where they are equally scarce for returning them. And we could still claim the moral high ground. If we couple that with the Australian system outlined in the article, I don't think it would take too long for would-be illegal immigrants to get the message.
To hear Angela Eagle on TV today claiming that she doesn't know the numbers of refused "asylum seekers" was truly appalling.
And, as the article says, that's just the illegal immigrants. We are bringing in huge numbers when we know that we are facing an energy crisis, a cost of living crisis, crumbling infrastructure and failing public services. And that's before we even get onto the issues of crime, and the distortion of our political processes by the fallout from distant tribal wars.
If you care, give politicians who acquiesce in this nightmare a very hard time. Write to your MP. Vote against Labour and Tory idiots in local elections. Challenge them. And keep the issue alive on social media and in conversations. Robustly put the case to soft-headed collaborators who promote language change ("irregular migration") and signal their misguided virtues.Don't let them get away with it!
Having your armed forces operate in the territorial waters of another nation, without their authority, isn't a particularly good idea; unless, of course, you're prepared to deal with the potential consequences. It's a similar problem with 'sending them back' by air. Does anyone that's thought about it for more than 10 seconds think we can land jets in foreign countries and offload passengers without their cooperation? Maybe some do, but not anyone who's flown anywhere. The simple facts are that without the cooperation of other countries we are stuffed.
And as for the idiots who state we should gun them down or sink them, it's great sounding tough of the internet, how many of them would actually be prepared to murder people?
The only viable solution I can see is to make this a highly undesirable place to come. Unfortunately, I see no signs of anyone doing that anytime soon; and even if they did the second-order effects of the rest of the world having English as a second language (beloved of lazy English travellers) will still act as a significant draw.
Excellent article - although Rwanda taking just 200 immigrants was not quite as stark as you presented it: 'The agreement with the Rwandan government did not specify how many migrants would have been accepted under the scheme and it was reported that a facility was already available that could hold 200 immigrants, and that there was the ability to “scale up very quickly” as necessary.' (Wikipedia) I only checked because even we, surely, wouldn't pay £240m+ to send 200 illegal immigrants there ... Or would we?
We assume that people in power actually WANT to solve this problem. But alas they do not. For them it is just another prong of their all out attack on British values, heritage and culture. If we want to stop the boats, then we need to stop THEM first. Which begins by turning our backs on the corrupt and corrupting mainstream parties of Britain.
Spot on.
Regrettably I don’t see much changing anytime soon.