Immigration Watch International (2): Will the UK government stand up to mob rule?

Thursday, June 16, 2022

Will the UK government stand up to mob rule?

A very big week is in store for the government’s strategy to tackle illegal immigration with all eyes on the planned first air transfer of irregular migrants to Rwanda, due to take place on Tuesday.

Whether the flight takes off at all [it didn't] and how many migrants will be on board is yet to be seen. But the policy has already attracted strong adverse commentary from leading lights in Britain’s unelected establishment, from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the heir to the throne.

But another struggle over the enforcement of immigration law is being waged at ground level, with the springing up of networks of local activists seeking to prevent immigration enforcement officers accompanied by the police from detaining illegal immigrants to facilitate their deportation.

Only occasionally do the activities of this ‘anti-raids’ movement hit the headlines. In May of last year, two men from India were released from the back of a police van in Glasgow after a large crowd assembled to prevent the vehicle from driving away. As the Guardian later reported, the protesters were summoned to the scene by a group called the No Evictions Network.

Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, the MSP for the constituency involved, was naturally outraged. But not by the rabble who acted to prevent due enforcement of the law. No, her beef was squarely with the immigration officers and the police, who she accused of having created ‘a dangerous and unacceptable situation’.

This weekend something very similar occurred in Peckham, south-east London. When immigration officers and later the police arrived outside a property on a local estate seeking to detain its occupant, anti-raids groups went into overdrive, using social media to summon 200 people to the scene to hem in the Border Force van.

Again, the tactic worked, with the intended detainee being allowed to leave the van as the crowd chanted ‘shame on you’ and ‘let him go’ and police officers sought to calm an increasingly fraught situation.

Once more a left-wing elected politician got involved in the effort to thwart due enforcement of the law. This time it was local Labour councillor Reginald Popoola, who helped summon people to the scene by tweeting: ‘Block the van from taking one of our neighbours. Come and join us now.’

Later he posted a celebratory tweet declaring: ‘Here’s the moment he was released from the immigration van. Really proud of our community for turning out today and resisting. Peckham people power!’

It will be instructive to see what stance the former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer – now a semi-obscure political figure – takes towards a Labour councillor wilfully obstructing the legal authorities in this way and then celebrating their defeat. But as a stickler for due process, one must hope that he will see the merits of the rule of law over ‘Peckham people power’, which seems like a polite way of describing mob rule.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/06/will-the-government-stand-up-to-mob-rule/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Thursday, June 16, 2022

Will the UK government stand up to mob rule?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors