The Expressway to Yr Skull

TOTALLY BOGUS DUDE!

It's official, man! In a totally non-'Bill and Ted' fashion, Britain is being overwhelmed by, like, all these bogus asylum seekers! And what are they doing here? They're going to ride some waves, and rock out to some heavy metal music, man. Because they're bogus!

Hmm. After a while I realized that most Conservative party members haven't seen 'Bill and Ted's Bogus Adventure' recently, if at all. So while I'd thought they were paying a compliment to the aforementioned asylum seekers, it turns out they're, like, really not cool about the whole situation, dude. Okay, I'll stop with the Bill 'n' Ted now.

So, the thing is. Here's Britain. Pure, white, unsullied. And here's these hordes of asylum seekers who're all over here because they think Britain is a 'soft touch' on asylum. Presumably what is meant by 'soft touch' is the fact that we don't actually shoot them on sight. Yes, we put them in concentration camps and treat them like Prisoners of War minus the Geneva convention, but we don't actively kill them immediately. That, therefore, is why we're a bunch of softies.

Anyway, there are essentially two sides to this debate; either we let 'them' in or we don't. However all of the political parties, including the Lib Dems, skirt willy-nilly between both sides, deliberately trying not to commit to either. So, then. Which is officially declared 'right' by me?

Well, let us then examine the arguments for both sides.

"Britain is a stable country, and lacks certain types of labour in certain areas, from doctors to unskilled workers. Therefore we need someone to fill vacant jobs." This seems fair enough; after all, it's no good training doctors and nurses for deployment in years time, when they're needed right now.

"Britain as a country is always enriched by further diversification as it absorbs new language, food, culture and other stuff." Well, can't argue with that. Britain without curry would be like India without curry.

OUT

"Immigrants will take jobs away from real British people." Hmm. What jobs, exactly? Britain is an expanding country, and the problem is often not lack of jobs, but too many jobs in certain key industries which your average BNP skinhead is probably not able to occupy, being as he is extremely thick.
"British culture will become submerged in all sorts of, you know, nasty foreign stuff." I don't think so. Because any idiot knows the history of Britain is one of 'foreign influences' only improving the culture in the long term, right from the Romans to the Normans to the British Empire. And anyway, what's so great about 'British culture', such as it is? Chronic alcoholism, post-Imperial arrogance, bad food, the monarchy and bloody St. George? Well, I'm sure I'd miss all of that. The bad food especially.

Basically these two sides are based on radically different views of society. Either immigration improves culture, or it denigrates it. From a historical point of view, it's obvious that immigration destroys the very fabric of traditional society. I mean, look at all these weak and feeble countries like the USA and France compared to the sheer global might of nations like Denmark. Oh, no. Wait. It's the other way around. Because policies of isolationism inevitably lead to collapse; that was what destroyed the USSR and hasn't exactly helped in Afghanistan and North Korea.

Of course, Britain couldn't take in everyone who applied for asylum, but I don't think there's such a thing as a 'bogus asylum seeker'. Either you're seeking asylum, or you're not. I suppose if I were to apply for asylum in Britain then I'd be 'bogus', because I already live here. Anyone coming here to seek asylum is an asylum seeker, whatever the reasons they have for doing it. 'Bogus asylum seeker' is just a synonym invented by the Far Right, when what they really mean is that anyone coming into this country is bogus, whatever their reasons, and should be 'sent back'. The Right-wing don't want to stop 'bogus' asylum seekers, they want to stop all asylum seekers.

the scale of life and death The way the asylum system works is by apportioning risk and hardship. That is, it decides precisely how much persecution you've suffered in your home country, then decides if they should let you in. So, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 is being put in extermination camps, 5 is being beaten up by racist thugs every few days, and 1 is only suffering minor abuse. Currently, it seems to me that the government only lets you into this country if you're either a 9 or a 10.

Okay, no one in the department of immigration actually uses such a scale (at least, I hope not), but how can you decide who's suffered the most? Count the bruises? After all, no one can know about the exact persecution except those being persecuted. Instead, we have a list of 'safe countries'. So if you're from a safe country, then presumably it's all in your head, then; your family weren't all brutally murdered, it was just your imagination.

But what about these evil, demonic figures, the dreaded economic migrants? Because, you see, that's wrong. Your family's starving to death, but it's wrong to try and feed them. You're bogus, dude. You've travelled 3,000 miles strapped to a jet's fuselage not because you're desperate and in need, but because you're just lazy. You can't be bothered to find a job in your own country, so you just stroll across the continent, suffocating to death in the back of a DAF truck as the easy alternative. Lazy, that's what that is.

I accept that many of those who apply for asylum have to be turned away. Britain's not a big country, and there aren't an unlimited supply of houses or jobs. But treating refugees like criminals from the moment they arrive is not only the action of a far-right government, it also servers to condone racism and xenophobia. Lock people in a concentration camp and you make them seem like hate figures, not human beings.

This site in the public domain; you may copy bits from it providing you link to this site

Bookmark this page