The Ugly Face of Immigration

The recent attacks on Suella Braverman should come as no surprise to anyone with half an eye on the ball at Westminster. It’s the usual modus operandi deployed against a Conservative Home Secretary—particularly one so brazenly conservative, she actually considers tackling the scourge of illegal immigration to be within her remit. Only two years ago, Braverman’s predecessor, Priti Patel, was caricatured as a ‘fat cow’ by the Guardian’s Steve Bell—a lampoon which would no doubt have fuelled allegations of racism and perhaps forced resignations, were a left-wing politician the butt of the joke. 

But things don’t work that way in Britain, which is why Braverman was so vehemently castigated for her matter-of-fact comments made in the House of Commons a week ago: 

Let’s be clear about what’s really going on here Madam Speaker. The British people deserve to know which party is serious about stopping the invasion on our southern coast, and which party is not.  

The use of the term ‘invasion’ was more than sufficient to prompt widespread calls for Braverman’s resignation, particularly from the opposition benches. Well might the buoyant Labour Party feign outrage, but the word ‘invasion’ has a straightforward meaning: an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain. In what way precisely does 2% of the male population of Albania crossing the English Channel illegally not constitute an invasion? At what point would such language be deemed appropriate—after more than 50% of a nation’s fighting age males show up, or only if they are wielding battle-axes in lieu of passports? 

It is curious that former Prime Minister David Cameron provoked less ire when he referred to ‘a swarm of migrants’ encamped at Calais back in 2015, and that was when only a fraction of Suella Braverman’s 40,000 had made their way to Britain. But the issue of immigration has been so disingenuously politicized of late, that most ‘Conservatives’ are frightened to call a spade a spade.  

God bless Suella Braverman for calling it an ‘invasion’—that’s precisely what it is. She will do well to remain in post however, not least because she’s fighting more than just the illegals; she’s also up against the EU, the bulk of Westminster, the media, the WEF, the RNLI, the Border Force, every lobbyist in Christendom, and a large contingent of her own party, who not only appear to oppose her commitment to doing the job she is paid to do, but the job which the vast majority of the electorate demands that she do.

The trouble is Suella is right, and whatever language you choose or choose not to employ, the blunt refusal to protect your nation’s borders has consequences. With illegals now being subsidized with taxpayers’ money to share hotels with the general public, it was only a matter of time before teenage boys were mysteriously being raped by ‘30-year-old men.’ Ironically, this was when Labour chose to go for the Tory government’s throat. The attack on Suella was spearheaded by Labour women, those well-seasoned at deflecting legitimate criticism with their own personal victim cards. Zarah Sultana, who appears to regard ‘racism’ as the proper explanation for just about every social ill, was first in to bat:

Suella Braverman is using the inflammatory language of the BNP [the openly racist British National Party] and the far-right. This dangerous rhetoric is totally unacceptable and must be universally condemned.

Then there was Stella Creasy’s cry for resignation:

On Monday Suella Braverman  dismissed my concerns about safeguarding refugee children in a hotel. She showed she couldn’t care less. Now we know of at least two sexual assaults of children on her watch. She’s wholly unfit to be in office and must resign.

She’s talking about migrant children, of course. When it was pointed out to her that she might want to spare a thought for the British children being raped, she dismissed the comments as ‘whataboutery’:

Whataboutery about sexual assault of children is a non-starter if you actually care for any of them.

But Best in Show was won, as it so often is, by Labour stalwart Diane Abbott , who had the gall to tweet the following:

Teenage boy raped at hotel housing refugees. Terrible case. But it is what happens when you demonise migrants and take NO responsibility for safeguarding migrant children. #SuellaBravermanOut

In other words, the attribution of blame for the crimes of illegal immigrants is not the illegals themselves, nor the politicians who overlook their criminality in exchange for votes, but those distasteful enough to highlight the problem. We’ve been here before with Naz Shah, who famously called upon the white victims of ‘grooming gangs’ to “shut their mouths for the sake of diversity.” 

This is the ugly face of immigration. After Tony Blair transformed Britain forever with his patented ‘import your own voter base’ multicultural policy, the Left has viewed any form of immigration as not only legitimate, but a moral imperative. They accordingly vilify those who believe their lying eyes, rather than the culturally dominant, high-status left-wing rhetoric. In many ways, this betrayal of the electorate is worse than the crimes committed by illegals: they are merely opportunists, picking easy, undefended targets. The Left, meanwhile, elected and therefore responsible to the people, have access to all of the facts, and seem to have concluded that a few extra points on GDP (the usual, dubious economic argument) is more than worth the gang rape of other people’s children. And you thought the Tories were money-grubbing?

No amount of facts countering the multicultural narrative is enough to dissuade the Left, and indeed the facts are now incontrovertible: illegal immigration correlates directly to crime. So much so, that even Emmanuel Macron has been forced to admit that “at least half of Paris crime is committed by foreigners.” A staggering admission, both in its nature, and the nature of the open borders globalist forced to admit it. 

The real question we should be asking in terms of illegal immigration is (Suella Braverman aside) whether incompetence is genuinely sufficient to explain Tory feebleness in the face of this problem? For over a decade now, the Conservative Party has tested the patience of Hanlon’s Razor (the idea that one must never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity), but it is becoming harder and harder to view their lethargy as anything other than complicity. 

Those at Tory HQ must know they are toast come the next election. Esteemed political scientist, Sir John Curtice, has predicted that they stand to face an electoral wipeout, with the serious possibility of winning as few as 60 seats (down from 365), while 4,500 Conservative Party members have defected to the Reform Party alone since Rishi Sunak entered 10 Downing Street. Three quarters of the British public consider the illegal crossings a “serious issue,” with 86% of Brits believing that “the government is doing a bad job.” Why aren’t they listening?

Unwelcome intrusions into another’s domain should be criticised wherever they appear. Perhaps the Left could bear that in mind the next time a little girl’s body is ‘invaded’ by an illegal immigrant. Meanwhile, if the Tories really aren’t concerned about appeasing their voters anymore, we must ask the question: who exactly are they appeasing?

This piece first appeared in The European Conservative, and is reproduced by kind permission.