"The threat of a tidal wave of immigrant invaders"

"They cannot demand to share in the prosperity we have worked to create,
nor can they be allowed to gatecrash our nations."

"Consequences of unbridled immigration: violence, disorder and vast cost"

"The rapid growth of that underclass which has turned so many American
cities into vicious jungles"

Is there a hidden agenda to destroy Europe through unbridled immigration? Graham Turner warned in 1991 of a tidal wave of invaders. Please read Mr. Turner's telling article in the Daily Mail, London, Oct. 10, 1991, page 6:

Daily Mail:

How can we stem this tide?

by Graham Turner

IT IS NOW abundantly plain that Western Europe faces the threat of a tidal wave of immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Third World - a migration which, unless checked, could threaten the social stability and political equilibrium of our nations.

These invaders - for that, in truth, is what they are - come armed not with the weapons of war, but with the passkeys of peace, with passports and tourist visas.

Then, having entered the European Community by false pretences, they seek to remain by claiming - utterly fraudulently - that they are political refugees who deserve asylum. Three-quarters of those who apply for asylum in Britain do so only after they have been here for some time.

What is almost as bad is that some of these people come brandishing all manner of fashionable humbug with the aim of playing upon our sympathy and misplaced guilt. One of the Albanians who tried to force their way into Italy at Bari had the cheek to declare that he and the rest of his landing-party were 'the bad conscience of Europe'. The fact that he and many of his companions behaved like vandals did not seem to disturb his own conscience at all.

Abusing

We can fully sympathise with the needs of those who wish to settle in Western Europe. But we must also face the fact that they will lie, cheat, flout the law and pay criminal organisations thousands of pounds to smuggle them into our countries - not to mention abusing and exploiting the tradition of Western liberalism, which is the only thing that gives them the right to seek sanctuary here in the first place. If they are allowed to go on doing these things in any numbers, two dire consequences are inevitable.

First, there will be the biggest swing to the Right in European politics since the 1930s. Second, there will be social and racial disorder on a scale not seen in continental Europe since the war.

How did we get into this mess? The sad and simple answer is that it happened because the governments of Western Europe allowed it to. Illegal immigrants treat our laws with contempt because they observe that our governments do not have the will to uphold them.

Wallowing

Those who come illegally are pursued half-heartedly, if at all, by police who sense that their political masters are, at best, lukewarm about having the law enforced. They are handed the priceless gift of citizenship on a plate by authorities who turn a blind eye to the method by which they arrived in the first place.

One of the most important root-causes of this laissez-faire limpness is that a great many European politicians and intellectuals, particularly on the Left, are still wallowing in guilt of one sort or another - guilt about our colonial past, guilt about our present economic success.

This is unmitigated tripe. One thing which has to change if we are to face the present crisis effectively is that we cease to be driven by guilt which is both misplaced and totally out of date. Most of the Third World countries from which immigrants come have now been independent for 20 or even 40 years. A great many have records of oppression, corruption and civil war which make their former colonial masters look like paragons. If anyone should feel guilty now, it is heir own governments.

Another point on which we and would-be immigrants need to be crystal-clear is that they have no rights of settlement in Western Europe beyond those which we grant them.

They cannot demand to share in the prosperity we have worked to create, nor can they be allowed to gatecrash our nations.

We must stop being a soft touch. Indeed, it is essential that we should, given that national borders within the Community will disappear next year. Thereafter, immigrants who succeed in entering at its weakest point will be free to move around unchecked.

Our aim in Britain, therefore, should be three-fold. First, to defend our territories against a large inflow of immigrants. Second, to preserve the liberal tradition by which we offer asylum to every genuine refugee.

Finally, we must help the countries of the Third World and Eastern Europe to develop their economies in such a way that their citizens no longer want to emigrate. If we are to achieve these ends, we must make the immigration issue a top priority and not leave it, as we have done and still do, to second-rank Ministers and civil servants.

We must then introduce measures to check the inflow of immigrants. We can start by speeding up the procedure for dealing with applications for asylum, which Whitehall officials describe as a gaping hole in the system.

The Home Secretary, Kenneth Baker, yesterday promised to take the first steps in plugging that particular hole by means of a new Asylum Bill.

At the moment, the system is ludicrously long-winded: an average of 16 months in Britain, even longer in Germany. During that time, applicants take jobs, receive social benefits, put their children into school - and are, consequently, harder to expel if they are not granted asylum.

Vetting

But once that rapid vetting machinery is in place, we must then put a stop to a situation whereby asylum-seekers become, in effect, temporary citizens and then, if their applications are turned down, simply vanish.

They should be kept in camps or reception centres while their cases are considered. They should not be accommodated in £350,000 houses in Camden.

They should not be allowed to take jobs. They should not be given much the same social security benefits as citizens. For example, at present in Britain they receive 90 per cent of Income support.

Those whose applications are turned down should be repatriated forthwith. Even after the present plans for reform of the vetting system in Britain have been carried out, large numbers of applicants who have been turned down will be allowed to remain. This is fatuously limp-wristed.

As for those who enter the Community with tourist visas and then remain illegally, they should be disqualified for ever from becoming citizens of any Community country. If caught, they should be deported immediately, with no right of appeal. There should be no further amnesties, which are nothing more than irresistible magnets for yet more illegal immigrants.

Finally, immigrants who are accepted should no longer be able to assume that vast numbers of their families will be allowed to follow them.

These measures are essential if we are to avoid serious trouble in future from those whose cultures are clearly not compatible with our own. That would certainly be the consequence of redeeming Roy Hattersley’s apparently open-ended pledge to let in all those who claim refugee status, however bogus they may be.

We would do well to remember that Western Europe is not like America, a country which was built on continual immigration and which, as a result, has become a highly fluid and absorbent society.

Grappling

In Europe, by contrast, immigrants have always been regarded as intruders, if not invaders, and our society is neither so fluid nor so absorbent.

What is more, there is no doubt that if we continue to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration on a vast scale - at the moment there are as many as three million 'clandestines' within the Community - we will see the rapid growth of that underclass which has turned so many American cities into vicious jungles where, as one Brooklyn headmistress put it: 'Round here it’s sirens all day and gunfire all night.'

At the same time, the countries of the Community should be ready to give generous but practical help to the nations of Eastern Europe and the Third World who will, in these next decades, be grappling with horrendous economic difficulties.

With that mixture of firmness and generosity, we may be able to persuade many would-be immigrants to stay where they are and at the same time spare our nations the violence, disorder and vast cost which unbridled immigration would certainly bring in its train.

<end Daily Mail>