So the big plan to solve the migrant crisis has been blown out of the water, if you’ll pardon the pun. It seems that we cannot send the boat migrants in the channel – apparently genuine asylum seekers – to Rwanda. Why not? Well, according to the court of appeal, it’s unlawful because Rwanda is unsafe.
Yes that’s right, the nation is too dangerous to send these unknown people to. A country that is too dangerous to send people to? Now why would that be? What could there be in Rwanda that makes it so dangerous? It’s not like it’s the ‘Tornado Alley’ of Africa. There’s no constant volcanic activity in the area. The nation doesn’t appear to be engaged in any wars either. Arsenal even had a “Visit Rwanda” sponsor on their shirts a few seasons back. They were actively encouraging people to go. So why is it dangerous? The GDP is quite low; that doesn’t represent danger however. It must be something else. But what?
If it’s not environmental factors or economic ones; lets see what else it could be. Maybe it’s the people living there that make it dangerous. Given what they did to each other in the 90s, that’s probably worth considering. Wikipedia lists Rwanda as being 85% Hutu, 14% Tutsi and 1% Twa: that means 100% black. So a nation with statistically zero Whites is too dangerous to send people to. I think we could be on to something here.
And a Premier League football team can advertise that White people go to Rwanda but the idea of sending non-White illegal migrants, well that’s beyond the pale!
So the nation of Rwanda, and the people who live there, are dangerous. OK, fair enough. So presumably, the government must have a system in place whereby Rwandans are now banned from entering the UK? After all, they’re dangerous, the court of appeal have just said so. But for some reason, this will never happen. It’ll be fine for them to come to us though. It’ll be just fine to have the thing that makes Rwanda a dangerous place for non-Whites, come and live with White people in our nation. And does this ruling also prohibit any Rwandan criminals in the UK from being deported back to their home nation? Of course not – they have rights!
To add salt to the wound (it’s not really a wound: none of us actually believed the Tories were serious about this) the global media is saying this is a problem for Sunak and Braverman, that this is a dent in their grand plans. Do me a lemon, this was always the plan. Two immigrants, working hard to stop other immigrants from getting into the UK? Hardly. The left-wing open borders lot will, of course, believe this stuff hook, line and sinker and really think a blow has been struck at the establishment. Ignorance is bliss.
But this also brings up an interesting point, what kind of a government gets elected on a policy to reduce immigration and lets their choice go before the courts to see if certain judges are happy with the policy? Who is actually in charge here? It is the Tories. They could force this stuff through and give two fingers to the legal challenge and get on with fixing the nation. We do not have to operate under the say-so of the UN, the ECHR; none of these bodies should have any say over the goings-on in our nation. The only way this can happen is if the government in power allow it. And that’s exactly the situation we have in the UK, and most of Europe.
That’s how you know that almost none of the mainstream parties across the continent are serious in any way about ending non-White migration at replacement levels. None of them are throwing off the paper-thin authority of these international entities. They’re all happy to pretend that there is some kind of international law that prevents them from running their nation the way they want. This is just another lie. There is absolutely nothing binding anywhere that we as a nation cannot remove ourselves from.
But we have a government that wants migration.
And that needs to change. And it will change: the Homeland Party will see that it is done and the will of the people is followed on these issues. No “court” will force this nonsense onto our people against their will.
