How to stop mass illegal immigration to Britain

Lately the British government has been making feeble ineffectual gestures vaguely in the general direction of attempting to slightly slow the flood of illegal immigrants, most of them black and Muslim, into Britain. This has resulted in dramatic scenes of disruption at the Calais truck terminal, but …

All of them get there in the end,’ he said. ‘No fence is too difficult – in the end, borders are there to be crossed.’

Actually not all borders are made to be crossed. America has been allowing unlimited third world immigration for some time, Britain first started allowing unlimited third world immigration in the late 1990s, and for a little while, starting around 2010 or so, every single white country, even Israel, was allowing unlimited third world immigration. Pretty soon Israel had a rush of sanity, declared an unprincipled exception for itself, and in 2013 or so, completely and totally ended illegal immigration. Very shortly afterwards, also in 2013, Australia abruptly, completely, and totally ended illegal immigration. New Zealand did the same, while furtively denying it was doing so, and piously weeping tears for the poor illegal immigrants. Australia is famous for this, for however lefty and progressive Tony Abbot’s government is, it takes no crap from the fans of illegal immigration, and, Trump like, makes no apologies, throwing those who would eliminate white nations into hysterics of outrage. The State Department is traumatized by severe cultural shock every time they have to deal with the Ambassador for People Smuggling Issues for Australia, even if Tony Abbot merely stands for a substantially slower rate of elimination of whiteness.

At present, if an illegal immigrant armed with a knife smashes his way onto a lorry headed for Britain, then, in the unlikely event a policeman removes him, he removes him a few hundred meters to the illegal immigrant camp, and a few minutes later, the illegal immigrant has another go, smashes his way into another lorry causing more damage. With this sort of law enforcement, indeed no fence is too difficult, for no wall can stand unless protected by men with the will to make it stand. Walls do not stop people, just as bullets do not kill people. People stop people. With the will to stop illegal immigration, illegal immigration can be halted abruptly and completely. Without the will, it cannot.

The solution of course is that illegal immigrants need to be removed, starting with those that do illegal things like trespassing on other people’s lorries while armed with a knife. Australia has created a number of “offshore processing facilities”, prison camps on remote islands run by the army and outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary. (Officially they are of course not prison camps, and officially they are run by “private contractors”, not the army.) You stick the illegal immigrant in an offshore prison camp resembling Gitmo, and when you get around to it, you return him home. If he claims asylum – well after being in prison for a few years, they usually stop claiming asylum and want to go home. If their home country does not want them back, you dump them on the beach regardless in an orange inflatable. Australia’s inflatables have become an increasingly familiar sight on third world beaches. Some of the inflatables have chains to restrain the more uncooperative occupants. If they are really stubborn about claiming asylum, and their claims are not entirely implausible, you find a third world country as poor or poorer than their original home, where they are not racially too much out of place, and send them there.

Now let us suppose that British Prime minister never finds the stones to do what Tony Abbot does. Then there is nothing to stop all of Africa from moving to Britain, for no wall can hold without the will to hold it. And if anyone lives in Africa, that is the sensible thing for him to do. In due course, rapidly increasing numbers of people will move till Britain becomes indistinguishable from Africa.


55 Responses to “How to stop mass illegal immigration to Britain”

  1. […] we call “snark”.  Additionally, I occasionally run across references to Jim’s Law of Poster Boys, which draws out a corollary from Tell #1: because the leftist always pretends that finding one […]

  2. […] How to stop mass illegal immigration. […]

  3. […] A reckoning? FedGov gigantism. Swedish vibrancy. A Trump prophecy. Camp of the saints latest (Jim comments). Oil pressure. Scenes from […]

  4. Mark Citadel says:

    Britain provides such an interesting example of a weak culture actually dying and being replaced by a strong culture, in real time! I suppose it’s happening to Sweden faster, but few people speak Swedish so we don’t get as much information firsthand about how degenerate it has become. The British culture just loves having foreign eggs burrowed beneath its skin whereupon hatching, the little parasites will eat it from the inside out! More eggs! More larvae! Infect us faster!

    • viking says:

      yet one would not have guessed 75 years ago the US and Great Britain would turn fag

      • Mark Citadel says:

        True, even the great Reactionary scholars probably thought all the nations would be dead before we sunk that low.

      • Recusant says:

        GK Chesterton wouldn’t be surprised, he might not have explicitly predicted that but he did explicitly predict Islamic cultural dominance over the Western elite and immigration to the West more than 80 years ago.

  5. Stephen W says:

    An even more effective solution would simply be shooting them.

    • jim says:


    • Horatio says:

      Absolutely…or let them into the Chunnel and flood it…sink the refugee boats in the Mediterranean…

    • Dr. Faust says:

      Bullets are expensive. Gallows much less.

      • Stephen W says:

        The army already uses plenty of bullets in training, just give them more lifelike targets. Sinking boats of the north African coast would be simple naval exercise. All the seas around North Africa could become a marine reserve for building up fish stocks, bringing an end to the piracy at the same time.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        Have you never bought ammo, or never bought wood?

      • peppermint says:

        When the Jews wanted the Turks to solidify their ethnic claim to Anatolia, they had the Ottoman army shoot Armenians.

        Later on, the Jews wanted to shame the Germans and all Whites into accepting migrants, including Turks, and never to speak a word against the Jews, so, they claimed that six million Jews were gassed with diesel exhaust and/or slow-release pesticide and then put in ovens which may or may not have belched black and/or other colors of smoke.

        And you, you think it would be a good idea to execute the boat people like native criminals, with a gallows, presumably following some kind of legalistic ritual.

        • jim says:

          Nah, don’t try them, don’t execute them. Tell them to turn around. If they don’t turn around, sink them. If they make it to shore arrest them, but don’t charge them. Just lock them up until they are willing to cooperate with a one way trip home.

          The Australians don’t let the judiciary get their hands on them, because the judiciary are traitors who want to abolish the white race as fast as possible, and preferably with maximum bloodshed (as distinct from Tony Abbot who wants the white race abolished quietly, slowly, and undramatically, slow enough that the voters do not notice.)

          The Australians also have the irritating and unnecessary practice of fishing illegals out of the water after they sink their boat, but at least they then imprison them without charges or trial, preparatory to sending them home.

          • Hidden Author says:

            If you were King of Australia, would you sink all uncooperative illegals or just the adults? After all, civilized people tend to ponder age of accountability questions into the mix and for that reason go easier on the children, especially if the children are babies more or less.

            • jim says:

              The proposition was not to sink all illegals, but all illegals who refuse to turn back, and to then refrain from fishing them out of the water and imrisoning them.

              If the threat to do this was credible, all would turn back.

              In order turn boats around, must credibly threaten violence. The less credible the threat, the more actual violence is required.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Yes, yes, I get that you want to sink boatloads of illegals if the captain does not obey orders to turn back. After all, illegals are invaders and invaders are morally responsible for their fate. My question is: What about “invaders” that are below the age of responsibility?

            • jim says:

              They had this argument in Australia. “You cannot stop illegal immigration. What are you going to do if the captain just will not turn around?”

              Strangely, progressives never find the argument “You cannot collect taxes. What are you going to do if the taxpayer just will not pay?” very persuasive, but they find the same argument powerfully convincing when applied to illegal immigration.

              The same Britain that will not arrest an illegal immigrant who breaks his way into a lorry, has no difficulty whatsoever in arresting hundreds of thousands of Britons for speaking forbidden words and for suspicion of thinking forbidden thoughts.

              When you lot collected the peassant’s seed corn, and the peasants had buried it, you had no difficult in pouring petrol over the children and setting them on fire to force the mother to reveal where the seed corn was hidden, but perish the thought that we might use violence on people engaged in illegal immigration.

          • peppermint says:

            their deaths are the responsibility of their parents, just as their lives are.

            By the way, in White countries, we should have a zero child policy for people with under 80% White DNA, a one child policy for people with 80% to 98% White DNA, and full reproductive rights for people with >98% White DNA. Importation of non-White children should be illegal and crimes that would lead to imprisonment of a non-White should be punished by deportation or execution.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Peppermint you seamlessly weave “serious” talk with “humor” to the point that your jibbering is meaningless. Do you even support Adolf Hitler and his Nazi legacy or is your talk in that regard just an attempt to humor yourself by trolling other people?

          • peppermint says:

            regardless of what you think about me, their deaths are the responsibility of whoever put them in a position to die, presumably their parents. Their lives are also the responsibility of their parents or other assigned guardians. This is practically by definition.

            You’re trying to say that their lives are actually the responsibility of the White race. Ultimately, this is true, everything on this planet is the responsibility of the White race, and the White race must either do a better job of managing its responsibilities, or go extinct.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Either prove that my positions are farther to the Left than the average person or shut up about my alleged “Communism”, Jim…

            • jim says:

              The average person thinks what he is supposed to think about dekulakization: that there was no particular conection between mass deaths and the communists praiseworthy food redistribution efforts, except perhaps that Stalin, unlike Trotsky, was insufficiently sincere in his efforts to socialize food.

              Every child is taught communism and can only overcome it by consciously rejecting it.

              You would never think of using the “Oh no, to enforce this law you would have to use violence” argument against laws controlling food, but have no hesitation in using it against laws restricting the mass importation of cheap votes.

  6. brian h. says:

    It will be interesting to see how the fast-rising Asian nations approach immigration. Right now there are plenty of still reasonably nice white countries for the 3rd world masses to move to–not much sense in migrating to East Asia when Sweden and England are there for the taking. But at some point a few decades from now, these countries will become no better than the places the Africans and Near Easterners are fleeing. Will the Asians go in the same direction as the West? That question may very well define the future of humanity.

    • bomag says:

      East Asians are, in general, a more practical people than Westerners.

      The West is anxious to show its holiness by infecting itself with Ebola. Asians are less into demonstrating such holiness; though they have other weaknesses.

  7. Mister Grumpus says:

    Just curious:

    Are the Australian orange inflatables GPS-guided or something? Who unlocks the chains/handcuffs? Maybe that’s done by remote? Or rather, are they piloted by an Austrailian with an Australian passport who walks up the beach and hitches a ride back to the airport?

    I’ll tell you this much: This is looking to be a significant industry. This can be boiled-down to a private service could be transacted by contractors.

    I could even imagine air-based schemes as well, where the orange inflatable is delivered by air, etc.

    • jim says:

      That is, as Tony Abbot would say, an operational matter (military secret). What tends to happen is that the inflatable is sitting on the beach and the unsuccessful migrants have wandered off and we never find out the whole story.

  8. Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

    >If they are really stubborn about claiming asylum, and their claims are not entirely implausible
    Explain to me why you’re supposed to do something nice for them if they claim asylum. It seems like you are eroding the sovereignty of the nation they’re fleeing from.

    • jim says:

      Piety, of course.

      What tend to happen is that most people who claim asylum, need asylum because they are terrorists, for example the guy who committed the Lindt chocolate massacre.

      But the excuse for allowing mass migration of black Muslims is “Asylum”.

      • Hidden Author says:

        Most people demanding asylum are terrorists? So if a government or an army wages war against an ethnic group by evicting it from its ancestral lands, the entire refugee ethnic group are terrorists even though even when there’s an actual insurgency, only a minority actually fight. For that matter, are the Christians chased into Sweden from Iraq jihadists or are they persecuted by jihadists? Sometimes you just seem to like the sound of your own voice!

        • jim says:

          Most people demanding asylum are terrorists? So if a government or an army wages war against an ethnic group by evicting it from its ancestral lands, the entire refugee ethnic group are terrorists even though even when there’s an actual insurgency, only a minority actually fight

          Near as I can figure, all the terrorists currently in the west on asylum, for example the Boston Bombers, have family in their ancestral lands, from which I conclude that the government that they flee is persecuting some members of their ethnic group or religion and not others – presumably persecuting those they believe to be terrorists.

          You are probably thinking about the Rohingya, who are being evicted from their far from ancestral lands – they illegally immigrated to Burmese lands and tried to set up a Muslim state in those lands. But they don’t want to go to the west. They want to go to an Islamic country such as Malaysia or Indonesia. But the Malaysians and Indonesians don’t want them because they suspect the Rohingya will be disappointed in the level of Islam, and deem their hosts insufficiently Islamic.

          • Hidden Author says:

            The set of refugees which reach the West may be economic refugees–after all reaching the West requires money and planning. But there are places especially in the Third World where one state/army/paramilitary will fight another by evicting the other’s ethnic groups. Shit, sometimes other minorities get evicted too. You don’t think, for example, that the half of Iraq’s Christian minority that fled was evicted more or less by jihadist gunpoint. Even if they reached the West and many did, their arrival timed to the Coalition occupation of Iraq could not possibly be an exception to the economic migrants posing as phony refugees?

            • jim says:

              Jim’s law of poster boys. If the poster boys for a cause suck, the rest suck even worse.

              Photos of the boys trying to illegally enter England reveals that they do not look much like Iraqi Christians.

          • Hidden Author says:

            You’re a highly intelligent natural aristocrat. Surely you can Google or Wiki the population of Assyrians in Sweden, can’t you?

            • jim says:

              I said Britain, not Sweden.

              And as for Sweden, for every cheap voter that they import that fled persecution by Sunnis, they import two Sunni cheap voters to continue his persecution.

          • peppermint says:

            In Sweden, a refugee from some sandnigger war raped a Swedish woman who conspired with the government to steal his children after he did the sandnigger “honor killing” or whatever on his wife, right after he received Swedish citizenship so that he would not be sent back to whatever sandpit he came from.

            I agree that the Swedish woman should not have gotten the Swedish government to take his children away from him, he should have been deported with his children. Nevertheless, rape of a White woman is absolutely unacceptable and the fact that he isn’t facing execution is all you need to know about Sweden – they have dropped the christ in christcuck, and are simply cucks.

            Anyway, you were saying that there are some Christians in sandnigger lands who are the leftovers from when those lands were White but couldn’t prevent mudslimes from raping their grandmothers, and they should be allowed to immigrate to the West. I disagree. I think the armies of the West should make the sandnigger countries safe for Whites, and employ those Christian semi-Whites to keep the rest of the population in check.

  9. Nilgim says:

    Jim I wish your appraisal of the Australian situation were right. Yes Tony Abbott “stops the boats” – but the planes are another matter. Immigration from non-white countries is at record highs.

    And we still have a “refugee quota” too, we just don’t let the ones who come on boats fill it. We fly them in at our expense instead.

    Tony Abbott’s Government has set the 2014/2015 immigration number at 190,000 – most of them will come from China and India. Remember that Australia is a small country (22 million people) so this is the equivalent of the USA taking in 3 million immigrants a year.

    • jim says:

      The boats contained the worst – the economic migrants were thieving scum, the genuine asylum seekers, as for example from Ceylon, were terrorists. The people coming from India and China on planes are undermining social cohesion, and tend to vote left, but they are relatively high IQ.

      Tony Abbot stands for the slower elimination of whiteness. The British prime minister is unable to do anything effectual to slow it, and the natural consequence is that everyone in Africa moves to Britain until Britain becomes indistinguishable from Africa.

  10. Joe says:

    The central question is how bad it has to become before a critical mass of white men are ready to take action to stop it. White women’s opinions on this don’t matter; defense of territory is a male thing and women aren’t suited for it and will follow the men anyway. And you don’t need all white men to agree, either; you only need enough of them who are deeply committed (as with the American revolutionaries, who I understand were a minority of the population but were will to pledge their sacred honor, fortunes, and lives to the cause).

    • viking says:

      while I dont think Impossible overthrow of the cathedral by force as washington did with britain is a rough nut.The thing is ir may aleady be too lare certainly it would have to start now but now theres barely a handful and they all have their own ideas.I think DENRX would be best suited to game theory the various approaches but way to faggoty to implement them. And then you have the whole moldbug prohibition against revolution,personally i think the cathedral is the ideal reactionary government it just needs taking over. eventually a lot of people will need to die but i dont think thats the way to take over.The things is camp of the saints is well under way,and the white promoters own the most powerful military intelligence complex and the cathedral mind control system.what we have is reality no small thing

      • peppermint says:

        Reactionaries do not like governance by consensus. That is effeminate. Reactionaries are disgusted by the people arguing for years about whether to execute a terrorist.

  11. Jack says:

    The West has to become explicitly “racist”. It is projected that by the end of this century or so, Africa’s population will exceed the rest of the world, meaning, there will be more Africans than everyone else combined. The solution, if not extermination of billions, is containing all Africans in Africa and not allowing a single one of them to set foot outside Africa. Obviously, the more of them there are in the West, the more difficult it’d be to implement such a containment policy. Thus, need explicit, unapologetic racism. Any ideology allowing immigration of Africans to the West is destructive, whatever the pretext.

    • bomag says:

      What Jack said.

      Something is going to go away here. Either immigration ends…or Britain ends…or Africa ends.

    • Dr. Faust says:

      Leftism is a precarious ideology which begins with great enthusiasm but begins to weaken as successive generations notice that the promised utopia has not come about eventually culminating in a leftist singularity and an adoption of previous thought crimes as orthodoxy. Using Russia as an example the leftists promoted atheism and marxism during the Soviet Union. Today it has more billionaires than most countries and is arguably the most Christian nation in the world.

      It’s not difficult to imagine that post left singularity America will adopt the thoughtcrime of today as its orthodoxy.

      • peppermint says:

        cool theory bro #edgelord4ever

        But do we like limited suffrage elections, or political power with clear ownership, is it legal to employ a Jew in the banking industry, or is it merely forbidden for them to own stocks, are Jews allowed to make movies with some degeneracy and some glorification of fags, dykes, niggers and kikes, and demonization of white culture and civilization, or how exactly are we to stop them?

        • bomag says:

          The question has always been “who watches the elites?”

          As far back as Socrates, the answer has been: “they have to watch themselves.”

          If our elites can’t manage things, we’re screwed.

        • jim says:

          Banks are not really private sector, call them semi private or quasi state, so in the society I envisage, no one of the incorrect ethnicity, religion, or race, could hold a high position in the banks. If the government is trusting you with boatloads of money, have to be same type of person as the government.

          Movies are genuinely private, or should be, so probably would be full of undesirables. Hard to prevent it without inadvertently turning the movies into something resembling Soviet literature, as tedious as PC science fiction.

          However the active demonization of whites is not predominantly Jewish. Seems to be primarily our own elite that is doing it. With a pro white elite, would not happen. You over estimate the power of evil Jewish mind control rays.

          Observe that Mattress Girl Emma Sulkowicz’s porn video is not anti white, or anti goy, or even anti male. It is more anti Sulkowicz. She wants to be maximally degraded before as many people as possible. If this was the work of evil Jews you would expect a non Jewish girl to be degraded – well actually it is the work of evil Jews, but to B’s total lack of surprise, a Jewish girl is being maximally degraded.

          Conversely, the border patrol porn, which one would expect to be anti white, is as straight normal happy heterosexual as it can be.

          • peppermint says:

            We can’t tell them not to make movies, we can only try to make better movies, but the people driving the movie industry from the demand side have IQs of around 100 to 115.

            Henry Ford blames the Jews for the awful state of the alcohol industry at the beginning of the 20th century and suggests that prohibition would protect the consumer from dangerous concoctions. Imposing labeling and inspection requirements would have been a much better way forward.

            Henry Ford also blames the Jews for the calculated degeneracy of the pop music industry. But the Jews were and are just selling what people want, the only way out of having a pop music industry ( ) is to eliminate copyrights in music.

            After Henry Ford, the last widely published critic of Jewish power, in the middle of the 20th century, the Jewish power over the movie industry lead to Americans viewing themselves differently, through Jewish eyes.

            If we have copyrights in movies, the low IQ people will demand degeneracy. Without copyrights, there won’t be an industry, thus Jews won’t be able to control the industry and use it to push Jew-friendly narratives. But without copyrights, there won’t be all these great movies.

            I think culture is too important to be left to an industry without serious government oversight, and permitting Jews to create movies like Schindler’s List was a serious mistake on the part of the American people. And since I don’t like government oversight, I don’t want an industry.

          • B says:

            Mattress Girl is not Jewish.

            Self-degradation is the dominant theme of Western society today. Why would it be any different in the movies?

          • Marapoem says:

            Jews are sexually shameless. They contrast their “healthy attitude” toward sexuality with the Goyim’s “repressive culture”. Jews are also by far less prone to addiction than blue-eyed Whites, so porn doesn’t affect them the way it affects Whites. Just goes to show how alien Jews are. Additionally, sexual “repression” (for lack of a better word) doesn’t make Whites into perverts, if anything, Whites become more monogamous. Jews who abide by chaste mores turn to sick practices. The difference between Chosenites and Goyim is most conspicuous when sexuality is concerned. Freud observed that Teutons resemble the Jewish attitude to sex more than Celts.

          • B says:

            Huffing paint is bad for you.

          • peppermint says:

            Of course Emma ((Sulkowicz)) is a Jew, but while Jews are known to be more willing to sell degeneracy to Whites than Whites are, I’m not really blaming them for their role in the market for degeneracy. The bigger problem is ‘hollywoodism’, how Hollywood Joes supplanted the foundational narratives of America with Jewish and Jew-friendly narratives.


            This kind of thing must not be allowed to happen, but, how to prevent it without government censorship?

            • jim says:

              Easy: “Davy Crocket, King of the Wild Frontier”. Used to be that every child watched the founding narratives of America on television every night, and was taught them at school. Hollywood movies that subverted the founding narratives followed a school policy of inverting the founding the narratives, it did not preceed them. And the government controls what is taught in the schools.

              Children watched thrilling tales of American pioneers on television, because they were taught thrilling tales of American pioneers in school.

Leave a Reply