In the last 50 years, immigration has become an increasingly important political topic in western (white, European majority) nations. It has become so important that elections are now won and lost based on which candidate or party promises to take the toughest stance on the matter. For example, the vote on Great Britain’s membership of the European Union in 2016 was decided on this topic, whilst Donald Trump’s historic election victory in the US also saw the topic of immigration play a huge role.
However, we have been campaigning on a false premise. We have been conducting our politics on the basis that, if a candidate or party promises to reduce immigration then that is what will happen when they gain power, although it is now being proven that this is not going to be the case. Such is the hold that the left now have on society, even when in power the right cannot effectively make immigration policy within the current framework of our societies.
We have seen the evidence of this recently in the hysteria surrounding President Trump’s executive order banning immigrants of all kinds from seven nations that are considered to be sources of terrorism and therefore a danger to the United States of America. It is reasonably expected that the executive branch of government can instruct government agencies to enact these restrictions, whilst the legislative branch can enact legislation that would permanently affect immigration policy. Then, one would expect that it is up to the judiciary to interpret the law when ‘either way’ cases are brought before them on an as and when basis.
However, it has transpired that it is in fact the judiciary that makes immigration policy! Who knew?
On 7th February the 9th US circuit court of appeals in San Francisco upheld a previous decision made by a federal court to suspend the President’s executive order, thereby allowing immigrants into the nation from the nations previously marked for refusal. Three judges made that decision. Three. Bear in mind that over 50 million people voted for Donald Trump on a ticket of halting the refugee program and banning immigrants from certain at-risk nations – that’s 50 million people effectively disenfranchised by three overpaid judicial activists.
There is a similar case that will be heard later this year in the United Kingdom, although ours is not nearly as prominent in terms of national media coverage. It is of course the case of the ‘Dubs amendment’ which was the program under which the Cameron administration had agreed to take into the country 3,000 ‘unaccompanied minors’ from the makeshift refugee camps in Northern France. This program has now been scrapped by Theresa May’s government, yet a left-wing charity called ‘Help Refugees’ is taking the government to court over the issue to try to get the program reinstated.
The case, when it eventually is heard by the courts, must be followed closely. The court must surely rule that it is the elected government that decides immigration policy, not a bunch of soap-dodging left-wing activists or some unelected judges. However, if they rule in favour of the fake child refugees’ right to come to Britain then we must ask ourselves who really makes the decisions regarding such a key part of government policy? The court would essentially be ruling that anybody in the world has the divine right to enter our nation, just as they have ruled in the US. This poses many questions.
However, the most pertinent question is of course; how can we control immigration – which is literally a matter of life or death for our civilisation – when we meet obstacles such as these from the structures of our society?
It is a simple answer with a rather more problematic mechanism of action. We must empower those we elect to be able to make these decisions, if they are committed to stopping immigration particularly from the third world. It is clear that within existing structures, populist and nationalist policies will meet constant opposition from judicial activism and their paid foot-soldiers of whatever charity Mr Soros is investing in at a particular time. The courts are then able to effectively strike down any government policy with which they disagree, thereby removing the voice of millions of voters across the nation.
To empower the right people to do the right things on issues such as immigration, we must stop worshipping the false gods of representative liberal democracy and separation of powers. However unpalatable for some, we must take democracy to mean ‘mob rule’, so that subversive elements within society that do not represent the people’s will cannot use the power structures of society, such as the courts, to prevent the majority getting its way. To do this we must either increase the power of the state – the right state, not the existing state – and curb the power of the judiciary. The judicial system must be legally prevented from over-ruling government policy that was in the ruling party’s manifesto, so that the people’s choices cannot be undone in some musty old court room by a bunch of unelected judicial activists.
This may sound somewhat fascistic, but it would in fact be just an adjustment in what we take the concept of democracy to mean. With or without a powerful judiciary, you can still vote out the ruling party at the next elections should you wish and what’s more, you’ll be able to have confidence in the fact that a party will be able to enact its manifesto without hindrance from unelected elements of the power structure.
This is surely the only safe option left. If judges and activists continue to block the will of the people then they should expect their influence to be swiftly curbed and their subversive mouths stuffed.