I salute Priti Patel, our Home Secretary of State, who knows her onions about English Channel migrant crossings.

8 min read.

Our Secretary of State for Home affairs, Priti Patel, who is in the Job for the last more than two years, is doing extremely well. In this blog, I ill say that she spares no effort to respect and preserve the human rights of the people migrating to the UK by crossing the English Channel illegally in small, medium and big boats.

I like to call these migrants as boaters. They are rich enough to afford thousands of pounds to reach France in the first place. Then they pay a lot more to smugglers who arrange boats in which they embark on a journey of only nine miles of the distance to come to Dover. The total distance is eighteen miles, but they are supposed to cross the first nine. From there it is the obligation of our Border Force under our Secretary of State to lead them to the British shores without a scratch. The arrival should be in conformity with their human rights. At the final furlong, the boaters do not suppress a triumphant smile when they see so many uniformed officers to receive them ardently. Even on their arrival recently to attend COP26 summit, President Jo Biden and the first lady did not have as good the reception as these boaters get.

The uniformed officers don them in blankets, carry and cuddle their babies close, including the ones born en route. They are then taken to the reception centres and serve sumptuous meals, prepared keeping in view of their religious sensitivities.

The effervescent young people are medically examined and for any sign of an illness, even if minor one, they have an immediate access to a doctor. They are provided hospital treatment if so required. [So far as the British taxpayers are concerned, they wait for hours for an ambulance to arrive, and once driven to the spaces outside the A & E Department, they lie in pain for hours, which sometimes proves fatal.

The highly paid immigration officers assist them to submit asylum claims. They conduct preliminary interviews. Though they know it that the claims are concocted they take it very seriously. Paramount consideration is to avoid even a tiny breach of their human rights.

The asylum seekers are then accommodated in a four-star hotel at the taxpayers’ expense, while in all the towns and cities of the UK, British homeless continue to live an inhuman and degrading life. It looks that human rights are not applicable to them.

After a few months, the immigration officers would conduct the substative interview. Again, an interpreter would be engaged on hourly basis. The interviewer would note the migrant’s story to a tee.

The boaters’ stories vary from country to country, but the nub of their claims is fear of a breach of their human rights. Sometimes they claim that they are gay, which is prohibited in their country of origin. A couple with a daughter would submit that they fear persecution at the hands of the grandparents who would force them to have their daughter to undergo FGM (Female Genital Mutation).

Hereinbelow, I put it briefly a story of a migrant, which is hundred percent fictional.

The boater is from Iran and purported to be telling his story coyly:

“I’m gay and had a relationship with my pal. One day, I’s caught red handed with my mate by my father, who’s a senior officer with the Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. He warned me that if I didn’t leave the country, he’d have no option but to report me to his superior officer. I could be hanged for the offence”.

The officer’s point was pooh-poohed, when it was suggested to the boater that he could have continued his relationship discreetly.

When honorifically asked by the interviewer about his friend, he confirmed with a simpering smile:

“He’s warned too. He’s in France in a hotel, and hopefully will join me before long.”

He was further queried:

“Who paid for the journey?”

“Our respective parents,” he averred.

“You’ve a wife and two children,”, the officer timidly expressed his doubts about the boater’s sexuality.

The migrant drawled in reply:

“She knows I’m a bi-sexual and she has compromised.”

Later the wife is interviewed, who corroborated the husband’s story.

The interview would last for several hours. It is written down as well as tape-recorded.

As the claim is very serious because the claimants human rights are at stake, the decision would span across multiple pages, albeit in small print.

The boater and his family might remain into a four-star hotel or could get an independent accommodation. The rent and the utility bills would be paid by the taxpayers, and generous living allowance would be handed out as well. By then he must have started working in car washing industry, blatantly disregarding the rule prohibiting him to work.

Eventually, after several years, the Secretary of State would write a letter to the boater, who since his arrival fathered a few more children, that his claim rights have been exhausted. The case is then put on ice.

Curiously, even if the boater’s stay in the country is no longer legal, the dysfunctional Universal Credit would not stop the benefits, including the housing allowance, while British citizens beseech the government in vain to continue paying them £20 a week,

In the final letter the boater is asked to leave the country. By that time, the illegal migrant knows very well that the hollow threat is not worth the paper it is written on. In a jocular mood he bins it.

By the end of this week more than 24,000 boaters have arrived in the UK this year. I can wager that not one of them would be deported. Even the hardened criminals would stay put. While our Secretary of State for the Home Department, now and then, makes announcements condemning the smugglers in tandem with the warnings to the potential boaters that the short stretch of the journey is extremely dangerous, conspicuously she observes radio silence about the removal figures. The reason is that there are none.

The question is why the boaters are not allowed to enter and remain in the UK in the first place. That would save millions of pounds. It is here that our Secretary of State’s policy is pellucidly clear. Beside showing great deference to human rights, she deserves credit for that too.

If the boaters are granted leave to remain straightaway, I am sure half of Syrian population would come to the UK, three-quarter of the Iranians should be here, and all the Afghans would like to come, including the Taliban and ISIS-K fighters. The Taliban would claim fear of persecution at the hands of the ISIS-K and vice versa. Former military employees could fear for the breach of their human rights. Half of the population i.e., women genuinely fear persecution. The interpreters and LGBTs are the British media’s, and the government’s favourite to be allowed in. It looks that the number of interpreters and their dependants surpasses the number of soldiers who served in Afghanistan.

So all the Afghans with their families, including parents, grandparents and great grandparents on wheelchairs, should be here, and back home in the vast and beautiful country, where natural resources are in abundance, only stray dogs would be roaming about. Funnily, domestic dogs, including hunting dogs, guard dogs and pet dogs, would be brought to the UK by charter flights by the animal enthusiasts.

Thus, the credit goes to our Home Secretary who is putting her foot down against mass migration.

Not only the Secretary of State makes repeated announcements that the short journey to Dover is very parlous, she is also joined by the free media and the lefties. The fact is they know it very well that it is the safest, the shortest and relishing but expensive journey undertaken by happier, healthier, and wealthier young men and women with or without children. During the Channel journey the persons wo die are fewer than the motorists who are victims of fatal accidents on the smart motorways. In 2019, 15 motorists died and many were injured.

It is within the domain of the immigration officers that the claims put forward by the claimants in the disguise of human rights violations have not the slightest grain of truth.

There is no opposition to the government’s ajar door policy about illegal migration. Both the Labour and the Liberal Democrats give more support to the migrants, legal or illegal, than the conservatives.

We need urgently a fourth political Party.