Stop the crossings

Section 1 of 1

The last time that I checked, France was NOT at war

Mindlessly encouraging migrants to cross the English Channel from France in a makeshift dinghy is about as “moral” as setting off a bomb in a doggy daycare centre.

The do-gooder brigade can sit there and preach all they want (with their sloppy celery smoothies), whinging about how terrible it is to stop these people from crossing. But maybe they ought to dismount from their hollow high horses and really think about the stupidity surrounding what they’re actually supporting.

For example, my friends – let’s imagine for a mere moment that a family with young children have fled from the fury of conflict in the shot-up country of Syria. They’ve made their way all across the expanse of Europe and found themselves stationed at Calais, situated in France.

Good for them – they’re out of Syria. Their main aim was to seek safety, and who is to selfishly deny them that? But the fact that they find themselves in France is the source of a serious snag. And I’d invite these so-called ‘humanitarian’ virtue signallers to hear me out here as I summon up some logic to try and flip this sensitive snag firmly on its head.

Now don’t hesitate to correct me if I’m wrong when I say this (and bear in mind I’ve not been for a fair few years), but the last time that I checked France was NOT and is NOT at war. Neither are (I for some reason assume) any of the countries that these refugees would have travelled through to reach the relative safety and security found in France.

So unless we’ve travelled back in time 80-odd years, our Syrian friends are sitting in France, having rightfully succeeded in finding their required refuge. 

But do you know one perilous place that isn’t of safety, security or refuge? That’s right – the (erratic) English Channel – all whilst being flung about on a dreadfully flimsy dinghy that has been provided by callous and careless people trafficking criminals.

So maybe one of these celery fanatic folks (claiming to be ‘humanitarian’) can explain to us with a clear conscience, just how it’s somehow “moral” to egg on and allow migrants to risk their lives crossing the Channel’s choppy and often flipping freezing waters.

Once safe, refugees shouldn’t be risking their lives a second time

Genuine refugees (with a desire to recklessly cross in a dinghy from France) have already risked their lives once escaping war or persecution. So how on Earth is it “moral” to encourage them to risk their lives AGAIN by crossing a savaging stretch of water from an already safe country?

Call me heartless, but I don’t necessarily want to see young children’s lives needlessly put at risk by crossing those wicked and worrisome waters. Especially when they will remain perfectly safe if they just stay put in France. And that’s the life-preserving line that needs to be promoted.

Reckless channel crossings are rightfully illegal for a reason

If any genuine refugee really wants and wishes to come and reside in the UK, it’s crucial that they apply to do so in the right way – the legal way – the safe way. 

Reckless channel crossings in dinghies are rightly illegal for a very rational reason. And that reason is because illegal crossings are difficult, dangerous and deadly! 

I’d even go as far as saying that an adult who forces a kid to illegally cross the Channel in a such reckless fashion (when they’d have been safe and secure remaining in France), is an adult who borders close to being acceptably accused of child abuse and neglect.

Want to come to the UK? Do it legally and through the proper channels. Not illegally and through chancing the Channel.

If we want to succeed in getting this common sense message across, intercepting illegal crossings and sending them straight back is completely the correct policy. It’s the only way in which we’ll deter them from coming illegally in such a ruinous and reckless fashion moving into the future.

But by encouraging them to cross illegally is to encourage putting lives at risk pointlessly. It is NOT “edgy” – it is NOT “humanitarian” – and it most certainly is NOT “moral”.

%d bloggers like this: