Share |

Saturday 19 January 2013

Repatriation: the solution to sham marriages and illegal immigration

There are many factors underpinning the massive surge in immigration over the past 16 years, and whereas the BBC and UKIP continually hammer away at highlighting the very large-scale influx from the EU, the former seeing it as a good thing the latter as a bad one, they both take care not to make negative comments regarding the even larger inward flow of population from outside of the EU, from countries such as Pakistan. Whether or not we agree with the policy, there are legitimate and illegitimate ways of gaining residence in the UK, and in recent years one of the primary illegitimate means of setting up home here has been via student visa scams, which have enabled tens of thousands people (possibly more), into the country. Sham marriages are another means of exploiting the law to obtain residency status that would otherwise have been denied, and a recent trial in Sheffield of individuals involved in a scam co-ordinated by UK passport-holding Pakistanis in Rotherham revealed that more than 60 applications for UK visas were based upon such marriages.

The composition of the gang involved in the Rotherham-based scam operation is interesting: the men were predominantly Pakistanis and the women a mix of Eastern Europeans (Czechs and Slovaks), Pakistani UK passport holders and white British. Looking at the pictures in the associated Daily Mail report, it seems almost certain that the ‘Eastern Europeans’ Kristina Popikova and Veronika Pohlodkova are Roma. Slovak Peter Pohodko also participated in the scam as a bogus groom, marrying a Pakistani woman. Whilst Rotherham was the main centre of this immigration racket, a number of Bradford residents were involved. The makeup of the individuals involved in this crime illustrates how an absence of any intrinsic ties to our country mean that they care not about its fate, and are quite willing to contribute to ongoing overpopulation, societal fragmentation and breakdown for relatively modest amounts of money. What does it matter to these recent Eastern European immigrants if England is transformed into something increasingly resembling Pakistan? They can, after all, always return to their home countries, and as readers know, those countries possess minuscule Muslim populations and are not threatened with cultural and societal dissolution through mass immigration.

Those possessing familial links with Pakistan involved in this scam should not have been sentenced to prison terms in this country, but should instead have had their property confiscated, their citizenship revoked and been sent back to their ancestral familial homeland with no right of readmission. This sort of crime can only be stopped if the consequences are suitably severe and fitting, for otherwise people will be tempted to flout the law to their personal gain and to society’s detriment. 

Kristina Popikova: described as a Slovak, she would appear to be Roma


  1. Our NWO one world government don't want us to send them back. They don't want anyone to have any attachment to a country, there are to be no national borders or sovereign countries.

    There is to be just one huge great plantation that the serfs/slaves work on. Whilst the plantation owners/elites make even more money/power.

    1. The concept of national sovereignty is certainly deeply unfashionable in Europe and European-derived societies, but not so in East Asia. As China's influence grows and America's wanes, perhaps the globalist no-borders doctrine will be challenged? Of course, there remains the unfortunate fact that the great exponent of globalism - the US - employs a variant of our language and possesses massive cultural soft power deployed via Hollywood, television series and advertising. There aren't many of us however (myself included) who comprehend Mandarin. China may be an emergent economic and military superpower, but in terms of projecting cultural soft power it remains at a distinct disadvantage vis-à-vis the US owing to the alien nature and complexity of its language, particularly in its written variant.

  2. "... but should instead have had their property confiscated, their citizenship revoked and been sent back to their ancestral familial homeland with no right of readmission."

    Quite right, but, it ain't gonna happen!

    Road Hog, above, is spot on.

    1. You're quite correct in noting that you will not hear the Conservatives, Labour or the Liberal Democrats advocating such an approach; it won't be heard from UKIP either.

  3. I found this quote on an Amazon discussion thread but cannot credit the author as I never got the name, suffice to say that I didn't write it but agree with the sentiment.

    "Multiculturalism is not a 'phase of adaption' it is an Ideology. It is a deliberate assertion that a given nation should not possess and maintain its own culture - indeed that the identity of a nation should not exist except at some amorphous administrative level - and that groups of people regardless of their culture, could be freely deposited anywhere on the planet and expected to get on with any other group they were set down next to. At best it's idiotically optimistic, at it's worst, it's a tool of organisations like the Frankfurt School that deliberately encourage social dislocation to make people easier to rule. We even had a New Labour functionary admit to that on record a few years back. Multiculturalism has done far more harm than good, both to the indigenous population and to the immigrants and it is high time it was abandoned and some effort made to sort things out that doesn't involve merely punishing the indigenous community for complaining"
    Needless to say that the more liberal 'progressive?' contributors to the discussion did not like this one bit!

    1. Can you recall which, if any, review this comment was attached to Catuvellaunian?


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.