By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog
Earlier this year, Front Page Magazine revealed that the
UK was estimated to have more political prisoners than Cuba with speech
interdictions totaling 1,000 arrests a month. Many of these arrests
involve speech critical of the presence of Muslims in the UK including
the mass arrests of anyone revealing that, contrary to the government’s
denials, a Muslim terrorist had stabbed 3 little girls to
death. Now it’s been learned that the British government ran a scheme
to smuggle thousands of Afghans into the UK and banned reporters from
speaking about it.
Over the last several years, UK governments
secretly brought in over 35,000 Afghans at a cost estimated to be as
high as $9 billion. The ‘operation’ went on even though the UK’s
Ministry of Defence estimated that at least 1 in 10 of the smuggled
Afghans would be homeless.
But what happened next was even more
shocking. After a data breach leaked information about the operation,
the British government, claiming that it was trying to protect the
Afghans it was smuggling into the UK, demanded an ‘injunction’ that
banned anyone from reporting on it.
A leftist judge who had
previously intervened for migrants then went further with a ‘super
injunction’ aimed “against the world” that threatened reporters with
huge fines and prison time if they even discussed the news with each
other. Senior members of the government were unable to disclose to the
public where the money was going because of this ‘super injunction’.
Year
after year, governments colluded to maintain the ban and the censorship
even as more Afghans poured into the UK. And no one in the UK was
allowed to discuss what was going on.
The authorities claimed
that they needed mass censorship to prevent the names of the Afghans
they were smuggling from being leaked to the Taliban, but it’s likely
that the Taliban already knew the names, the injunction certainly did
not limit the Taliban and the ‘super injunction’ could have banned the
release of any identifying information from the data breach without
concealing the existence of the Afghan smuggling scheme which the
Taliban were certainly aware of.
The Afghans weren’t being smuggled past the Taliban, but past the eyes of the British people.
The
‘super-injunction’ appears to have led British governments to provide
distorted figures of Afghans entering the UK and misleading budget
figures because both the Labour and Conservative governments did not
want the public to know where their money was going.
The secrecy
and the censorship has made it difficult for the British people to
learn the truth about the destructive scale of the operation. Various
figures have been provided for the cost of the Afghan smuggling scheme
ranging from $1 billion to $9 billion (figures have been converted from
pounds to dollars) and the number of those brought over from 4,000 to
35,000.
Afghans have already been invading the UK by boat,
certain that if they can just land, they will be allowed to stay. With
asylum approval rates peaking as high as 98%, Afghans poured in to take
advantage of a ‘streamlined asylum process’ reserved nearly entirely for
migrants from Muslim countries.
Former PM Rishi Sunak had
promised the nation that he would fight illegal migration by
accelerating asylum requests so that their claims would be processed “in
days or weeks, not months or years” with “shorter guidance, fewer
interviews, less paperwork”. And rather than cleaning up mass migration,
Sunak turbocharged it for Afghans and migrants from other Muslim
terrorist states. The “fewer interviews” allowed Afghan Muslims to apply
for asylum without an interview, without paperwork and with even less
vetting than there had been before.
This was not a response to
public outrage over mass migration and it certainly did nothing to deter
it or expel migrants from the UK, rather it provided cover for secret
smuggling schemes that were intended to continue the fundamental
transformation of Britain.
PM Sunak, like PM Starmer, lied to
the public, pretended to care about mass migration all the while
speeding it up and leading a relentless campaign to suppress any mention
of the harm being caused by Muslim mass migration through a wave of
social media speech arrests and a censorship scheme aimed at the public
and the media to protect the smuggling of Afghans.
What was the ‘super injunction’ really protecting? A future wave of Islamic terrorists.
The
recent independent review of the ‘super injunction’ that finally lifted
it concluded that “there is little evidence of intent by the Taliban to
conduct a campaign of retribution”. If the thousands and tens of
thousands of Afghans being smuggled into the UK were really opponents of
the Taliban who had loyally aided the UK, why wouldn’t the Taliban want
to come after them?
The reason the Taliban don’t is because these ‘refugees’ are really enemy invaders.
Americans
were sold the same phony bill of goods about the urgent need to take in
Afghans in order to save them from the Taliban. But the tens of
thousands of Afghans brought here illegally by Biden were waved through
by the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s Haqqani Network who controlled access to
Kabul Airport. The Afghans coming here weren’t fleeing the Taliban, they
were vetted by the Taliban. And since then there’s been a wave of
Afghan violence in the United States.
Those are the same Afghans
that the Biden administration and a number of Senate members working on
a bipartisan deal to ‘secure the border’ urgently tried to legalize. As
Front Page Magazine reported at the time, the legalization scheme was
necessary because the Afghans had no basis for filing legitimate refugee
asylum requests. Much like the UK’s ‘streamlined’ scheme for Afghans,
the Biden administration pushed to cut refugee resettlement and vetting
times from years to days. At that speed, no one noticed (or pretended
not to notice) that 36,400 Afghans carried an unidentified document and at least 11,110 had fake birthdays. 659 of the Afghans were either missing a first or a last name. So much for the “gold standard” vetting.
Five years ago, Front Page Magazine exposed the fraudulent ‘interpreter’
visa program that had been used as the basis for bringing tens of
thousands of Afghans and Iraqis to America. 70,000 Iraqis and Afghans
came here on the so-called translator/interpreter visas from 2007 to
2017. And 48,601
of those SIVs went to Afghans. At its peak, under Obama, there were
100,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan. That’s an “interpreter” to
every 2 soldiers.
By March 2021, 100,000
Afghans and Iraqis had been approved for SIVs. The number of
‘interpreter’ visas kept on growing even as the number of U.S. troops
dwindled to nothing.
The British and American governments lied
to the public to force the mass invasion of Muslim migrants into their
respective countries. The only difference was that the lack of free
speech in the UK allowed its government to back up those lies with mass
censorship.
But now the truth is coming out.
Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation. Thank you for reading.
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment