Christine Tasin, president of Resistance Republican, an association fighting against the Islamisation of France, has shared her views with Sputnik on the ongoing migration crisis that has marred relations between the United Kingdom and France, as the majority of illegal migrants are trying to cross the English Channel to reach Great Britain.
Sputnik: In recent weeks, hundreds of migrants, including women and children, in rubber boats have been detained in the waters of the Channel. They mainly come from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Africa and settle in makeshift camps on the north coast of France. They then pay organised crime figures roughly £500 ($650) per person to arrange transportation to the UK - often in overloaded boats. What is behind this new influx of migrants, in your opinion?
Christine Tasin: What is behind the new influx of migrants? It might be fairer to say "who is hiding behind it?" It is not a coincidence that the new migrant influx comes when [Boris] Johnson is seen as a kind of populist because of his commitment to Brexit, when the so-called Brexit is coming into effect. Considering that Macron's France wants to put Johnson into a bind, there is only one step I'd be tempted to take…
Macron, like Merkel, like EU President Von der Layen, is a staunch Europeanist, opposing the independence and sovereignty of nations. Their only hope is to demonstrate to other European countries that Brexit would be a mistake, or even a suicide, to distract those who would like to leave the EU. The migration crisis is one of the means used to contain Brexit and Johnson.
We can therefore easily think that the French police are not looking to, whatever [Gérald] Darmanin may say, prevent the migrants' departure from French coasts, but rather on the contrary. I'm even not far from believing that France is secretly working with NGOs to encourage migrants to reach England. This is where the £650 paid by each illegal migrant might come from, right? How can people who are supposed to have secretly fled their country, crossed many states, continents, and Europe itself, afford to pay smugglers, if they are not paid by NGOs? And who is behind the NGOs? Soros and/or the states that sponsor NGOs, such as France.
Of course, one can also think that NGOs are pressuring migrants to cross the Channel before Brexit makes the free movement of people and goods more difficult, if not impossible…
In my opinion, the two reasons I am giving co-exist and intensify each other.
Sputnik: There is an assumption that migrants' living conditions in France are very poor, that they often have to live in less than adequate camps. In your opinion, why do illegal migrants so desperately want to reach Britain's shores?
Christine Tasin: In France, the position of migrants is undoubtedly one of the best in Europe, because of their rights provided by law, the state's obligations (providing them with food and accommodation), and also because of the huge number of sponsored associations that support them. Besides, if this weren't the case, not so many people would rush to our country in an attempt to stay here. In France hey say it's much better to be a migrant than a homeless person in the country. That's why I don't believe that this renewed interest in England is a coincidence.
Sputnik: Chris Philip said the only solution is to make the route across the English Channel "completely unviable". How possible is this in your opinion? What should be done in this regard?
Christine Tasin: Chris Philip is absolutely right, and his reasoning should be that of all European states invaded daily by illegal migrants, arriving without any permission and even without asking for permission. Obviously, big migrations were designed in Brussels and the UN to both repopulate Europe and make our culture, education, and values disappear, making us consumers with no identity, benchmarks and laws other than those of newcomers. Migration didn't happen because of the migrants' alleged needs or fears, it was provoked. With this war, which remains unnamed, only warlike self-defence measures will stop the invasion.
For example, measures taken by Australia where no boat was allowed to disembark. Salvini's solution in Italy was effective… You've got to be ruthless. Our needs should come first.
Another example is Denmark, which also at one point sent away any unwanted illegal migrants (criminals or refused asylum seekers) to a deserted island, barring them from the mainland.
These two solutions are effective, but they are not approved by the "immigrationists" and blissful leftists who head the majority of European countries. But at the moment this is the only solution apart from common sense that would require the navy of France and other states to patrol the Mediterranean and return smugglers' boats and cargo to their port of departure.
Moreover, if European states were not considered a land of plenty by foreigners, if migrants weren't taken care of and protected, if they didn't have "rights" to appeal against the decision of sending them back, if those having a refused refugee or asylum-seeker status were put on a plane instead of being left in our countries, we wouldn't have faced the current influx. There wouldn't be the current invasion that remains unnamed.
Sputnik: What kind of agreements do you envisage Britain and France concluding to solve this issue?
Christine Tasin: With the current global mentality, official agreements will only lead to one thing: France continuing to feed, house, and pay for illegal migrants on its territory, and England "making an effort" to accept part of them. The only viable solution for England is to strengthen its borders (militarily) and be merciless to the undesirable ones… to cargo from France, Italy, Spain, Greece… which make the migrants do the same thing.
When pigs fly… Unless the French wake up and vote for a Frexit supporter, an anti-immigrationist, a patriot... in short for an anti-Macron.
