Liberals love hoaxes. Indeed much of their narrative is a series of hoaxes strung together; Trump-Russia, unprovoked invasion, “the Carer’s scandal“, and so on. One familar hoax in the Guardian relates to fake stories about British citizens being detained in the US. The first story of this kind concerned a young backpacker who entered the US on a tourist Visa to work. [1] She had broken US Visa rules and was detained after Canada turned her back to the US when they discovered she was planning to break their Visa laws too. The story presents her as a victim.
The current story concerns a British woman in her sixties who was held for weeks in US immigration custody despite being in the US on a valid tourist Visa. (I think that means the Visa exemption programme, but I may be wrong). It sounds both unjust and awful. There is a standard pattern with these kinds of stories; the first half establishes the ‘injustice’ and the victim. Only once that is all done is a there a minimal mention of the relevant facts. In this case we have to get half way down the article to learn that the woman was travelling with her husband who had indeed violated US Visa laws. It isn’t clear to me exactly how; we are told he had a ‘work permit’ but no residency permit; possibly you need both to be legal. At any event; that answers the question. The woman was travelling with her husband, who had violated US Visa laws and, the officials, not unreasonably, saw her as aiding and abeting him. They were arrested as they tried to leave. I would speculate that the whole story about the woman needing a holiday and “I really just wanted to get away from the house.” was a cover; they had cooked up a plan to try to extract her husband from the US, who was there unlawfully, by passing themselves off as a holidaying couple. I emphasise speculate; but if I was an immigration officer I would consder this as a possibility.
The woman is quoted as saying: “People think it is just criminals that are being deported, but they’re just a lot of people who went there for a better life. Is that really criminal?” – and this neatly sums up the apparent liberal attitude to immigration laws, which is why the Guardian publishes it. The problem is; immigration laws are like any other kind of laws. The whole point of the law is it applies to everyone; if people can pick and choose which laws they obey then the whole structure of law and a society run on a non lawless basis collapses. But liberals think that they have some kind of free pass on immigration laws. They forget, surprisingly for democrats, that the idea is, if you want to change a law you can; but there is a process of making representations, delegates vote in parliament, legislation is passed, and so on. You don’t just say ‘oh, heck, I don’t agree with this law, I will break it’. But, in their arrogance, modern liberals think they can short-circuit laws they don’t agree with. This phenomenon also reflects the very shallow level of mental development of modern liberals; concepts about law, the ideas of a society grounded in law, the idea, which is a philosophical one, that laws only work at all if they are applied to everyone, are all intelletucal ideas. And the modern liberal, consummed as they are by hedonism and constant pleasure seeking, devoid of any thinking about life, rarely attains to even the basic intellectual level needed to grasp these kinds of ideas.
In this case, I, for one, am left with feeling of being made dirty. The story is about a couple who broke US immigration laws; at least the man did, and, at the least, it is hard to believe the woman didn’t know about that, and it is being whitewashed, and we are being enjoined to take her side and see at least the woman, if not her husband, “a lot of people who went there for a better life. Is that really criminal”, as victims. Uggh.
Update
This is a Guardian piece by someone called Libby Brooks. She is praising to the skies a film which, as far as I can make out, is a celebration of people intefering with Home Office staff going about their lawful duties and enforcing UK law. Notice the dehumaniztion of the Home Office agents.
Notes
