France expels 13,000 illegal immigrants

Enforcement of immigration laws is indispensible for maintaining public order in a free society. The fact that so many of the illegals who were deported happened to be Muslims is certain to enhance the security and sociological cohesion of France.

Nothing would make me happier than to end up being wrong in my assumption that Eurabia is an inevitability.

The part that tipped me off? It was the word "illegal." Yeah, I saw it coming.

No, that doesn't make any sense. If the immigrants were illegally in France, then why were they there in the many thousands all this time? The illegality of their residence doesn't really mean a thing after-all. They aren't being deported because they're illegal residents, they're being deported because they can be deported, and the illegality of their status isn't important at all. I suspect that there will be endless illegal immigrants who'll continue to collect welfare payments and live in subsidised housing if only they can sneak through the quota. It's not a matter of law enforcement, I think, but one of luck.

Far from France being a Dhimmi mnation, I have mantained that it has been the most vigorous combatant in the fight against Islam.

1. It has been the first country in the West to alert the West of the dangers of Islam. Long before 9/11, France warned Britain, the US and others of the dangers but was ignored. Since then French Intelliegence has been the source of much of the information that has been used by the US.

2. France can hold terror suspects for upto 3 years with no problems from the media or anyone else. It can deport or further detain terrorist suspects.

3. France deports islamists at the drop of a hat if it so desires.

4. France has banned the hijab in schools. This action strikes at the very roots of islamic practices, and at the same time gives a warning, that it will go much further if France deems it necessary.

So why is it that France can do what Britain is so fearful of?

What is striking here is that France opposed the war on Saddam's Iraq. Thus it eliminated any reason that could be used by Jihadis and their enablers, to justify an attack on France. Any attack on France would be deemed as totally unjustified by the French people. This will allow the French goivernment to act in a draconian fashion against the Ummah in France without any fear of public condemnation. Given that France has already shown that it can take action against cultural practices of islam, this deters the Jihadis and their enablers no end.

The imams in France and the Arab world have already declared that France can deport anyone they like, as it is their country. And so it is that France can deport muslims by the thousands without much protest from muslim leaders except pleas for mercy.

There are 500,000 illegal immigrants in Britain, That is the official fugure. Some estimates suggest twice the officially quoted number. Most of these illegals are muslims. But as they are muslims, the British governmnet is terrified of acting.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary clearly let the cat out of the bag with his statement, " Someone could get hurt".

A Message to the Muslims of Britain
from Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir as-Sufi

http://www.themuslimweekly.com/fullstoryview.aspx?NewsID=C1B0E112930120456FF5BE21&MENUID=OPINION&DESCRIPTION=Opinion

Yes, yet another doctor.

Amazing. They are openly laying out a strategy to take over Britain!
---------------------------
Meanwhile here is a Euro-Dhimmi poll being conducted by a BritBlogger.

Poll of Dhimmi Governments of Europe

Ok heres the principles of this Poll.

We all vote for the country we think is the most influenced by Islam or to put it another way you vote for the government that is frightened of Islam and thus appeases the Islamic community within that country.

The winner of the poll, for example Denmark, then gets to choose a "target" within Denmark.

The target could be a Government office, a newspaper or a particular organisation.

The Blogger then puts the e-mail address of the target on thier site(and lets everybody know this has happened) as well as a synopsis of why they want that target to be "hit"

All other bloggers can then e-mail the target thus registering the blogospheres discontent at the targets activities.

http://uppompeii.blogspot.com/

Why oh why cannot Britian follow the example set by its neighbour France. The French do not tolerate any Islamic nonsense, like the hijab in schools; whereas Mrs Blair fights for the jilbab in schools in UK, How asinine.
Its time British public took on their elected officials and insist that all Muslim undesirables be thown out of Britain. If France can do it why not Britain?

From the linked article: Sarkozy has refused all the attempts made by different humanitarian associations and communities, explaining that ?the European Court of Human Rights does not allow people to live wherever they like,? added the Moroccan daily.

Quite right. I can't just go and live in Saudi Arabia, Jordan or the US, and expect those nations to support me with welfare cheques. Then there is the security situation to consider. The less the number of muslims, the easier it is to police the remainder.

From the linked article: Sarkozy has refused all the attempts made by different humanitarian associations and communities, explaining that ?the European Court of Human Rights does not allow people to live wherever they like,? added the Moroccan daily.

Quite right. I can't just go and live in Saudi Arabia, Jordan or the US, and expect those nations to support me with welfare cheques. Then there is the security situation to consider. The less the number of muslims, the easier it is to police the remainder.

"Maybe the Islamization of France is not a grim inevitability"

Tougher anti-immigration laws and policies are being implemented all over Europe. Unfortunately, many "innocents" (namely Eastern Europeans) are also being targeted.

On the other hand, this means nothing if the North African migration waves aren't stopped... in North Africa.

Excellent post, DP111. I too for long have defended the French immigration policies and their stance against the radicals in French territory, as opposed to the impotent and suicidal policies that Britain has chosen to follow. That is partly why some JWs and LGF readers have managed to annoy me with ignorant francophobic attacks that are as reasonable as the chauvinistic French anti-americanism.

The real problem with the French was that they believed for too long in the absolute success of the policies that aimed at fully assimilating the immigrant populations into the French society. Now they have 6 million Muslims with strong North African roots and they don't know what they can do with most of them.

Cornelius mentioned that he hoped that Eurabia would not be a reality. Eurabia will not be a reality, of that I am pretty sure. What I don't know is what will the price we Europeans will be forced to pay to prevent a Eurabia: One hundred thousand dead? One million? Ten? One hundred? I haven't got a clue. I don't even know how to handle this subject in an effective and lasting way without violating some of the most basic values that define the very civilization we are so proud of. What I do know is that the longer we wait, the louder will be the "bang". In the meantime, France brought us good tiddings. Cheers.

A Message to the Muslims of Britain
from Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir as-Sufi....
Another Muslim bafoon, who thinks the British people (other than ofcourse the Mulims) will just lay down peacefully and let the islamic morons take over Britain.
It looks like their imagination is running riot. A Islamic Britain governed by Sharia!!!!!!

The simple fact of the matter is that governments, like individuals, are seldom prompted to behave pro-actively.

When confronted by a crisis, the typical cycle humans undergo begins with a period of denial (about the seriousness of a problem they are confronting) and confusion, perhaps some depression. It's not until things get really ugly that they pick themselves up, dust themselves off and get serious about their safety and security. You need only look at how bad things had to get before the Allies confronted the Nazi-Fascist alliance to see this on a global scale.

So yes, we're probably going to see an awakening, where people who have no respect for human rights will no longer be able to hide behind this ideal and abuse the goodwill of others, and not a moment too soon.

There are two seperate issues here, the one being the French internal dealings with their Muslim populations, the other being the French external dealings with America. How are these two things conflated? If the French crack down on ten per cent of their illegal immigrants and ban hijabs it somehow excuses their other behavior? I don't see how that works. Please don't bother enlightening me on the matter.

I found an interesting article from Israel, which many of our determinedly anti-Semitic French allies will dismiss out of hand, (not those of us here, thank God,) that might shed some light on the matter of our French amis. Or is that with two esses?

Yes, the French have every right to be as French as they please, and to hate America as much as they care to with all the volume they can muster. I don't have to like it. They don't have to like me. That issue is settled. But it doesn't cover the issue of why we should think highly of the French for doing only more than the English. That doesn't mend any fences where I come from. Regardless, the article below is interesting for those who care for some insight into the French as they are.

http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/2005/09/because-they-can-french.html

This may augur well. Or it may be used to dampen anxiety that, if it were to grow, would demand not 13,000 illegal aliens be expelled, but several million Muslims, on the same theory of a permanent security threat that persuaded Eduard Benes, Tomas Masaryk, and the entire Czech government to issue the Benes Decree, expelling overnight 3 million ethnic Germans from the Sudetenland. The Benes Decree raised no eyebrows; that security threat was clear to all, and World War II had helped to prove it. Does one need a world war, or will acts of terrorism and treason and disloyalty be enough to convince the Infidel world that, having allowed millions of Muslims to settle within Infidel lands (i.e. behind enemy lines as Muslims define them) at a certain point it may become necessary to expel a great many.

But what about those who are "citizens"? What about them? The Benes Decree dealt with ethnic Germans whose ancestors had lived in the Sudetenland for 600 years. They were citizens of Czechoslovakia; but many of them, too many, had demonstrated that their loyalty as volksdeutsche was to Germany, to Deutschtum. And that made them, in Czech and other eyes, a permanent threat that had proved itself intolerable -- and that now that the Czechs were in a position to do something, would no longer be tolerated. And there is not a Czech since -- not Jaroslav Siefert, not General Svoboda, not Pavel Kohut, not MIlan Kundera, not Milos Forman, not gentle Dubcek himself, not Vaclav Havel, no one, who thinks that the Benes Decree was wrong or that the Czechs had or have anything to apologize for.

And the sooner that Benes Decree is studied, and the circumstances that caused it to be issued properly analyzed, the better for the survival of Europe -- a Europe that remains un-islamized.

Some Europeans may think that their loyalty should be to certain abstract modern principles of tolerance, inclusiveness, and so on. No. Their loyalty should be to the survival of their own civilization, its art, its science, its tremendous possibilities for recuperation, renewal, revival. "Tolerance" in the absract, tolerance a outrance, tolerance that would allow Europe to be islamized, and therefore destroyed (as far as anything of artistic or intellectual worth is concerned), is not "tolerance" at all. The Czechs were under no obligation either to commit suicide, nor to tolerate a perceived enemy within, one that had already demonstrated where its loyalties lay. The Europeans are also under no such obligation.

Is this an intelligent prefiguring of what is to come, or a display of a phony, because limited and circumscribed, vigilance?

The returns are not yet in.

The Czechs were right to deport the Sudeten Germans. And the French are right in deporting their illegal aliens, no matter what their ethnicity. I wish we in the USA would do the same.

Tolerance and compromise are not always virtues. We cannot tolerate murderers in our midst. Nor can we compromise with those who would poison us. To compromise with the poisoner is to accept a partial dose. Enough compromises and you're dead. The leftists understand this principle, so they always urge the "dialog" which will eventually lead to the compromise. Perpetual Example: Israel

"Mont Joie!"

Oh yeah, you'll need to read this to know what I mean

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1413728898/qid=1126761204/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-7304790-5791116?v=glance&s=books

sonofwalker, great link, thanks for that, I think it is spot on.

However please note that the Islamophobia accepting Council of Europe is sending their human rights appointee to France to look at how France deals with terrorists etc. This little jolly is still in progress.

http://press.coe.int/cp/2005/441a(2005).htm

I am certain that the COE will attack France and the French will tell them to stick it where the sun does not shine...

I think the anti-US atttitude is because of their socialist drivern intellectual superiority, and is largely built on envy. I have had some great conversations on the USA with my in-laws, but I have managed to get them to agree that Islam is the problem and of course most of the people I speak to see Islam as a problem, the emotion shown by some shows that they have quite intense feelings on the subject...

I think that the French people are very prepared to protect their country and system.

Incidently I have come across a number of French Arabs who have left Islam, and have had the opportunity to speak to them, they often tell me that they see Islam as a major problem, it is perhaps one of the reasons that I think people like Ali Sina is spot on in regards to his approach.

By the way this is what is in store for us, thank you European Court of Human rights... (At least it was a split decision...)

İ.A. v. Turkey (no. 42571/98) No violation of Article 10
The applicant, İ.A., is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in France.

He is the proprietor and managing director of the Berfin publishing house. In November 1993 he published a novel by Abdullah Rıza Ergüven called Yasak Tümceler (“The Forbidden Phrases”) in which the author addressed philosophical and theological issues in a novelistic style. 2,000 copies of the book were printed.

The applicant was prosecuted under Article 175 §§ 33 and 4 of the Criminal Code for publishing insults against “God, the Religion, the Prophet and the Holy Book”. On 28 May 1996 Istanbul Court of First Instance sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, which was later commuted to a fine equivalent at the time to 16 United States dollars. The court based its decision on an expert opinion and on an extract from the book in which the author asserted, among other things: “Some of these words were, moreover, inspired in a surge of exultation, in Aisha’s arms ... God’s messenger broke his fast through sexual intercourse, after dinner and before prayer. Muhammad did not forbid sexual intercourse with a dead person or a living animal.”

The applicant appealed on points of law but was unsuccessful.

The applicant alleged that his conviction and sentence had infringed his right to freedom of expression, in breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression).

The Court considered that the applicant’s conviction had amounted to interference with his right to freedom of expression. The interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting morals and the rights of others.

The issue for the Court to determine was whether the interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”; this involved weighing up the conflicting interests relating to the exercise of two fundamental freedoms, namely the applicant’s right to impart his ideas on religious theory to the public, on the one hand, and the right of others to respect for their freedom of thought, conscience and religion, on the other hand.

The Court reiterated in that connection that those who chose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion, irrespective of whether they did so as members of a religious majority or a minority, could not reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism. They had to tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith.

However, the present case concerned not only comments that were disturbing or shocking or a “provocative” opinion but an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam. Notwithstanding the fact that there was a certain tolerance of criticism of religious doctrine within Turkish society, which was deeply attached to the principle of secularity, believers could legitimately feel that certain passages of the book in question constituted an unwarranted and offensive attack on them.

In those circumstances, the Court considered that the measure in question had been intended to provide protection against offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by Muslims and had therefore met a “pressing social need”. It also took into account the fact that the Turkish courts had not decided to seize the book in question, and consequently held that the insignificant fine imposed had been proportionate to the aims pursued by the measure in question.

The Court therefore held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 10. (The judgment is available only in French.)

France 13000 - UK 7

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4247916.stm

...and we, of course, have only 'detained' them, and they have 'the right of appeal'.

I'm curious about that 'right of appeal' - what is it exactly?

'We dont want you here';

'Thats not fair'

'Oh, alright then, you can stay...but keep your nose clean, sunny jim'

France woke up and smelt the coffee a long time ago but perhaps that is because they had such a bloody fight for their democracy and had to overthrow a tyrannical regime to achieve it. They are very conscious of that and will not permit any more tyrannical organisations, least of all the most tyrannical religion of all, to intrude in any area of public life.

That document you provided is chilling DP but at least the strategy has been laid bare. Has anyone sent it to Jack Straw?