Re: Ceuta is what happens when you’re not serio us about migration

On 8/2/2026 10:25 AM, dart200 wrote:
> On 8/2/26 9:48 AM, Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/1/2026 10:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 8/1/26 10:17 AM, Julian wrote:
>>>> Ursula von der Leyen doesn’t seem to care about the tide of people 
>>>> rushing the Spanish border. Voters in Britain will
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If any of us were in doubt about the scale of the problem facing our 
>>>> borders, that ended in half an hour on Thursday. Thousands of 
>>>> topless Moroccan men were filmed scrambling over rocks, pushing over 
>>>> walls and setting things on fire as they rushed into Ceuta, the 
>>>> Spanish exclave in north Africa.
>>>>
>>>> To watch the footage was, simply, to be boggled. How many people 
>>>> were in that frame? Why were they doing this? Who even were they?
>>>>
>>>> And what about the people of Ceuta, a city with a population smaller 
>>>> than Eastbourne on the coast near Tangier, long governed by Spain? 
>>>> What would we do if Eastbourne was overrun by 60,000 foreign 
>>>> berserkers?
>>>>
>>>> Some would argue it already has been.
>>>>
>>>> I’ve written a lot about Nigel Farage, the movement of people and 
>>>> the threat of small boats. And, to be honest, I’ve always been a bit 
>>>> embarrassed doing it. You don’t have to have watched The Odyssey to 
>>>> know that human decency says you must at least try to welcome 
>>>> refugees and migrants, especially if you’re one of the richest 
>>>> countries in the world and they’re victims of wars you’ve started or 
>>>> meddled in — which is, of course, in the end, most of the wars. This 
>>>> has always been Europe’s position.
>>>>
>>>> Yet, looking at the surging crowds, I thought: hasn’t it gone a bit 
>>>> far now? Europe wants us to do what?
>>>>
>>>> They want us to just deal with thousands more illegals, on top of 
>>>> the thousands who have already come here on boats this year — 752 on 
>>>> Wednesday alone — because they simply can’t be bothered to stop them 
>>>> or, worse, expect us to actually welcome them in, as they do? To 
>>>> give them free houses, taxis, mobile phones, allow scores of 
>>>> dependants to also come across — because: human rights — when there 
>>>> are barely enough houses for the people who are already here, when 
>>>> taxes are this high, when the NHS is messy, dysfunctional and 
>>>> killing people?
>>>>
>>>> Are we just expected to take it?
>>>>
>>>> For Ursula von der Leyen, the useless, robo-haired functionary at 
>>>> the top of the European Commission, the answer is yes. She couldn’t 
>>>> have cared less about the Ceuta stampede. At most, for her, 
>>>> thousands of gleeful men romping up metal railings, raiding shops 
>>>> and then sleeping, half-naked, out in the open, were a mere HR/ 
>>>> health and safety issue.
>>>>
>>>> “Dangerous crossings” must not happen, she tweeted on Friday. “I 
>>>> tasked two commissioners to support to control the situation.”
>>>>
>>>> I looked up the commissioners. One was a wet-looking Austrian ninth- 
>>>> tier politician, a holder of the Grand Cross of Liechtenstein. The 
>>>> other was a former mayor of Dubrovnik and recipient of the 2006 
>>>> World Mayor Award. Are they real people? It’s like sending Gareth 
>>>> and Dawn from The Office.
>>>>
>>>> Europe has never been serious about stopping migration. 
>>>> Philosophically, it’s not their thing. Effective returns of people 
>>>> who flood into Greece, Spain, Italy, France and so on bump along at 
>>>> only 28 per cent. Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, whose 
>>>> recent policies made the rush on Ceuta possible, could not, when he 
>>>> addressed the press on Friday, even bring himself to use the word 
>>>> “border”. The police would put a “physical containment barrier” in 
>>>> the sea, he said, to stop migrants swimming the three miles from 
>>>> Morocco to Spain.
>>>>
>>>> How about telling them they simply won’t be welcome? How about not 
>>>> promising an amnesty, as he did this year, prompting the surge? How 
>>>> about seeing a huge body of random people just over the border and 
>>>> not automatically thinking, what can I do to make it even easier for 
>>>> these people to enter my territory? What can I give them? Shall I 
>>>> pass them a lifejacket, a cup of tea, a credit card, an SUV and a 
>>>> four-bedroom house in Kilburn?
>>>>
>>>> These people aren’t refugees, by the way, or asylum seekers. They’re 
>>>> economic migrants, chancing it. As one of them put it, when the 
>>>> border’s down they’ll try anything, because: “Salaries are very low 
>>>> in Morocco. It’s dead, Morocco is dead.”
>>>>
>>>> For them, Ceuta’s a jaunty day trip.
>>>>
>>>> Any serious attempt to deal with the many millions who flood in is 
>>>> resisted with psychotic anger in the European parliament. Its recent 
>>>> plan to create “return hubs” was met with scorn. One commissioner, 
>>>> two weeks ago, said  that  “extraterritorial centres” had bad human 
>>>> rights records. Australia’s plans led to “years of arbitrary 
>>>> detention in inhuman conditions”. Similar plans by Israel (it’s 
>>>> always Israel) left asylum seekers in “legal limbo”.
>>>>
>>>> Fear of legal limbo — is that a reason to desecrate an entire 
>>>> continent? These politicians are consumed by madness and guilt. They 
>>>> are embarrassed by Europe’s wealth, its global standing and its 
>>>> relative ease of life. They feel it is their mission to tear this 
>>>> down by waving in thousands of people who shouldn’t be here. And 
>>>> those people know this, which is why thousands still tip up in Italy 
>>>> each month, to Giorgia Meloni’s horror. Sánchez himself has said 
>>>> that Spain will welcome 500,000  migrants. This will tear Europe apart.
>>>>
>>>> Some of these arrivals will head out of Spain and go north, 
>>>> attracted by our better healthcare, education system and free houses.
>>>>
>>>> We pay the French £662 million to stop them coming here from Calais, 
>>>> but, as Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, found out on 
>>>> Tuesday, like every EU official with a lifejacket they don’t do the 
>>>> job.
>>>>
>>>> Philp was mocked for running up and down the French coast, asking 
>>>> the gendarmerie why they were doing “absolutely nothing” to stop 
>>>> people- smugglers loading up hundreds on boats in front of them. 
>>>> “Our order is to let them go like that,” shrugged one. “We just have 
>>>> to say to them, don’t do that, it’s dangerous.”
>>>>
>>>> As I said: mere health and safety.
>>>>
>>>> The strange thing about migration is that it should be the easiest 
>>>> thing in the world to manage. There is nothing more simple than 
>>>> securing the borders of one’s country. Yet many politicians seem 
>>>> unable to speak on this matter. Andy Burnham and Ed Miliband, the 
>>>> foreign secretary — all tongue-tied.
>>>>
>>>> On other subjects, the prime minister won’t shut up: poetry, tea, 
>>>> pubs, education, bus fares, electricity, who he’s going tax, why he 
>>>> felt Cambridge let him down. On Europe, he couldn’t be clearer: he 
>>>> wants an “even closer” relationship. On immigration, though, nothing.
>>>>
>>>> At some point, perhaps when he sees his TikToks falling off a cliff 
>>>> as eyeballs race to the astonishing pictures of Moroccans marching 
>>>> in relentless columns across Spanish soil, he may realise that 
>>>> however much the EU tries to obfuscate the reality of what is 
>>>> happening, however much they try to tidy it away (“50,000 have gone 
>>>> back now”), however much they pretend that what happened on Thursday 
>>>> wasn’t their Tiananmen Square — an event we can never unsee — there 
>>>> are only two subjects that will interest people at the next 
>>>> election. Money, and this.
>>>>
>>>> The longer Burnham prevaricates and utters soundbites, the longer 
>>>> Labour tries to pretend the matter is in hand when it isn’t, the 
>>>> more people will come across, the more our seaside towns will be 
>>>> destroyed, the more stories will leak out about migrants bringing 
>>>> over 18 members of their families and/or raping people. Is he ready 
>>>> for it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Camilla Long
>>>
>>> capitalists and crying about free association: name a more ironic duo
>>>
>>
>> Do the citizens of Ceuta get a say in who they associate with?
> 
> this is like idiot reddit admins claiming censorship is actually free 
> speech. god u sheeple are truly that fucking retarded everywhere, eh???
> 
> and no wilson: free association means that the "citizens of cueta" do 
> not get a say in barring each other from freely associating. otherwise 
> that's not free association, it's association limited by wherever the 
> fuck u happened to be born.
> 
> idk why u insist on endless mental gymnastics, but it's clear u don't 
> actually support free association. u support coercively barring 
> association based on what u feel is in your best interest.
> 
Get serious! Now you're claiming to be be a social scientist?

You probably never even heard of a country named Ceuta, Spain before 
yesterday.

Let's face it. Nick is not smarter than a 5th grader.