At least 24,000 “asylum seeker families” have been given social housing at a cost of £750 million over the last four years — while the queue of British people waiting for houses grows ever longer.

According to new figures released by the Home Office, the £750 million has been dished out to councils to pay for housing for the “asylum seekers” from all corners of the globe.

£51.1 million has been paid to Glasgow City Council, £14.3 million to Liverpool City Council, £19 million to Nottingham City Council amd £14.5 million to Cardiff City Council.

Millions more have been handed out to “housing associations” and private property firms.

According to separate Home Office figures, some 1.8 million people (officially described as “largely British born,” which is establishment speak for Third World immigrant) are waiting for social housing at present.

Incredibly, immigration minister Phil Woolas defended the expenditure, bizarrely claiming that “It is an absolute priority that accommodation for asylum seekers provides taxpayers value for money.”

The Conservative Party has endorsed all of the legislation which created the asylum swindle and offers no alternative to this disastrous situation.

The British National Party’s position on asylum is simple.

A BNP government would endorse international conventions pertaining to asylum which state that a person fleeing political persecution has the right of refuge in the first safe country bordering the one they are fleeing.

An asylum seeker does not have the right to cross 20 or more safe countries to reach Britain.

The moment these people leave the first safe country bordering the one they are fleeing, they are no longer asylum seekers but simply immigration law breakers.

There are, therefore, the BNP says, no legal asylum seekers in Britain.

The time has come to put the British people first — and only the BNP has the policies to make this a reality.

The vast numbers of “asylum seekers” — who are no such thing and have broken every international law to parasite off British taxpayers — have reached epic proportions and the UK Border Agency has no hope of dealing with the tsunami of applications.

This fact has emerged after comments by the chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, John Vine, to the BBC in which he declared that the key Home Office target of dealing with 90 percent of asylum applications within six months is “unachievable.”

Mr Vine said that the “complexity and volume of cases the agency must deal with had created a backlog.”

In a report published last week, Mr Vine said the UK Border Agency (UKBA) would have to “more than double its current work rate” if it was to clear up about 200,000 outstanding cases dating back several years by a separate target of July 2011.

He said officials would need to clear 11,000 cases a month but were currently getting through fewer than 5,000.

He pointed out that at least 30,000 cases had already taken longer than six months to resolve. This was because either officials had not been able to make a decision or it had proved impossible to remove failed asylum-seekers.

The British National Party’s policy on asylum is in line with international regulations which state that a person with a genuine fear for his or her life, fleeing political persecution, has the right of asylum in the first safe country bordering their own.

This means that a Zimbabwean fleeing Robert Mugabe has the right of asylum in South Africa, Botswana, Zambia or Mozambique. A Zimbabwean does not have the right of asylum in Britain.

As soon as an asylum seeker leaves the first safe country he or she reaches, they lose all status in international law.

In other words, the BNP dismisses out of hand the notion that Zimbabweans, Iraqis, Somalis and the like have the right of asylum in Britain. There are currently no legal asylum seekers in Britain at all, and it is BNP policy to halt this disgusting charade for once and for all.

The Labour government has rewarded thousands of illegal immigrants with citizenship after they avoided detection for 14 years or more, it has been revealed.

The policy, which has exposed Labour’s claim to be “tough on immigration” as an outright lie, was first introduced in 2003. In terms of the policy, any illegal immigrant who can prove that they have evaded detection for 14 years, will qualify for full British citizenship if they apply.

The vast majority of the illegal immigrants are granted “indefinite leave to remain” if they can show that they have been able to live outside the system or are failed asylum seekers who manage to avoid deportation.

The illegal immigrants can apply to the Home Office which will then consider factors such as “compassionate circumstances, strength of connection to the UK and previous criminal record” in making their decision to grant the invader permanent residence.

The illegal immigrant will then have full access to welfare benefits and be able to apply for a British passport, despite them not having paid in a penny in tax for the 14 years they will have spent “underground” hiding amongst the huge immigrant population.

According to reports, 7245 such illegal immigrants have been rewarded with British passports since 2003, more than 1000 every year. Official figures claim that the illegal immigrant population is anywhere up to 570,000 strong, a figure dismissed as a gross underestimate by the Migrationwatch think tank, which says that the true figure is as high as one million or more.

Migrationwatch chairman Sir Andrew Green was quoted in his reaction to the passports-for-lawbreakers scheme as saying: “It is wrong in principle that people who have been undercutting British workers for many years and often paying no tax should be granted full access to our welfare state.

“This is a reward for crime, provided you get away with it for long enough,” Sir Andrew said.

* The 14 years which illegal immigrants have to wait before claiming indefinite leave to remain in Britain is only four years longer than the period of time required of lawful immigrants.

The British National Party’s policy on illegal immigration is one of zero tolerance. Anyone who has broken the law to enter Britain, no matter how long ago, cannot be rewarded for their criminal activity. If that is the precedent that has been set, it is little wonder that we are targeted as a soft touch destination.

The BNP would deport all illegal immigrants to their countries of origin with no question of compensation. Any money, property or items acquired during their illegal presence in Britain will be forfeit to the state to help cover the cost of their deportation.

Only once the world’s scroungers understand that a BNP-ruled Britain is not an immigration destination, will they stop coming.

Thousands of Third World “asylum seekers” who have broken every law in the book to invade Britain have been rewarded with millions of pounds in cash in “compensation,” courtesy of the British taxpayer, it has been revealed.

According to all international conventions, anyone fleeing persecution in his or her homeland is supposed to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter.

There is therefore no valid legal reason for any “asylum seeker” to have crossed 20 or more safe countries to get to Britain. This means that there are, under international law, no legal asylum seekers in Britain at all.

Despite this obvious and simple fact, British taxpayers are continually called upon to carry the burden of hundreds of thousands of “asylum seekers” from all over the globe who literally creep, swindle, smuggle and extort their way into this country.

This open doors asylum policy is the direct result of decades of insane pandering to political correctness by both Tory and Labour regimes with their system of never-ending benefit handouts.

In addition, the Tory and Labour commitment to membership of the European Union is the direct cause of the enforced “Humans Rights Act” legislation under which the crooks, deviants and swindlers from around the world have descended on Britain.

Now, to add insult to injury, it has been revealed that “asylum seekers” in Britain who claim to have been “wrongly detained” have been awarded millions of pounds in damages from the public purse.

In effect, this means that “asylum seekers” who have no right to be in Britain and have broken laws and conventions to be here, are now rewarded with your cash should they be “wrongly detained” upon arrival.

It is nothing more than the rewarding of law-breakers and it is little wonder that the flood of “asylum seekers” continues unabated.

According to a newspaper report, a survey of only five law firms found they had secured payouts of at least £1.7 million from the Home Office for 121 people over the last three years. This works out to an average payout of more than £16,000 each.

According to the report, adding in a number of recent high-profile cases would bring the total to more than £2 million. A Bolivian family was paid £100,000 last month and a Congolese family received £150,000.

Even that would not include legal costs which will also amount to several million.

Finally, the newspaper added, “The total paid is also likely to be even higher given that the estimate was based on such a small sample.”

The payments have been made to “asylum seekers” held in detention centres because they were suspected of not having a right to be in the UK. The racket takes place if these “asylum seekers” can somehow later prove — by showing, for example, that their application is still being processed or some other technicality — then they have hit the jackpot and can qualify for the massive cash handouts.

Meanwhile, the British unemployment rate has reached 2.4 million.

The Liberal Democrat-controlled borough of Brent in London has reached a new low (even for that party) with an announcement that it seeks full British citizenship for the estimated 20,000 illegal immigrant invaders living within its boundaries.

According to the 2001 census, Brent has a population of 263,464, which means that another 20,000 illegals will add 8 percent to the total population.

A motion put to the council — many of whose members from all three parties have surnames that clearly identify them as ethnically not British — last week backed the “Strangers into Citizens” campaign, making Brent the sixth council to support the extremist cause.

According to a local news report, councillors from all parties “backed the principles of the Strangers into Citizens campaign” which calls for the naturalisation of long-term “irregular migrants” in Britain.

The “Strangers into Citizens” campaign was launched in 2006 with the backing of church leaders, trade unions and “migrant support groups.” It wants to legalise all those invaders who have managed to swindle the system and break immigration laws for four years or more.

Lib-Dem councillor James Allie (pictured), responsible for housing in Brent, justified the rewarding of these criminal lawbreakers with citizenship by claiming that “most of these people will never be expelled from the UK.”

It is estimated that up to 950,000 “visa over-stayers” and “failed asylum seekers” are currently resident in Britain. This means fully 5 percent of the current residents of Britain are here illegally.

The full extent of the Third World invasion is revealed by Brent Council figures, which state that more than 69 percent of its residents were born outside the UK. This excludes the 20,000 illegal immigrants, which means that over 75 percent of the population of the borough of Brent were not born in Britain. This figure excludes the children of those immigrants who might have been born here.

These statistics come hard on the heels of a report from Birmingham Council which said that 61 percent of primary school children in that city are of non-British origin.

Other recently released figures claimed that 10 percent of the current population of the entire country was not born in Britain. When this startling figure is added to the estimated 13 percent ethnically non-British immigrant population, plus illegals, asylum seekers and others, the total non-British element of the population is already close to 25 percent.

At these rates, even if immigration were to be halted today and no-one else allowed in, the Third World immigrant population will still outbreed the native British people within the next 30 or 40 years.

The British National Party is the only political party which discusses these issues openly — and which is dedicated to taking measures to ensure that the indigenous people of the British Isles retain their status as the majority population.

The choice before the voters is simple: a vote for ethnic cleansing and bloodless genocide of the British people under the Labour/Tory/Lib-Dem cartel, or survival of the British people under the BNP.

Tory leader David Cameron has “pledged” to flood Britain with homosexual African “Asylum seekers” — even though medical research has shown that they are ten times more likely to have AIDs than the heterosexual African population.

Speaking in an interview with the homosexual magazine Attitude, Mr Cameron said homosexuals should be allowed to stay in Britain if their life would be in danger if they were sent home. This was an obvious reference to Africa, where in many countries homosexuality is illegal and even punishable by death.

The internationally acclaimed medical journal The Lancet, in its Volume 374, Issue 9687, Pages 416–422, published on 1 August 2009, revealed that male homosexuals in sub-Saharan Africa are “more often than not infected with HIV than the general adult population” on that continent.

The Lancet’s report, in the form of a paper published by researchers from Oxford and entitled “Men who have sex with men and HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa”, examined all available AIDS related studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa to analyze the spread of the HIV virus amongst homosexuals in Africa.

The conclusion was that homosexual Africans are ten times more likely to be affected with HIV/AIDS than the general adult population.

Nonetheless, Mr Cameron told Attitude magazine that “rules should be changed to give further protection to people fleeing persecution because of their sexuality.”

He said: “If you are fleeing persecution and that fear is well-founded, then you should be able to stay. As I understand it, the 1951 Convention [on the rights of refugees] doesn’t mention sexuality, but because it mentions membership of a social group, that phrase is being used by the courts, rightly, to say that if someone has a realistic fear of persecution they should be allowed to stay.”

Mr Cameron also called for an end to the blood services ban on homosexuals giving blood. “Logic would dictate that it’s time to change,” he said.

The astonishing announcement means that the Conservative Party is now dedicated to encouraging a new wave of “asylum seekers” to enter Britain — from a group which is almost guaranteed to bring with them a new influx of that incurable disease.

Quite apart from the additional financial strain this will put on the National Health Service, Mr Cameron has also showed his ignorance of international asylum law, which gives asylum seekers right of refuge in the first safe country neighbouring the one they are fleeing.

Most African homosexuals would therefore have right of refuge in South Africa, which has one of the most pro-homosexual rights constitutions in the world. Such refugees certainly do not have the right to cross 20 safe countries to parasite off the British taxpayer-funded health system.

In addition, Mr Cameron promised Attitude magazine that he would tighten up the Labour Party’s Equality Act to “force faith schools to teach their pupils there was nothing wrong in being gay.”

This would take the form of setting “ground rules” to make sure religious schools “teach equality,” Mr Cameron said.

* The British National Party believes firmly that a person’s sexuality is a private matter and that the state has no right to regulate it.

However, the state is obliged to look after the interests of the community at large, and encouraging hordes of “asylum seekers” who (a) have no legal claim to asylum in Britain; and (b) are from a medically-identified group likely to further spread the AIDS pandemic, is nothing short of insanity.

Mr Cameron could not have made this any clearer.

More than £230 million of British taxpayers’ money is spent every year housing the tidal wave of utterly fake asylum seekers, official Government figures have revealed.

There are no legal asylum seekers at all in Britain. International asylum law states clearly that people have the right of refuge in the first safe country neighbouring the one they are fleeing.

There is therefore no excuse at all for people to cross 20 safe countries to get to Britain and then claim asylum. A British National Party government would declare Britain closed to all such scrounging criminals and turn them back at the border without any exception.

Those already present would also be immediately deported without compensation. They have broken the law and cannot be rewarded for doing so, as is the Tory/Labour/Lib-Dem plan for dealing with these criminals.

According to news reports, immigration officials have “authorised the use of public money on more than 25,000 council houses for claimants to live in while their applications to stay in Britain are processed.”

This figure has nearly doubled from £132 million three years ago, the reports claimed.

The outrage of allocating social housing to scrounging fake asylum seekers is made even worse by the fact that nearly two million British families are on the social housing waiting list.

The official figures showed that £584 million has been spent on council and other social housing for asylum seekers over the past three years. This translated to 16,550 homes in the 2007–08 year alone. The next year this figure had risen to 19,050 houses.

* According to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted to Middlesbrough Council by local BNP activists, “asylum seekers” in Cleveland get £40 per week for gas and electricity and another £35 per week per person towards food, clothing and toiletries. Failed asylum seekers don’t get money to pay for food but they do get vouchers worth £35 per week.

This means that a family of four gets £140 for food and another £40 for gas and electricity, a total of £180 per week. In one year a family of four will get £9360 in direct benefits. This is more than many British families spend on household bills.

* NHS treatment will be available for tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers to ensure their human rights are honoured, it has been announced. There are understood to be around 450,000 failed asylum seekers who have not left Britain.

Yet another 80 illegals have been detained for working at the London Olympic site — despite promises from the Government that the work would boost jobs for British workers.

Many of the latest arrests are of illegal migrants using stolen passports, according to media reports. Others were “asylum seekers” who are officially banned from working as they receive taxpayer-funded cash handouts and benefits.

Yet more were visitors who had entered Britain as tourists. As such they would have been unable to produce any sort of valid documentation giving them the right to work in Britain.  Either the Olympic site authorities do not check a thing or there is some underhand work afoot.

The largest number of illegals were from India, whose nationals accounted for 32 of the total. There were 12 Nigerians, seven Ukrainians, four Brazilians, four Kosovans, three Moldovans, and two each from Sierra Leone, Albania and Zimbabwe. The remainder were described as ‘others’.

Officials found workers using the genuine passports of others which were either stolen or borrowed. Some were caught with fake UK visas or had substituted pages in their passports.

When added to statistics of arrests in previous years, the latest set of detentions raises to over 200 the total number of illegals uncovered working at the site since its launch.

In 2006 the Serious Organised Crime Agency warned that up to 50,000 illegal immigrants could be smuggled into Britain through eastern Europe to work on the 2012 Olympic site.

Soca told the Olympic Delivery Authority it needed to be prepared for an epidemic of illegals being brought in by gangsters.

Officers said the main routes into the UK would be through eastern Europe, which criminal overlords consider the easiest way into the EU.

Another country has adopted a part of British National Party policy. Last week, the Irish government formally launched a voluntary repatriation programme for immigrants and asylum seekers in Eire, offering them cash incentives to leave that country for good.

An Irish government spokesman said that the scheme will only apply to non-EU nationals living in Eire and would see the Justice Department spend almost €600,000 this year to pay for immigrants and their families to return to nations outside the European Union.

“The grants will not be given to individuals but rather the scheme will operate through projects and organisations,” the spokesman added “They [immigrants] can apply for the fund only through organisations and community groups. It is the first time we have introduced the scheme.”

The scheme was kicked off last Friday with advertisements in national newspapers in Ireland advising immigrants of the offer. Application forms will also be available for non-EU nationals in the main immigration centre on Burgh Quay, Dublin.

According to official figures, up until the early 1990s, Ireland was 95 percent white and Catholic. New statistics from the Republic’s central statistics office indicate that today about 18 percent of Ireland’s inhabitants are “non-nationals.” Most of them are from Eastern Europe, China, Brazil and west Africa or are British citizens who have settled on the island.

Some academics, such as Dr Bryan Fanning of University College Dublin, estimate that the real figure is more than 20 percent. In either case, it means that one fifth of Ireland’s population is not Irish.

According to press reports, there is increasing anxiety in Ireland over this steady swamping of that nation. Several days ago, the mayor of Limerick, Kevin Kiely, publicly called for the deportation of EU nationals who were out of work for more than three months and were claiming social welfare benefits. “We are borrowing €400 million per week to maintain our own residents and we can’t afford it,” Mr Keily said, much to the consternation of Ireland’s liberals.

It is good to see Ireland adopting at least a part of BNP policy. A voluntary repatriation programme by itself will not accomplish the goal of keeping Ireland Irish.

In addition to that incentive, the core of the problem must be addressed, namely the reasons why immigrants are coming in the first place. The following steps, which apply to all First World nations, need to be implemented:

1. Ireland should be declared a non-immigration country, with exceptions granted in only the most extra-ordinary cases;

2. Ireland should commit to accepting genuine asylum seekers fleeing persecution only if Ireland is the nearest first safe country to the refugees’ country of origin;

3. Ireland should launch a comprehensive crackdown on all illegal immigrants and deport these lawbreakers back to their countries of origin without compensation.

4. The Irish government should formally announce that it is their intention to institute further policies which are designed to guarantee that the majority population in Ireland remains Irish.

Only with these policies can Ireland — and Britain — be saved for their indigenous populations.

Afghani ‘asylum seekers’ officially flood into Britain at the rate of at least 700 every month — but the Labour Home Officer minister Phil Woolas has claimed that the war in Afghanistan “stops immigration.”

The number of ‘asylum seekers’ seeking refuge in Britain has skyrocketed by an average of 20 percent every year since the Labour and Tory-supported war in that country was started.

Official census figures have shown that the number of Afghans coming to Britain since the mid-2000s has completely exceeded the total number of Afghans in this country prior to 2001. The current influx of Afghans makes them one of the largest groups of ‘asylum seekers’ along with Iraqis. The latter influx was also caused by the Labour/Tory war in Iraq.

Nonetheless, Mr Woolas claimed in Parliament that British troops are fighting in Afghanistan in part to keep immigration to Britain under control.

“The number of asylum seekers coming to the UK would significantly increase if troops were withdrawn,” Mr Woolas told MPs.

He was responding to a question from the home affairs select committee about whether members of the Taliban had successfully claimed asylum in Britain.

“An argument that is not aired strongly enough in my view is the benefit of the presence of our armed forces and other countries’ is to help us control immigration,” Mr Woolas said.

Mr Woolas’s comments came in the wake of the tragic news that another five British soldiers were murdered in Afghanistan by what was described as a “rogue policeman.”

According to newswire reports, the “rogue policeman” was in fact a well-known Taliban supporter named Gulbadin who had deliberately signed up to the British taxpayer funded police training course with the intention of killing British soldiers.

The same newswire reports stated that Gulbadi had been “greeted with flowers on return to Taliban protection.”

The latest five soldiers to die were shot as they drank tea at a military compound in the village of Shin Kalay. They were part of a British army training programme designed to “expand Afghan security forces.”

Ninety-two British service personnel have been killed in southern Afghanistan so far this year, compared with 51 in the whole of last year.

Quite apart from the incalculable human cost in lives, the war in Afghanistan serves no British interests whatsoever and should be ended immediately.

Contrary to what Mr Woolas and his Tory party war-supporting friends might think, that war is illegal, immoral and pointless.

The British National Party has made it clear that all British troops should be withdrawn immediately. There is not one grain of Afghan sand worth a single British life, and those evil Westminster parties who forced that war on this country should be made legally liable in war crimes trials for all the deaths they have caused.

Important parts of a 2001 Home Office report linking immigration and rising crime were deliberately censored by the Labour Party regime in order to hide the truth from the public.

The report — which should have been made public in full, funded as it was by the taxpayer — was titled “Migration, A Social and Economic Analysis” and submitted to the Prime Minister’s office prior to being released.

Terrified of its contents, which specifically linked organised criminality with higher immigration, the Labour regime ordered the relevant parts of the report cut out before publication.

The entire section headed “Criminal behaviour” was removed. It said, amongst other things, that “Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime.”

The report went on to say that foreign nationals formed a higher proportion of the prison population than of the general population because so many were caught smuggling drugs at ports and airports.

Furthermore, it said that there is “emerging evidence that the circumstances in which asylum seekers are living is leading to criminal offences, including fights and begging.”

The exact parts which were censored were the following:

“Criminal Behaviour

There are three ways in which migrant criminality may differ from that of the general population:

* The international criminal who travels across borders to pursue criminal activity, for whom screening at ports of entry is increasingly the focus of international cooperation between police forces to detect on entry.

* Organised crime identified with a particular migrant group, including commercial fraud and trafficking in drugs, in illegal migrants and in women — also the focus of attention by police and immigration staff.

* Crime associated with conditions of migration and reception, including recovery of debts by migrant-smugglers, marriage rackets, breaches of immigration control and crime associated with the migrant’s circumstances (lack of work, hostel living conditions).

Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime. Data is necessarily tentative, but it is estimated that the global profit from trafficking illegal migrants is $5-7 billion.

We have no data on trafficking to the UK (the Home Office estimates “thousands”) but examples from abroad are illustrative. Some 750,000 migrants from the former USSR entered Israel in the Nineties and £2-5 billion of Russian organised crime money is estimated by police to have been invested in Israel between 1991 and 1998.

The illegal migration of 600,000 Fukienese Chinese to the USA yielded an estimated $3.2 billion profit to the criminal gangs and was followed by “institutionalised Fukienese crime with its services and predation.”

This extract is taken from the “Preliminary Report on Migration”, 11 July 2000, written by officials in Tony Blair’s Performance and Innovation Unit. This section was omitted from the public version of the report, “Migration, A Social and Economic Analysis”, published by the Cabinet Office in 2001.

DESPITE a week of newspaper headlines and television reports on the British National Party, there has been one glaring omission from all the coverage. At no time has BNP policy come under the spotlight.

Journalists in the Sunday newspapers were queuing up to condemn the British National Party stance on immigration as “vile”, but never explained why, in their eyes, it was “vile”.

It is unclear which BNP immigration policy the likes of the News of the World, The People and Sunday Mirror were referring to, but it must have been one that was in place in the early 1990s before Nick Griffin became chairman and completely modernised the Party. That is because the British National Party’s policy today is what the majority of British people, according to the polls, say they want – a complete stop to any further immigration.

In the British National Party’s mini-manifesto published in 2007 our policy is very clear.

* Stop all new immigration except for in exceptional cases.
* Deport all illegal immigrants.
* Reject all asylum seekers who have passed through a safe country to come Britain.

Britain’s population is now racing towards 70 million and spiraling out of control. This is down to immigration. It has put unbearable pressure on our social services and the very fabric of our country.

Britain is full and continued mass immigration is unfair, not only on indigenous Britons but also on all the law-abiding ethnic minorities who are here legally, who pay taxes like the rest of us, and with whom we are happy to share this island as long as they support the values that made this country such a great place.

This is a policy the majority of British people would agree with should they ever get the chance to be told about it – and that is why the media deliberately hides it from them.

There’s nothing ‘vile’ about the British National Party’s immigration policy – it’s just common sense.

The British National Party would turn back “asylum seekers” trying to enter this country if they have passed other safe countries on their way here.

This was said by BNP candidate in the Glasgow north east by-election, Charlie Baillie, in response to a question from a journalist while campaigning in the constituency.

Mr Baillie told the journalist that he would be campaigning on an anti-immigration platform, focusing on the arrival of asylum seekers.

Asked whether he would turn away a “torture victim from Zimbabwe,” Mr Baillie said “Yes. They have neighbouring countries they can go to.”

Meanwhile, BNP Scotland continues to campaign like never before in the seat. So far, some 25,000 leaflets and 4,000 Voice of Freedom newspapers have been delivered in the north east of Glasgow.

The party’s Truth Truck is also being deployed in the campaign. Its first appearance was last Friday when it was out for a 16 hour stint. The drivers report that they were greeted with cheers everywhere they went.

The Truth Truck was also out campaigning over the weekend, despite awful weather.

This week will see activism every day, reports BNP Scottish leader Gary Raikes. “If anyone within driving distance wants to come and help, they will be welcome,” he said.

In a move which has exposed the soft touch British asylum policy to the world’s glare, the government of Iraq has refused to take many of its own citizens back after they were deported from Britain. The deportees were returned to Britain where they are once again sponging off the British taxpayer.

The farcical turn of events happened this week when the Border Agency put a group of 40 ‘asylum seekers’ from Iraq on an aircraft back to Baghdad after they lost their asylum appeals.

Iraq, not being as stupid as Britain, asked for evidence of where the deportees would be going once they got off the aircraft at Baghdad airport. Only ten of the men were able to show evidence of “ongoing journey” preparations, and were allowed to enter Iraq. The rest were refused permission to even leave the aircraft — despite being Iraqi citizens with full legal right of residence in that country.

The remaining 30 Iraqis were then flown back to Britain and are all now enjoying food and shelter here once again, all courtesy of the British taxpayer.

The refusal by Iraq to take its own citizens back underlines the insanity of the Tory and Labour Party-developed asylum policy in Britain.

In the first place, all these Iraqis would, in all likelihood, have crossed Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Greece, all the nations of southern and central Europe and finally France, before landing in Britain.

International asylum law states that asylum seekers only have the right of refuge in the first neighbouring safe country to the one they are fleeing. This means that as soon as Iraqi ‘asylum seekers’ passed Jordan’s borders, they were no longer “genuine” and had lost all asylum rights under international law.

However, because the British asylum system is known worldwide as a pushover, these scroungers crossed all these countries before declaring their ‘asylum’ claims.

The geographic isolation of Britain from these Third World lands means that there are no legal asylum seekers here at all. The asylum swindle would simply not be tolerated by a British National Party government.

Similarly, the outrage of Iraq refusing to accept its own citizens is a matter of the gravest international concern. A BNP government would not hesitate to deal with this matter in the only way possible: by forcing the Iraqi state to take responsibility for its own swindlers.

* The madness of allowing asylum swindlers from all over the world to settle in Britain was illustrated yesterday with the sentencing of a Zimbabwean swindler to three years in jail for a £1 million bank fraud.

Sonny Chibuwe, 29, was the sixth person to be sentenced by Leeds Crown Court for the conspiracy. They have now been given prison terms totalling 21 years.

The ‘asylum seekers’ used the postal system to steal cheque books which were forged or altered and paid into defendants’ accounts and money withdrawn.

Chibuwe brought his wife and two children to Britain and as such will avoid deportation in terms of the “Human Rights Act.”

The British Government and its media allies gave much publicity this week to a £12 million “aid” package to white working-class areas — but failed to report that at the same time, £61 million in aid was given to Zimbabwe.

The aid to Zimbabwe is a straight donation and is the single largest amount ever given to that nation by the British taxpayers.

The donation was announced on Thursday by British ambassador to Zimbabwe Mike Canning who said that the British Government considered that the formation of a unity government in Zimbabwe deserved support.

“We thought the formation of the inclusive government was a significant step. The UK wants it to succeed. We don’t want it to fail as a result of lack of financial support,” he said.

The donation makes the £12 million promised to white working-class areas in Britain even more of a mockery than before.

The £12 million grant, announced with much fanfare, is targeted at 100 white working-class areas. This means that each area will be given £120,000 — less than what the Tory-controlled Kent County Council gives teenage asylum seekers as pocket money.

The money gift to Robert Mugabe’s government shows clearly where the British Government’s loyalties lie. Mr Mugabe has overseen the violent ethnic cleansing of white farmers from Zimbabwe and has plunged his country into an unparalleled crisis.

All the while, Mr Mugabe has won election after election, all declared free and fair by observers from the African Union. Mr Mugabe has also consistently blamed white British people for the problems in his country, referring to them as “not human.”

Despite these charming sentiments, the British Government has once again seen fit to play Father Christmas with the public’s tax money and give even more of it to a tin-pot Third World dictatorship rather than use it to address real problems at home.

Taxpayers will be pleased to hear that the £61 million is going to be spent on “water, sanitation, healthcare, education.” Of course, all of these, particularly healthcare and education, are much needed in many areas of Britain.

However, the Government’s actions show clearly that the needs of white British people are always put behind those of Third Worlders.

* Voters hoping that the Conservative Party might be any different, better think again. In terms of a foreign aid policy document recently released by that party, foreign aid will more than double should the Tories win the next election.

Conservative leader David Cameron is on record as saying this foreign aid has been “ring fenced” and may not be touched, no matter what domestic spending cuts are made.

The £12 million grant announced today for “white working class areas” was an admission by the Government that the indigenous population of Britain has indeed been discriminated against and that the British National Party has been right all along, said BNP deputy press officer John Walker.

Speaking during a BBC Radio Four The World Tonight interview this evening, Mr Walker said that the “Government has now openly conceded that what the BNP has been saying for years is correct.

“Whilst the extra investment in white working class communities is, of course, welcome, the BNP sees this as a ploy by the Government to try and win back votes from the BNP at the next general election,” Mr Walker said.

“I doubt very much whether these communities will be fooled,” he added. “Furthermore, it is no surprise that there has been pressure on social housing.

“For the last ten years, the Government has granted permission for more ‘asylum seekers’ to stay in Britain than the number of social houses which have been built,” Mr Walker said.

Speaking to BNP News after the interview, Mr Walker said it was significant that the BBC had invited a party spokesman into their studio for the interview.

“This goes to show that the BNP is increasingly being accepted as an important and permanent part of the political landscape,” Mr Walker said.

The interview was requested by Radio Four after Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government John Denham announced the funding. He said it would “stop the white working class” from “being driven into the arms of extremism.”

Mr Walker said that Mr Denham was dreaming if he thought the white working class was “becoming extreme.”

“They have been as they always were: basic solid patriotic people. They have not changed. It is the Labour Party that has become extreme — extreme anti-British.

“The Labour Party has betrayed the working people by helping to fuel the Tory-led policy of destroying this country’s manufacturing base by outsourcing and selling off national assets.

“The Labour Party has betrayed the working people by flooding this country with immigrants who have undercut wages and placed an intolerable tax burden upon this nation,” Mr Walker said.

“Instead of blaming the white working class for voting BNP, Mr Denham and his colleagues might do well to look at their own policies, which are the real reason why people are leaving the Labour Party in droves.”

A Zimbabwean newspaper has highlighted the Labour Party’s lies on “tighter immigration” by proudly announcing on its front page that Zimbabweans are to “benefit from the relaxation of UK immigration rules.”

“Thousands of Zimbabwean asylum seekers are to benefit from the relaxation of immigration laws by the British government,” The Zimbabwean newspaper announced in its 11 October edition.

“From July, the UK government quietly loosened the immigration rules for asylum seekers in order to clear a backlog of cases. The British government two years ago halted its policy of returning Zimbabwean asylum seekers because of the dire political situation,” the paper, which is run by a worldwide consortium of Zimbabweans, continued.

“SW Radio Africa can reveal that in the last few months, hundreds of failed asylum seekers from the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC opposition party) were granted leave to remain in UK after their cases were reviewed on an individual basis,” the newspaper reported, adding that as a result of the changes, at least 40,000 “immigrants who had moved to the UK from Zimbabwe, Iran and other troubled countries have been told they can stay in the UK.”

According to the MDC’s organising secretary, Jaison Matewu, Home Office figures show that 20,000 Zimbabweans have applied for refugee status in Britain.

The 40,000 are among a backlog of 450,000 asylum cases which have overwhelmed the system, drawn to Britain by the benefits and handouts which are on offer, courtesy of the British taxpayer.

Most recently, immigration minister Phil Woolas endorsed a memo giving “asylum applicants” from countries with poor human rights records leave to remain here if they had been living in the UK for 4–6 years.

Last year, Zimbabwe had the second-highest number of people seeking asylum in industrialised countries, according to a United Nations report released in July. The report said the countries of origin showing a significant rise in applications for asylum due to unrest or conflict last year included Afghanistan, up 85 percent; Zimbabwe, up 82 percent; Somalia, up 77 percent; and Nigeria, up 71 percent.

The UK Border Agency (UKBA) has confirmed the existence of race with the news that it is conducting DNA tests on asylum seekers to determine their race and national origin.

The UKBA believes this will help limit “bogus” asylum claims made by people who pretend to have fled war zones. This ruse prevents their deportation under the insane Tory/Labour asylum rules.

Called the “Human Prevalence Pilot Project,” the method involves taking “forensic samples provided on a voluntary basis from those suspected of abusing the asylum system.”

The first part of the six-month pilot will target claimants who say they are Somalis fleeing from war in the horn of Africa.

It has become apparent that large numbers of these “Somalis” are in fact Kenyans or other sub-Saharan Africans who use the war in the horn of Africa as an excuse to invade Britain.

It is quite easy for geneticists to spot the difference between Somalis and sub-Saharan Africans. Somalis generally have a far higher admixture of Arab DNA, which differs fairly substantially from sub-Saharan African DNA.

According to newspaper reports, the Home Office has confirmed that the project could be expanded to other nationalities if successful.

The project will use mitochondrial DNA (transmitted through the female line) and Y chromosome testing (transmitted through the male line), as well as single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) analysis to determine the true national origin of ‘asylum seekers’.

The UKBA will also use isotope analysis of hair and nail samples “to help identify a person’s true country of origin.”

One UKBA document titled “Nationality-Swapping” uses the notorious “Adam Torso” case as a proof of principle for employing isotope analysis.

In that highly publicised 2001 murder case, the mutilated torso of a black teenager was found floating in the Thames River.

Using isotope analysis, “the child’s body was traced to a small Nigerian town in an area about 100 x 50 km wide,” the UKBA document states.

The science — widely decried by hysterical leftists who are terrified of the fact that modern DNA has proven their theories nonsense — was used to correctly infer the ancestry of a suspect in the 2004 train bombings in Madrid, and is often used by police on both sides of the Atlantic to identify the race of suspects.

Criticism of the plan is based on the assertion that nationality cannot be determined by the tests. This is most certainly true, but the reality is that all genetic strands are historically linked to specific geographic locations. This evidence, combined with other techniques such as language and cultural tests, make narrower identification of newly arrived ‘asylum seekers’ fairly straightforward.

The UKBA is working with a number of leading scientists in this field who have studied differences in the genetic backgrounds of various population groups.

Recommended reading: Race, Evolution and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective 2nd Special Abridged Edition, by Professor J. Philippe Rushton.

Using evidence from psychology, anthropology, sociology and other scientific disciplines, this book shows that:

There are at least three biological races (subspecies) of man:

– Orientals (i.e., Mongoloids or Asians)

– Blacks (i.e., Negroids or Africans), and

– Whites (i.e., Caucasoids or Europeans).

There are recognizable profiles for the three major racial groups on:

– Brain size

– Intelligence

– Personality and temperament

– Sexual behaviour, and

– Rates of fertility, maturation and longevity.

The profiles reveal that, ON AVERAGE:

– Orientals and their descendants around the world fall at one end of the continuum.

– Blacks and their descendants around the world fall at the other end of the continuum.

– Whites regularly fall in between.

This worldwide pattern implies evolutionary and genetic, rather than purely social, political, economic or cultural causes.

Softcover, 106 pp. £4.79 including P&P. Click here to order.

Britain has been colonised by radical Islam to the point where this country is now one of the major exporters of radical Islamist terrorists to many parts of the world.

According to weekend news reports, British intelligence chiefs have flagged up the danger posed by increasing numbers of Muslims either born or residing in Britain who are joining Islamist terror groups in Somalia.

The intelligence officials said that the number of people they described as “young Britons” travelling to Somalia to fight in the war-torn country or take part in terror training camps is rising.

(They are, of course, being politically correct by referring to “young Britons.” These people are not British at all, but have merely been able to temporarily reside in this country until the British National Party comes to power.)

According to the intelligence sources quoted in the media, there is increasing concern about the “number of people with no direct family connection to Somalia who are travelling there.” Apparently the number has quadrupled since 2004.

They are joining an Al-Qaeda inspired movement called “The Shebab” which is currently engaged in a violent campaign against the Somali government. The Shebab has already seized large parts of Somalia and has imposed strict Sharia law in areas under its control.

Earlier this year, a Muslim from Ealing in London became a suicide bomber in Somalia when he blew himself up in an attack that killed more than 20 soldiers.

Two Somali ‘asylum-seekers’ were among the four men convicted of the failed attempts to bomb the London transport system on 21 July 2005. The ‘British’ Somali community has grown rapidly in recent years, with thousands of refugees fleeing the fighting in their homeland.

The American government has already warned that the Shebab intends to turn Somalia into an “extremist haven similar to the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Earlier, the American homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, expressed concern at the number of terrorist plots involving what he called “British citizens with ties to Pakistan.” Mr Chertoff even went as far as requesting the British government to impose travel restrictions “on British citizens of Pakistani origin” because of concerns about terrorism.

The request was denied by the British authorities.

In an interview with a newspaper Mr Chertoff said: “We need to build layers of protection, and I don’t think we totally want to rely upon the fact that a foreign government is going to know that one of their citizens is suspicious and is going to be coming here.”

At the time he did not mention restrictions on ‘British’ Pakistani, but he expressed concern that terrorists such as the July 7 bombers, three of whom were of Pakistani origin, could have used the visa waiver scheme to enter America.

The justice-blind judges in the Court of Appeals have ruled that crimes such as burglary committed by ‘asylum seekers’ or immigrants are “minor” and have struck down Home Office attempts to deport such criminals.

The shock ruling has come in a decision on a Serbian national identified only as EN in court reports, who appealed against his deportation order after being found guilty of burglary. News of the finding has just been published by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR).

According to court documents, EN was a child when he arrived in Britain and was granted refugee status. He then was arrested for burglary, found guilty and sentenced to twelve months in a young offenders’ institution. While there, the Home Office officially informed EN that they were going to deport him and the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal dismissed his appeal.

EN then appealed to the Court of Appeal which has now ordered his case to be reconsidered. This means that regulations governing the rules under which immigrants or ‘asylum seekers’ are deported have been ruled null and void.

The Refugee Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, says that refugees should not be sent home unless they are convicted of a “particularly serious” crime.

In terms of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, a “particularly serious crime” was defined as any offence attracting a punishment of two years’ imprisonment or more, or any offence specified in Home Office regulations. According to those regulations, called the “Specification of Particularly Serious Crime Regulations” offences such as genocide, hijacking, theft and criminal damage are classed as such.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal said that these trivial offences “could not rationally be considered particularly serious,” and struck down the regulations as unlawful.

The judges made the point that even an offence carrying two years’ imprisonment may not be “particularly serious.”

According to the IRR, this ruling “offers hope to a considerable number of young refugees who have been threatened with deportation on the strength of petty crimes.” Laughably, they go on to claim that these crimes “are frequently an unacknowledged by-product of the traumas which caused them and their families to flee their countries of origin.”

The British National Party’s policy of asylum and refugees is in accord with international law, which states that asylum seekers have the right of refuge in the nearest safe country bordering their own if their lives are in mortal danger as a result of politically-related activity.

Britain is therefore obliged to accept French or Irish refugees — and no one else.