The Need For A New Ancestry Citizenship Model

The Need For A New Ancestry Citizenship Model

To date, so far, there have been 14 publicised mass-rape scandals in the UK. The details of even story snippets revealed in the press are breathtakingly, unspeakably evil.

“I fell pregnant twice and had two abortions. Hours after my second termination, I was taken by one of my abusers to be raped by more men.”

Anger has been growing in the UK for a long time, across every different social stratum — but particularly in northern working-class cities most affected by immigration. The anger against this systemic, industrial rape — despite the ideological promotion — is predominantly male. Rightfully so. If you are in any doubt, consult the endless photographs of any protest against it — most of which have been condemned as “islamaphobic”.

The government has been in a difficult position, as it attempts to deal with the horrifying scale of the problem, whilst keeping the public peace from devolving into inevitable racial violence. The BBC’s drama on the subject brought a subset of the horror to the viewing public.

Some of the estimates feature unconscionable numbers: up to 10,000 victims of serial rape, abuse, and slavery. In most of the testimony given by survivors, they detail being “passed around” enormous amounts of men — 60 or more — in a row.

In the latest chapter, 20 British Pakistani men were jailed by Leeds Crown Court for a cumulative 200+ years for the systematic, violent abuse of teenage girls.

So far, there’s a truly demoralising list which keeps growing:

Like Germany, The UK is facing a horrendous new frontier in the transnational age: dealing with the community-organized mass crime.

The media — for reasons known only to themselves — are determined to mutate the motive for the outrage from shared righteous anger, to sectarian racial bigotry. It’s simply inconceivable the moral repugnance of these crimes can be segregated on racial, ethnic, religious, or ideological grounds. We all agree in our condemnation.

It’s immediately apparent these reports make enormous effort to play down the gravity of what’s happened — perhaps with good intention — to lessen the potential impact on the social fabric and public order. These crimes against young girls — Sikh, Indian, and White — have apparently been going on for 40+ years since 1988.

They are referred to as “grooming” gangs, perpetrated by “men of Asian/Pakistani origin”. However, it’s abundantly clear, when reading through the actual information, these are euphemistic in the least, and disingenuous at worst.

What they are euphemistically referring to as “grooming” is simply the first step in a process of highly-organised and premeditated, industrial-scale, systematic, repetitive, violent rape of children.

These crimes have an unquestionably ideologically/religiously-extremist nature, to which survivors attest.

70 Years of Multi-Ethnic Commonwealth Culture

40 years ago, Britain was an admittedly hostile place for foreigners of any kind, but particularly the dark-skinned; racial epithets were far more common. However, broadly-speaking, British people have extremely conservative hearts with liberal minds: nearly 300 languages are spoken in London, and since decolonisation, the island has been multi-ethnic for more than half a century due to family-based Commonwealth immigration.

The largest non-European ethnic groups — Indian, Sikh, Caribbean, Hong Kong/Chinese — can be observed to have become a celebrated part of towns and villages over time. Everyone knows the corner store, the Indian restaurant, the Chinese takeaway, the music and energetic carnivals. And everyone expects to see the same faces in a pub, school, football crowd, street BBQ, TV audience, or shopping centre.

It takes time. You can’t have a child in one month by having sex with nine women.

The loudest proponents of multi-ethnicity in the UK have always been the so-called “Windrush” (largely Caribbean) generation, who rightly wear their “integrated” Britishness with great pride, as they sip their cup of tea, watching the cricket.

Take a trip to any of the major cities; visit any smaller towns; ask around. If you have a British accent, a British-sounding first name, drink in the pub, coarsely hold others in contempt, complain about the weather, like a breakfast or Sunday roast, hate The Guardian and politicians, have a dry sense of humour, go to the football or the cricket, give presents at Christmas after church — you’re British. Live and let live. If you seem British, that’s fine.

It’s not perfect at all, it’s taken a long time, and there’s always been appallingly unjustified prejudice and abusive attitude and behaviour.

The dysfunction tends to get resolved in shared eccentric humour: working-class families outraged by census questions asking their religion: “Nah we’re not religious, we’re Church of England”; North London Jews explaining to their Rabbi why they can’t make Shul because of the Liverpool match; and of course, your racist Yorkshire Grandfather who hates “darkies” but has been best friends with his neighbour Alan for 40 years — who, despite being Bangladeshi, is inexplicably excluded.

That said, historically, there has always been a distinctly higher level of suspicion towards Pakistanis; much of it driven by Hindus and Sikhs, from their age-old religious battles. In most cases, those suspicions are usually overcome. British Indians — despite their integration to the highest positions — are so used to the idiocy of being labeled “pakis” for so long, it’s becoming an eccentric anachronism.

Activists & Ideologues Silencing Those They Want To Protect

To compound it all, a dying older media — desperate to maintain flagging sales, and infested with blogger activists (themselves masquerading as journalists) — are perpetually salivating at the possibility for daily re-prints of their own “confirmation thesis”, i.e. that anyone who fails to discriminate between an “identity group” and its extremist fringes, or anyone appearing to be associated in any way with an unperson, is a blaspheming bigot to be served up for mob excommunication. Slander and vilification sells; reason doesn’t.

Very few people in the UK need the condescending “help” from reporters to understand an entire bloc of people are not responsible for the crimes of a few. Every week on British TV, there are guests and audience members expressing their frustration with the “enlightened” press implying the population are too stupid or malevolent to agree with their published stance.

In the last 15 years, they’ve seen tube trains bombed, a soldier beheaded in the street, teenage girls bombed at stadiums, Imams shilling for ISIL & the overthrow of the country, and indiscriminate mass knife murder.

Something’s really wrong. But that doesn’t mean we are so childish to jump to the conclusion an entire sector of the country is collectively responsible. We all went to school with Pakistani and/or Arabic friends. They didn’t do it.

Very few — if any — people in the UK are stupid enough to believe these are the work of all 2.7M Muslims they live and work with every day.

The left-wing echo chamber has a lot of observable culpability in how it has created the conditions for social paralysis and its resulting ideological vigilantism. The most serious of which is the unwillingness of police and/or social services to investigate offenses, and more gravely, of victims to report crimes, both based on a justified fear of being excommunicated and vilified as “racist”.

Victims are frightened to come forward:

“Sarah Champion, the shadow women and equalities minister, said that “people are more afraid to be called a racist than they are afraid to be wrong about calling out child abuse”.

Those charged with protecting the vulnerable are afraid:

“[the perpetrators] were allowed to abuse hundreds of young white girls in the town in part because council staff were terrified of being labelled racist if they challenged the sex crimes.”

And those trusted to investigate and enforce are so concerned by the threat they have avoided their duty:

Authorities failed to keep details of abusers from Asian communities for fear of “racism”

The most vocal critics of the racism-vilification bandwagon are the ethnic blocs themselves: the first victims of the gangs were Sikh.

When victims are too afraid to report crimes of this kind of malevolence to those encharged with their protection, there is an absurdly serious problem. And it’s a Left problem, not a far-right White Supremacy problem.

When your activism has culturally metastisized to inadvertently enabling the prevention of criminality on the scale of industrial, war-crime-level rape, it’s time to re-evaluate.

Where the issue goes entirely and counter-productively off the rails, however, is in the diagnosis. There is clearly a problem. Avoiding it and/or banning speech about it doesn’t make it go away. Observably these subsets of people have not integrated, as even the press agree: the question is why.

For the activist Left, it’s society’s fault. For the liberal Centre, it’s the individuals’ fault. For the conservative Right, it’s Islamic Ideology.

The problem is: they’re all wrong.

The Mafia, for example, can’t be dealt with using an ideological hammer. Each offender is individually responsible for their behaviour, but they are acting collectively, seemingly due to a shared, identifiable religious/cultural ideology.

It is not society’s fault, and one point of consensus we can all agree on is that anyone attempting to obstruct the process of preventing and/or stopping mass criminal activity with ideological activism needs to be excluded from the debate, or, the most extreme cases, prosecuted for obstruction of justice.

When it comes to the mass rape of children, we’re already dealing with enough ideological problems as it is. We can all get on the same side when it comes to barbarism at industrial scale.

And that’s where it gets to a level of complexity we have terrible difficulty in processing, thanks to the suppression of uncomfortable dialogue.

Enter The Working Class Vigilante

The failure of the authorities to recognise the severity of the problem has been consequently exacerbated by the media fixation on creating a “far-right” enemy, in the current face of Tommy Robinson.

The many troubles with Robinson which make him distasteful to the British public’s palate are straightforward:

a) he’s typically unable to distinguish, in any sophisticated manner, the nuance between the 2.7m everyday moderate Muslims most British people brush shoulders with, and the culture’s extremist incarnation;

b) he’s typically unable to distinguish, in any sophisticated manner, the possibility that any degree of the perpetrators were motivated by malevolence in and of itself, rather than ideology;

b) his laissez-faire attitude to his own criminality, and inability to show any remorse or culpability for violating the Rule of Law himself.

It’s a simple, intellectually-lazy and tired smear campaign for the bloggers (sorry, “journalists”) at the Guardian and BBC to get the clicks: There’s no nuance or context, the bad man is saying ALL Muslims are bad, and inciting “hate” against a vulnerable minority group. It’s so much easier to blame a bad unperson than actually address the issue: the continued failure of authorities entrusted to prevent such a situation.

British people are tired of it. They have outrage fatigue which is turning into a slowly-burning fuse of palpable anger as coverage of the scandals expands. The government is rightly concerned about social unrest.

The trouble is, he well could be (it’s more plausible he lacks articulation, per se), but a large part of his reasoning and activism observably have just cause.

With no credentials, training, experience, or backing from a guilded publication, Robinson isn’t a “journalist”; at best, he’s some form of citizen reporter. He’s also no supervillain “far-right extremist”. He is simply a vigilante.

Vigilantes are deemed “necessary” when the incumbent institutions charged to protect the vulnerable systemically fail. They are lionised when their “moral” work is met with opposition, and their moral dubiousness skirted away in the face of the greater threat of malevolence.

The Expulsion Predicament

There is no right-thinking, reasonable British person — of any stripe — who isn’t horrified and disgusted by these people and wants them gone — and the ethnic blocs (Caribbean, Indian, African, Asian etc) are FAR more conservatively-posed in their barbaric suggestions.

Every south Londoner knows what their Jamaican neighbour’s solution to the problem is, and we’re not going back to the medieval ages; every resident in Birmingham knows what their Hindu or Sikh neighbour’s ideas are about it.

As self-evident as it might seem, it is worth emphasizing: British Pakistanis are the primary community who do not want these people around.

The combination of prison and registers isn’t enough, because they’ll be released. They want them expelled and/or exiled from the country for the morally-repulsive nature of the crimes they have been convicted of. Their perspective is the same as every British citizens’ perspective, because they are British— it’s our country.

No matter how fierce left-wing activism is, you’re not going to get any other answer from people of any British ethnic sector: Indian, Pakistani, Asian, Caribbean, European, South American: these individuals are persona non grata.

And that leaves us with a problem, because most are in their 30s, and they were born British citizens.

Conditional Generational Naturalisation: A Third Approach

Citizenship is generally absolute as a Right of the Soil (Jus Soli). It’s universal and applies to all. The state cannot strip you of that natural right, without threatening the rights of every citizen. Citizenship is not conditional, per se, even if it can be limited.

Even if the state did have the legal ability, international law has the near-prohibition on making an individual stateless. There’s no destination to deport them to. If there were, it’s unlikely they’d want to take in convicted serial rapists.

A significant number of countries have passed laws permitting the removal of dual citizenship on grounds of terrorism prevention, which in turn permits deportation to the remaining country of nationality.

The UK, however, has a unique history with laws surrounding nationality and does recognise the nuance which naturalisation can involve. For example, a British Overseas Citizen has a different status to a person born on British soil, Hong Kong SAR residents meet qualifications, and residents of British territories in Turks & Caicos can have a slightly confusing concept of “Belonger”.

In addition, the UK shares a concept many other countries utilise in the Ancestral or “Grandfather” visa.

What is needed now, due to the transnational climate, and emergence of systematic criminality organised within a community, is a mechanism in which both the threat and execution of sanctions can be weighed on it, — which also meets the democratic will of the larger nation in which they reside, and occurs within strictly-defined judicial due process. However, such sanctions should never be able to weigh against those who have no culpability in any crime.

Put simply, we need a limited, accountable set of conditions under which serious criminals convicted of extraordinarily morally-repulsive acts, even if they are born on British soil, can be permanently excluded from the country under a system of law.

We also need a social weight that communities are sensitive to which motivates them to internally police their own family members; a condition under which the individual behaviour creates reasonable consequences for everyone.

Perhaps the solution would loosely be conceptualised as Ancestral/Generational Naturalisation: the next 3 descendant generations of ANY naturalised citizen are subject to deportation to the country of origin of the original naturalisation, upon conviction of a narrowly-defined group of extremely serious crimes.

Even more simply, if you naturalise as a British citizen, your children, and their children, can be legally subject to an order of removal of that citizenship, and deportation, if they have served a sentence for murder, rape, or other capital offenses. Upon the 4th generation, full Jus Soli applies. You might call it, for lack of a better phrase, a phased limitation of the Right of the Soil established by democratic mandate/consent.

If you are convicted of an extraordinarily serious crime (or crimes, plural), and have generational citizenship by descent, you would be subject to legal due process removing that status, and further removal to the original country your parent or grandfather naturalised from. The condition could only be invoked upon conviction, appealable by default, and only affect the individual — not the wider family.

It’s worth repeating that: such a judicial process could and should only ever be invoked under established conditions self-evidently so criminally serious, debate over their use arguably would be virtually moot. And the scope of powers so fixed that they would impossible to abuse by extension.

Removal of citizenship has such serious implications it cannot even arguably be mentioned outside the context of crimes against humanity. It could only be considered in a situation so awful, the powers granted to the State meet the burden of the situation only under which they may be exercised.

Systematic mass rape of children qualifies.

The status should apply to every single naturalised citizen from any origin, without discrimination or partiality. It would also need to be retroactive, and because of its gravity, be established primarily by referendum, rather than parliamentary vote. The strictness of the condition would require extensive debate and forensic scrutiny. Any potential for ideological abuse or unintended consequences would need to be cornered off.

Provided the democratic process validates the will of the People to add such a legal provision to the State’s powers — which would need debate — the issue then becomes one of the establishment of international treaties. Hence the need for referenda: limited powers granted to the State, so exceptional, must only be interred by explicit consent, in highly-limited context.

Let’s take for example the (hypothetical) case of someone who is convicted of a particularly gruesome murder and given 20 years. He/she was born on British soil to British parents, but their citizenship was derived from the naturalisation of their French parents (his/her grandparents). Under a “generational” naturalisation law of 2–3 generations, he/she would qualify for removal of his/her ancestral naturalisation, and deportation to France. He/she would require examination of whether the gravity of the offence merited invocation of such an extreme expulsion — not due process, as such, but judicial oversight.

That’s all well and good if everyone in the UK agrees, but we have to get France to accept him/her at the other end once they’re on the plane. Likewise, due to the mutual nature of treaties, we would have to potentially accept convicted criminals of British descent back on our soil.

Luckily for us, data analysis helps to limit the number of treaties, or target partners, we would potentially have to work with. It’s trivial to establish the immediate naturalisation heritage of criminals convicted of such serious crimes.

Application to the Mass Child Rape Problem

No matter how much you tried to explain the universal applicability to every nationality, there’s no getting around the inevitable activist backlash any government would face enacting legislation of such kind, for inevitably political reasons.

A right-wing government would be accused of Nazism; a left-wing government would be accused of Stalinism; a centrist government would be accused of being illiberal. Without solid intellectual discussion, predictably, it would descend into accusations of class warfare, stratification, etc — all the while ignoring the premise — that industrial serial rape of children is an abominably disgusting enterprise.

Which denotes a problem Jon Stewart identified in the US several years ago — we face a problem in our problem-solving capacity. And we need to confront where it comes from.

Such is the toxicity of the identity politics continuum— that have to battle ideology over the concept of expelling child rapists, rather than the moral rationality and jurisprudence of doing so. The moral viability of that status quo is, thankfully, fragile.

If we theorize, for an instance, as to what would happen if we established such an extremely tightly-defined division of naturalization law.

Firstly, the accusations of targeting would arise, which would be correct. The provisions would inevitably apply to one cross-section of our society which carries the weight driving the need for legislation. But as the most conservative voices, few ethnic communities would actually complain. We know the 10% who would be would be making the noise, and naturally, which newspapers they regularly read.

Secondly, the law, in itself, would be retroactive, and immediately result in a defined, open judicial process. The severity of the provisions naturally requires the balance of the severity of the crime.

Thirdly, we know the media coverage of such crimes would immediately result in the application of such a legal provision — often inappropriately.

However, the end result would be quite simple — every “member” (or active participant) in these child rape gangs would immediately be subject to expulsion from the country under the due process of law, established democratically, with the individual rights of their own families protected.

It’s inconceivable the families of these individuals would campaign in their defence.

It may obviously be the case they already have children — some of which are the last of generational citizenship, or even the 4th (immune) descendency. Their rights to family life, and/or parenthood, need to be considered. But which children, exactly, are likely to benefit from having a convicted child rapist parent as their parent, and at which point do their rights supersede those of future potential victims, should the unremorseful convicted be released?

Provided a treaty was established to enable the appealable, mutual legal process of doing so, and the terms of it were sufficiently narrow to make the veracity of it being challenged (and/or so strict as to make abuse of the provisions enormously difficult) , the opposition we would face would rarely — if ever — be from the immigrant communities activists would claim would (hypothetically) be unfairly persecuted because of it. It would be a relief from their own, homegrown solutions.

The simple idea of such a provision should admittedly be considered barbaric. It would have been unthinkable 30 years ago. Placed in its context — 14 publicized cases of systemic gang child rape, and potentially 10,000 children affected — even the idea of abstention from the moral argument is now demonstrably indefensible.

Immigrants, their families, their children, and their colleagues, friends, and fellows, are the first to denounce their own who give them a bad name. Invariably, they are proud, determined, and passionate partners in our success, and eager to be a part of our bigger story. As they commit to us, we must commit to them in return. When they demand we act to expel the extremist fringe they want no association with, the stupidest — and most utterly racist — thing we could possibly do is involuntarily lump them together into a collective “identity bloc”.

The Unacknowledged Non-Controversial Reality

British Pakistanis are not, and do not want to be, an identifiable, protected “group” in the UK. They are simply BRITISH.

British people recognise and claim them as such, as they recognise themselves as such.

And they, like everyone else, are crying out for the same political voice who enunciates and executes the simple truth we all share:

If you rape children, you are not welcome in the country we all want to build together and will be expelled.