Trump’s first big mistake

by D.J. Webb

Theresa May was, for no good reason, granted one of the earliest meetings with President Trump. She apparently used the meeting to peddle her globalist agenda, including the supposed importance of NATO. It seems that Mr Trump is pro-British and has given her a certain latitude; I would have told her to decide within ten seconds if she wanted an alliance and a trade deal to replace Brexit or whether she was going to continue to mouth off on the globalist agenda and thus destroy the relationship with the new administration.

Mr Trump, to his credit, has signed an order barring immigration from seven Muslim countries. I don’t know why Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, Tunisia and a few others aren’t on the list, but the ban is at least something (although insufficient)–and it is also an approach Mistress May should be looking at. Furthermore, there is no reason why the US or the UK, far from conflict zones, should accept a single refugee from the Muslim world. It makes no sense to leave the EU to stop the Poles from coming over, while opening our arms to the Syrians. We should be joining in with Trump in halting the refugee racket and banning immigration from numerous unstable states.

The corollary of Mr Trump’s policy was initially that “UK citizens” from Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia and a few other places would fall under the immigration ban, as dual citizens. At the time of writing, the policy seems under evolution. So far the situation is that the British government, entering extreme-left-wing panic mode, has insisted that an exemption be granted for UK “dual nationals”. The government has announced that, at least in the case of travel from the UK to the US directly, Iraqis and others with dual UK nationality will not be affected by the ban. Such individuals flying other routes would fall under the ban.

Let’s get one thing straight. The Muslim minority with UK passports (whether born in the UK or not) should not have been given British citizenship in the first place, and are not genuinely British. They are British citizens–although I would like that status revoked–but not members of our nation. Mistress May has no business at all trying to push the immigration of such people onto the US.

The nations these people come from are unstable. Those born in the UK are even more likely to be interested in militant causes, as second-generation immigrants are force-fed an absurd diet of multi-cultural grievance. Mistress May is in no position to assure Mr Trump or anyone else that these individuals are not engaged in terrorism.

For Mistress May and the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, to be working on behalf of these people’s interests means they are not working on behalf of the British nation. Furthermore, Downing Street would run a significant risk. If a terrorist attack took place in the US facilitated by immigration of people with UK passports, the government and even the prime minister herself would bear a direct responsibility for that.

If Mr Trump can’t tell the British government to fall into line, then what is he doing in the White House?


  1. I am pleased to say that I agree wholeheartedly with this essay. Indeed, I must acknowledge that the author is very brave, and I also must commend the Libertarian Alliance for allowing pieces such as this on its blog.

    I am also pleased to say that – so far – I am being proved wrong about President Trump on several fronts (though not all). I hope that continues and I hope that the Trump administration is a success, though I would maintain that Trump will not be able to escape the geopolitical reality of neo-conservatism (something on which I and the author probably disagree).

    I can’t add anything more, except to acknowledge the piece and to reassure the author that he is not the only one who has come to these conclusions about Britain. My views are not motivated by hatred or dislike of Moslems (or other racial minorities). Quite the contrary – “some of my best friends….” etc., etc., and probably the best period of my life was spent as a youth in a very mutl-cultural part of London.

    But we have to look at the matter objectively and consider what is in the best interests of the country. Globalism is not, per se, a bad thing. Indeed, I would maintain that globalism is inescapable and represents progress, but it should never come at the expense of social, civic and moral cohesion and human welfare. A balance has to be struck.

    • A frequent error – perhaps deliberate – on part of the left and those subscribing to the blank slate dogma, is to equate identitarian or separatist views with the hatred of other races. It is the only way that they can poison the well in regards to the former. It’s a shame that we have to qualify harmless, and perfectly healthy, views like having an in-group preference as not driven by hatred, but it’s become necessary.

Leave a Reply