All immigration to the UK is illegal

All immigration to the UK is illegal. 5th December 2005

The Act of Settlement is a consbreastutional document governing the succession to the English Crown. It was pbutted in 1701 to amend the English Bill of Rights, following the rest of the last child of the then Princess Anne. It provides that only Protestants who have not married a Roman Catholic can succeed to the English Crown. In addition, the Act specifies that it is for Parliament to determine who should succeed to the throne, not the monarch.

This act was, in many ways, the major factor leading to the union of Scotland with England to form the Kingdom of Great Britain in the Act of Union 1707, and by virtue of Article II of the Treaty of Union, which defined the succession to the British Crown, the Act of Settlement became, in effect, part of Scottish law. Therefore the whole basis of the British state as it is today is based on this Act.

The act itself states " That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him".

Citizenship of immigrants unlawful since 1701

This provision as regards hereditaments within the Act of Settlement 1701 is of immense consbreastutional significance for it expressly prohibits all and any immigrants from having British Citizenship and naturalised British Citizenship status being awarded to them from 1701 onwards. In effect, this provision reveals that all immigrants to Britain who do not ethnically derive from the indigenous peoples Kingdom of England, Scotland , Wales or Ireland as defined by Jus Sanguinus at the time of the 1701 act, are from 1701 onwards, incapable in law of being awarded the hereditament of British citizenship.

Of Hereditaments there are two types ; Corporeal Hereditaments and Incorporeal Hereditaments. The Act of Settlement 1701 specifies 'Hereditaments' in the provision on British Citizenship which is a clear statement based on both the Golden Rule and Literal Rules of statutory interpretation that the Act of Settlement applies to both forms of hereditaments and that the Act of Settlement was enacted to ensure that immigrants entering Britain could not be awarded British Citizenship after 1701.

In Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the Second - Chapter the Third : Of Incorporeal Hereditaments it declares ; " VII. Franchises are a Seventh species. Franchise and liberty are used as synonymous terms: and their definition is, a royal privilege, or branch of the king's prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject. Being therefore derived from the crown, they must arise from the king's grant; or, in some cafes, may be held by prescription, which, as has been frequently said, presupposes a grant. The kinds of them are various, and almost infinite ".

Blackstone therefore affirms that an award of Naturalised Citizenship to immigrants by Parliament using the Crowns prerogative is an actual hereditament. This means that all Nationality and Naturalisation acts pbutted by Parliament since 1701 that have awarded the hereditament of British Citizenship to immigrants who have not derived from indigenous British stock are in fact unlawful and that such immigrants given the hereditament of British Citizenship since 1701 are not British Citizens. All the Nationality Acts pbutted since 1701 have in fact all been Ultra Vires as Parliament has never had the power to pbutt such laws awarding citizenship status to immigrants.

Metric Martyr precedent

This was also re-affirmed in the case of Thoburn vs City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane:

62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'consbreastutional statutes.' The special status of consbreastutional statutes follows the special status of consbreastutional rights. Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ...

63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Consbreastutional statutes may not."

This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday, July 15 2002

Paragraph 62 ;

We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "consbreastutional" statutes. The two categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a consbreastutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or (b) enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental consbreastutional rights. (a) and (b) are of necessity closely related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also an instance of (b). The special status of consbreastutional statutes follows the special status of consbreastutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The ECA clearly belongs in this family. It incorporated the whole corpus of substantive Community rights and obligations, and gave overriding domestic effect to the judicial and administrative machinery of Community law. It may be there has never been a statute having such profound effects on so many dimensions of our daily lives. The ECA is, by force of the common law, a consbreastutional statute.

63; Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Consbreastutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a consbreastutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature's actual - not imputed, constructive or presumed - intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to consbreastutional statutes.

Nationality Acts unlawful

This case states that no law has been pbutted expressly repealing the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701, and nor could such a law be pbutted as to do would destroy the consbreastutional foundation of the whole structure of British law, Parliament and the British state, and this means that the provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701 are still in force and that all Nationality Acts pbutted since 1701 are unlawful.

In 1913 in the case of Bowles v Bank of England it was ruled that the Bill of Rights still stood, and the Crown could not justify any infringement of its provisions.

As no doubt many consbreastutional experts will be aware, on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: 'There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights.the house is enbreastled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.'

This further reinforced the status of consbreastutional statutes. From time to time there has been debate over removing the clause in the Act of Settlement 1701 that stops Roman Catholics or those those who marry Catholics from ascending to the throne. Proponents argue that the clause is a an anachronism. Opponents feel that repeal could lead to a Catholic buttuming the throne, and could lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England as the state religion. They also point to the issue that the monarch must swear to defend the faith and be a member of the Anglican Communion and that a Catholic monarch would, like all Catholics, owe allegiance to the Pope which would amount to a loss of sovereignity.

There are significant difficulties where the Act of Settlement regulates the succession of all the Commonwealth Realms of which the Queen is Sovereign and a change in the United Kingdom would not automatically apply elsewhere - where the Act would be unchanged. This could easily result in the succession being different in certain countries, and a division of the Crown could result. The Act of Settlement is also the Consbreastutional treaty that ensures the independence of the Judiciary through the provision that Judges and can only be dismissed by both Houses of Parliament reinforces the status of the Act itself.

Foundation of our consbreastution

The Act of Settlement 1701 is the foundation of the British consbreastutional structure. The Act is the basis of the right of succession of the Crown and therefore is the legal basis of the power of Parliament itself. As Parliament derives its power from the Crown , to change in any way any sections of the consbreastutional rules in the Act is to undermine the legitimacy of the Crown, Parliament and the rule of law itself. The Act of Settlement stands wholly as it is, or the whole consbreastutional structure of the British state falls.

Therefore under Consbreastutional Law rules then the Act of Settlement is still in force and negates all awards of citizenship to all foreigners since 1701. This status of the Consbreastutional laws as still being in force was clarified by Betty Boothroyd in 1993. The fact that the ratio decidendi in the case of Metric Martyrs case was stated by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in the House of Lords, the highest court in the land, means that under Common Law rules, as well as Consbreastutional Rules, then the Judges should apply both Common Law and Consbreastutional law and strike down the basis of all citizenship status of foreigners in Britain. The Courts have no choice in this matter, for them to refuse to rule that the Citizenship status of immigrants is unlawful means they are in breach of the rule of law itself.

Consbreastutional Law is also above that of ordinary Parliamentary Acts and therefore the Consbreastutional Rule takes precedence over any acts of Parliament such as any Nationality Acts.

UN treaties

The fact that legal rights enshrined in various United Nations treaties on the rights of minorities such as the indigenous English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish peoples within the British State to create their own ethnic political, cultural, economic and community structures for self government have been denied by the British state since 1701 and 1707 also brings in an international law element.

Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties the United Kingdom government have a duty in international law to give effect to those international rights such as Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, (ETS No. 157), entered into force January 2, 1998.

Article 4

1. The Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national minorities the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law. In this respect, any discrimination based on belonging to a national minority shall be prohibited.

2. The Parties undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures in order to promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority. In this respect, they shall take due account of the specific conditions of the persons belonging to national minorities.

Article 5

1. The Parties undertake to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve the essential elements of their idenbreasty, namely their religion, language, traditions and cultural heritage.

2. Without prejudice to measures taken in pursuance of their general integration policy, the Parties shall refrain from policies or practices aimed at buttimilation of persons belonging to national minorities against their will and shall protect these persons from any action aimed at such buttimilation.

Article 5 ( 2 ) of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, (ETS No. 157), entered into force January 2, 1998 clearly states that any laws that are pbutted by a signatory to the treaty that force the people of a national minority to buttimilate with other groups are unlawful and is therefore further confirmation of the illegality of successive British government immigration policy since 1701. The United Kingdom government has a clear legal duty to give effect to the rights of the indigenous British people and begin the repatriation of all those who have been awarded citizenship status unlawfully since 1701.

Under the rules of Legal Positivism therefore the Judges have no choice but to rule that all those awarded Citizenship status since 1701, other than by ethnic descent from indigenous Britons, are in fact not British citizens.

Multi-culturalism falls apart

This is also confirmation that the ideology of Multi-Culturalism is also illegal both in theory and practice. As Multi-Culturalism is predicated upon the introduction of immigrants into Britain then it has no legal basis in law as to its operation. This also means that all the Race Relations Acts are also illegal in the United Kingdom as they are predicated upon the lawful right of such individuals in the UK who come under the act to be here legally. As the Act of Settlement prohibits them from having British Citizenship then the Race Relations Acts are Ultra Vires.

In a democracy there are two ways to take power in accord with the rule of law. The first is for the people to vote those in power out of power. The second is to destroy the Consbreastutional basis of the rule of law itself as claimed by Parliament. The failure by Parliament since 1701 to abide by the clear rules of the Act of Settlement means that all laws pbutted since 1701 that conflict with the Act of Settlement are in fact unlawful. An attempt now by Parliament to annul provisions of the Act of Settlement would undermine the very basis of the rule of law and the consbreastutional foundations of Parliament, the Crown and the British State.

Therefore the whole basis of the rule of law has been undermined by Parliament since 1701 and a democratic revolution is required to bring the law back into legality.

Therefore the whole legal basis of the modern British state is unlawful and all laws that conflict with the Act of Settlement 1701 are unlawful.

Population Audit

The BNP as stated in its manifesto intend to undertake a National Population Audit, once we come to power, in the name of National Security. There are more than one million illegal immigrants are hiding in the country; unless these illegal entrants are removed then we can never be safe in our country. Illegal immigration is the sea in which the person swims. All the so called ' security laws ' pbutted by this government as a response to the July 7th plantings are facile and useless unless the ocean of illegals where the persons hide is drained.

It is our plan to ensure that not a single illegal remains in this country within five years of a BNP government coming to power. At the same time we intend to register all legal British citizens within the British Nation so that illegals will never be able to utilise services paid for by British citizens.

All those immigrants who arrived here from British Commonwealth countries and dependents who have been given citizenship status under the Nationality Acts due to their Commonwealth nationality status will have their British Commonwealth Citizenship status enshrined in law. All those immigrants from non-commonwealth countries with British citizenship awarded under one of the illegal Nationality Acts will have their cases reviewed on the basis of service to the British nation e.g. they have been in the armed services, NHS, police, legal system etc.

Criminals

All immigrants convicted of any serious crimes such as liquidate, rape, drug smuggling, terrorism etc. in the past will forfeit their British Citizenship rights and be returned with their dependents to their ancestral homelands.

All Guest Workers and their dependents invited into the country in the past solely to work will be returned to their ancestral homelands. All economic migrants and dependents given British nationality status in the past will also be returned to their ancestral homelands.

The population of the UK reached an estimated 60 million in mid-2005 and is still growing, by more than 250,000 a year. Our numbers have increased sixfold since 1800 and by a fifth since 1950, and the environmental impacts of this growth are already clear, especially in the relentless pressures for development on our finite supply of land. Officially projected to rise by about 0.35 per cent a year to reach 65.7 million by 2031 - an increase of 6.1 million, our population growth rate rose to 0.5% in 2004 and looked set to rise even higher in 2005.

This growth in the population of Britain is due solely to the influx of immigrants. If we are to preserve our national culture, ethnic character, environment and culture we have to begin the process of returning the immigrants who have no legal basis for residency in the United Kingdom. Since 1996 the overall settlement figure of immigrants into Britain has doubled from 62,000 to 125,000 in 2000, 108,000 in 2001, 118,000 in 2002 and 143,000 in 2003. The total since 1963 is nearly 2.5 million and that figure does not include the estimated one million plus illegals living in the country.

Optimum Population Trust researchers have concluded that a population of 30 million may be the largest that the UK can sustain in the 22nd century if it is to be largely self-sufficient in clean energy, if continuing damage to local and global environments is to stop, and if its citizens are to enjoy an acceptable quality of life. Not only do we have a moral duty to return the immigrants who have no right to be in Britain in order to preserve our country for future generations, it is now clear we also have a legal duty to do so.

Ed. Similar problem in Australia as well. The Immigration Restriction Act (known to leftist subversives as the "White Australia Policy") has never actually been repealed. Moreover multiculturalism has never been pbutted as law, much less given the backing of the people. Yet we keep being told we are a "multicultural society" with all the legal, political, cultural and economic organs that go with it-support it. Like the "separation of church and state" mantra in the United States, it is an undemocratic top-down edict enacted through the grapevine, not law...

-- Jim Union Against Multiculty

"Abolish Multiculty and String Up The Traitors!"