When is 'illegal' 'iregular'? When the EU controls your immigration policy

Tereasa May is today telling everybody how serious the Governement is when it comes to dealing with immigration. It is a sham of course, because even she admits she and the government have no say obver migration from EU countries. With the EU becoming even more involved with foriegn policy and Justice policy the Government's room to manoevre on non-EU immigration just gets smaller.

Just yesterday the EU anounvced the creation of a visa regieme with the Ukraine, and they are setting deals with India, Moldova and others are planned. The EU still believes that it requires mass inward migration, no matter what the populations of the nations of Europe think about the matter.

In other words, Europe needs immigration to survive. Therefore, we need to find more legal ways to the EU", says Cecilia Malmström.

But here is how the arguement is being twisted by the European Union. After all people will get angry about illegal immigration. That is immigration that is not specifically accepted by the Governmenst of those nation states. So what do they do. They change the word. Non legal immigrants are no longer to be called 'illegal', far from it, now they are merely 'irregular'.

The Parliament consequently welcomes the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and welcomes the increased parliamentary dimension of these policies, notably concerning legal migration and integration.

The European Parliament actively supports the introduction of a European immigration policy. On the admission of third-country nationals, it calls for the development of legal means, particularly to reduce incentives for irregular (1) immigration.

And the footnote?

1 Parliament prefers the term ‘irregular’ to ‘illegal’ because it does not believe that irregular entry to the territory of EU justifies the reference to illegality.

You cannot charge somebody for commiting an irregular act. You cannot deport somebody for a mere confusion with the system. Changing the owrds makes a massive difference to how a situation can be handled, and they know it.

I guess it would be irregular of me to smash them over the head with a lead pipe? Or irregular to force feed them a rolled up copy of the Bill of Rights? After all the defence of my soveriegnty, indeed fighting for self determination doesn't really justify reference to illegality does it now?