[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]

Earlier this year, Front Page Magazine revealed that the UK was estimated to have more political prisoners than Cuba with speech interdictions totaling 1,000 arrests a month. Many of these arrests involve speech critical of the presence of Muslims in the UK including the mass arrests of anyone revealing that, contrary to the government’s denials, a Muslim terrorist had stabbed 3 little girls to death. Now it’s been learned that the British government ran a scheme to smuggle thousands of Afghans into the UK and banned reporters from speaking about it.

Over the last several years, UK governments secretly brought in over 35,000 Afghans at a cost estimated to be as high as $9 billion. The ‘operation’ went on even though the UK’s Ministry of Defence estimated that at least 1 in 10 of the smuggled Afghans would be homeless.

But what happened next was even more shocking. After a data breach leaked information about the operation, the British government, claiming that it was trying to protect the Afghans it was smuggling into the UK, demanded an ‘injunction’ that banned anyone from reporting on it.

A leftist judge who had previously intervened for migrants then went further with a ‘super injunction’ aimed “against the world” that threatened reporters with huge fines and prison time if they even discussed the news with each other. Senior members of the government were unable to disclose to the public where the money was going because of this ‘super injunction’.

Year after year, governments colluded to maintain the ban and the censorship even as more Afghans poured into the UK. And no one in the UK was allowed to discuss what was going on.

The authorities claimed that they needed mass censorship to prevent the names of the Afghans they were smuggling from being leaked to the Taliban, but it’s likely that the Taliban already knew the names, the injunction certainly did not limit the Taliban and the ‘super injunction’ could have banned the release of any identifying information from the data breach without concealing the existence of the Afghan smuggling scheme which the Taliban were certainly aware of.

The Afghans weren’t being smuggled past the Taliban, but past the eyes of the British people.

The ‘super-injunction’ appears to have led British governments to provide distorted figures of Afghans entering the UK and misleading budget figures because both the Labour and Conservative governments did not want the public to know where their money was going.

The secrecy and the censorship has made it difficult for the British people to learn the truth about the destructive scale of the operation. Various figures have been provided for the cost of the Afghan smuggling scheme ranging from $1 billion to $9 billion (figures have been converted from pounds to dollars) and the number of those brought over from 4,000 to 35,000.

Afghans have already been invading the UK by boat, certain that if they can just land, they will be allowed to stay. With asylum approval rates peaking as high as 98%, Afghans poured in to take advantage of a ‘streamlined asylum process’ reserved nearly entirely for migrants from Muslim countries.

Former PM Rishi Sunak had promised the nation that he would fight illegal migration by accelerating asylum requests so that their claims would be processed “in days or weeks, not months or years” with “shorter guidance, fewer interviews, less paperwork”. And rather than cleaning up mass migration, Sunak turbocharged it for Afghans and migrants from other Muslim terrorist states. The “fewer interviews” allowed Afghan Muslims to apply for asylum without an interview, without paperwork and with even less vetting than there had been before.

This was not a response to public outrage over mass migration and it certainly did nothing to deter it or expel migrants from the UK, rather it provided cover for secret smuggling schemes that were intended to continue the fundamental transformation of Britain.

PM Sunak, like PM Starmer, lied to the public, pretended to care about mass migration all the while speeding it up and leading a relentless campaign to suppress any mention of the harm being caused by Muslim mass migration through a wave of social media speech arrests and a censorship scheme aimed at the public and the media to protect the smuggling of Afghans.

What was the ‘super injunction’ really protecting? A future wave of Islamic terrorists.

The recent independent review of the ‘super injunction’ that finally lifted it concluded that “there is little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution”. If the thousands and tens of thousands of Afghans being smuggled into the UK were really opponents of the Taliban who had loyally aided the UK, why wouldn’t the Taliban want to come after them?

The reason the Taliban don’t is because these ‘refugees’ are really enemy invaders.

Americans were sold the same phony bill of goods about the urgent need to take in Afghans in order to save them from the Taliban. But the tens of thousands of Afghans brought here illegally by Biden were waved through by the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s Haqqani Network who controlled access to Kabul Airport. The Afghans coming here weren’t fleeing the Taliban, they were vetted by the Taliban. And since then there’s been a wave of Afghan violence in the United States.

Those are the same Afghans that the Biden administration and a number of Senate members working on a bipartisan deal to ‘secure the border’ urgently tried to legalize. As Front Page Magazine reported at the time, the legalization scheme was necessary because the Afghans had no basis for filing legitimate refugee asylum requests. Much like the UK’s ‘streamlined’ scheme for Afghans, the Biden administration pushed to cut refugee resettlement and vetting times from years to days. At that speed, no one noticed (or pretended not to notice) that 36,400 Afghans carried an unidentified document and at least 11,110 had fake birthdays. 659 of the Afghans were either missing a first or a last name. So much for the “gold standard” vetting.

Five years ago, Front Page Magazine exposed the fraudulent ‘interpreter’ visa program that had been used as the basis for bringing tens of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis to America. 70,000 Iraqis and Afghans came here on the so-called translator/interpreter visas from 2007 to 2017. And 48,601 of those SIVs went to Afghans. At its peak, under Obama, there were 100,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan. That’s an “interpreter” to every 2 soldiers.

By March 2021, 100,000 Afghans and Iraqis had been approved for SIVs. The number of ‘interpreter’ visas kept on growing even as the number of U.S. troops dwindled to nothing.

The British and American governments lied to the public to force the mass invasion of Muslim migrants into their respective countries. The only difference was that the lack of free speech in the UK allowed its government to back up those lies with mass censorship.

But now the truth is coming out.