Reform will stop the boats - "When the Australians faced a wave of illegal boat migration, they deployed their military in response. Illegal crossings fell to zero within weeks. It ended the crisis. It also saved lives. Between 2007 and 2013, 1200 migrants had died making the journey. The Australian military operation reduced that to zero. Over 170 migrants have already died trying to come to Britain via the Channel – this policy would have saved their lives too. The Tory Labour establishment will say it can’t be done. They must, or face the reality of their own failure. But the former Navy commanders who engineered this plan leave no room for doubt: it can be done, and it must be done."
Michael Howard: Reform won’t stop the migrant boats, but I have a solution that will - "When I was home secretary, in 1995, I reached an agreement with my French opposite numbers, under which any migrant who was refused admission to one country would be returned to the other... Under the provisions of the European Union, of which we were, of course, still a member, the Dublin Convention was due to come into force in 1997. Under the terms of the Convention, asylum seekers in the European Union were required to make their application in the first safe country they reached and, if they didn’t, they would be returned to that country. Had it worked it would obviously have led to a sharp reduction in the numbers seeking asylum in the UK. So I accepted a clause in the 1995 agreement I made with France which provided that, in relation to asylum seekers, it would be superseded by the provisions of the Dublin Convention. I thought the Convention would work. How naïve I was. It became entangled in the bureaucracy and red tape which were so characteristic of the EU. Astonishingly, for most of the time when it applied to the UK, as members of the EU, the numbers returned to us from other countries exceeded the numbers returned by us. So much for the claims sometimes made that Brexit is to blame for the channel migrants crisis, as the Dublin Convention would have ensured their return. I, at least, did not have the benefit of hindsight. Those who make those claims do. So to claim that the Dublin Convention would be the answer means that they are either deceiving themselves or wilfully deceiving the public."
Basil the Great on X - "🚨BREAKING: RED CROSS DELETES VIDEO AFTER MIGRANT MURDERS BRITISH WOMAN
The Red Cross made a sympathetic cartoon video showing the journey of Sharif, an Afghan travelling to Europe When Sharif got there he MURDERED a British Woman and stuffed her body into a suitcase They wanted you to feel sorry for him but he killed a young woman like the savage that he is The Red Cross must be held to account for the blood they have on their hands"
Reformer on X - "Former Conservative minister Edwina Currie suggests a policy of brothels in villages near asylum seekers as a way to reduce sexual violence"
James' dog. on X - "Interesting the discourse has moved from ‘future doctors’ to ‘we need to feed asylum seekers with naked women or they’ll commit heinous crimes.’"
Luckily, the human rights of the asylum seekers are well-protected
Zara Hussain on X - "A street in Bristol still has the England flag up. Strange, because the World Cup ended weeks ago. When will Bristol Council remove them?"
Railfan Reborn on X - "> Foreigner immigrates to England
> UK government spoils her with unlimited welfare
> Demands the flag of her new country be torn down anyways
Remigration is the moderate solution."
Migrants need to be protected from seeing such hate symbols, so they should be sent to a place where they will probably never see them again, e.g. their countries of origin
There’s only one ‘fair’ place to place illegals, and that’s Bristol - "At last, an admission from the Government that illegal immigrants are a pain in the neck. After years of wagging their fingers at uppity plebs who dared to say it’s not nice to have 800 men from God-knows-where imported into your community, now officialdom admits that’s true. How else are we to interpret Andy Burnham’s harebrained proposal to house more of these un-vetted blokes in middle-class parts of Britain? It’s not right, he says, that it has fallen to our “poorest communities” to host these border-busting men. So in the name of “fairness”, he’ll be calling on leafier towns to “play their part”. This is the closest we’ve had to an acknowledgement that these intruders are a burden. That all that blather about them being “vulnerable” souls from war-torn lands who might just “enrich” our lame nation was just that – blather, lies, the faux-virtuous bleating of a clueless political class. What Burnham is essentially saying is that we must share out the pain of illegal immigration. So can we all say it now? Are we finally free to say it is deeply undesirable to wake up one morning to find hundreds of men from distant, regressive lands wandering through your town? It is precisely the accidental truthfulness of Burnham’s proposal that makes it so insane. It is unforgivably reckless to wilfully inflict social pain on proud, tidy towns. It is an assault on the soul of England itself to subject the most pleasant parts of this green and pleasant land to the menace of un-vetted foreign men. Not content with sowing rage and tension in working-class towns by stuffing the local hotel with men from afar, now the Government wants to serve up the same madness in the manicured enclaves of middle-class Britain... The impact has been dire. Women and girls feel unsafe. Some have suffered horrific assaults, including those seven Doncaster girls aged between 12 and 16 who were trafficked for sexual abuse by an Iraqi asylum seeker. Social media is awash with video evidence of the civic discord caused by our deranged experiments in mass immigration. But the solution is not to “share out” such social misery. A responsible government would see such problems and think: “How might we put a stop to this?” And not: “What other towns can we bring this lunacy to?” If we must house these men who have no right to be here, I say send them to Bristol. That Green-run city puffs itself up as a “City of Sanctuary”. Its preening activist class claims to love migrants. Green Party leader Zack Polanski reckons mass immigration is “Britain’s superpower”. Okay, here you go. Both middle-class towns and working-class suburbs have made it crystal clear they don’t want these armadas of men, so you can have them instead... Home Office minister Anna Turley says this is about calling on middle-class communities to do their “fair share” in the great migrant crisis. This cuts to the blackened heart of the immigration issue. What in God’s name is “fair” about asking hard-working communities to take up the slack of the state’s dereliction of duty? What is “fair” about demanding that even towns of 300 or 400 people open their arms to 1,000 men who barged illegally into our nation? These are staggeringly unreasonable requests. The Government is treating historic communities as if they were board games, which it might manoeuvre and fiddle with as it pleases... What an extraordinary abdication of the very first duty of a state, which is to defend its territory, and its people. Forget messing with middle-class communities – just police the borders and swiftly deport intruders. And, for the meantime, let’s make Bristol take more than their “fair share”."
Burnham’s migrant plan is going to blow up in his face - "Such an admission only makes sense politically if the Government appeared actively to be trying to stop the flow of boats, and then negatively processing and returning those young men who arrived in this manner. This isn’t what people see. All they hear are excuses about how hard it all is. Secondly, the timing was a disaster: straight after the massive incursion of illegal immigrants into the Spanish territory of Ceuta, and the sighting of huge new boats in the English Channel capable of carrying more than 250 men. In effect, it looks like the scale of the problem is so enormous, asylum seekers are essentially “spilling out” into rural England. Thirdly, and this is yet to be felt in earnest, the pictures are going to be terrible. By housing asylum seekers in parts of England that could be used as a backdrop to an episode of Poirot, Reform and others will be able to portray the starkest, most extraordinary contrast, that voters across the country will find shocking. At present, to an extent, asylum seekers have often been hidden in plain sight. In hotels in less affluent, often-multicultural areas, you wouldn’t necessarily know who was an asylum seeker or not. Now, villages with small and settled populations will find themselves dwarfed by large-scale accommodation facilities next door. This takes us to the issue of class. In justifying the move, a Downing Street source said: “Andy feels the current system is unfair, and as a point of principle, he wants to see a redress of the distribution.” Extraordinarily, this source confirmed the move would cost more money, apparently because of the difficulty of finding cheap accommodation in leafy areas: “He acknowledges that it would cost more money to do it fairly, but that is what we need to do.” This sounds like Labour’s justification for a wealth tax – as well as their earlier taxes on private education – and it reflects how the modern Left sees class. They seem to think there’s a negative working-class identity which is formed primarily through hostility and struggle. It’s as if there’s a zero-sum game, where working-class people suffer because of middle-class privilege. The problem is, the English working class don’t think like this. While they tend to favour wealth taxes and a progressive tax system more generally, this is entirely because they want more money to pay for the NHS and other public services. They don’t want a punishment beating meted out to middle-class people out of hostility or envy. Most working-class people want to “get on” themselves – and certainly they want their kids to have opportunities for a better life – and don’t view the affluent as the enemy. More to the point, their identity isn’t formed by negative perceptions of struggle, but mostly by positive perceptions of their local area and their country. They tend to love their towns and their local heritage and they tend to love England too. This is why they love their (fading) high streets, their heritage sites and local football clubs – but also usually the British Armed Forces and the Royal family too. It’s this mix of local and national patriotism which explains their hostility to the housing of so many asylum seekers in their towns. Most feel their local area can’t physically cope with so many new arrivals; and most dislike the idea of a country with no border control. The English working-class will not come to think Burnham’s policy is a fair and good one; on the contrary, they’ll sympathise with those now affected and think it underlines the incompetence of the political class. If Burnham is hoping for working-class people to think “now the posh people can have some”, he’ll be sorely disappointed. There’s another important aspect of the English working-class the left forgets, which is directly applicable here. Where class hostility emerges, it’s because of perceptions of unearned, unfair wealth or benefits... this is why working-class people tend to be the toughest on welfare cheats. And this is why so many are so angry with the current asylum system, which appears to be set up to attract and then reward those who come here illegally."
Burnham’s asylum housing plea is a costly political misjudgment - "When Mr Burnham learnt that two of the killers of Pc Andrew Harper were set to be released from prison early, he decided nothing could be done, went on holiday, and apparently hoped the problem would fix itself. He seems to think the same way about Britain’s broken asylum system. In neither case is he correct."
Middle-class Britons understand what a genuine refugee is – Andy Burnham doesn’t - "The Prime Minister apparently has much less common sense than ordinary people. They know the difference between today’s bogus “boat people” and genuine refugees, such as Jews fleeing the Nazis, Hungarians in 1956, Ugandan Asians in 1972, or Hong Kongers and Ukrainians more recently. Middle-class Britons are the most generous and hospitable people on earth: look at their unique munificence to charity and readiness to volunteer. But they don’t see why they should pay the price for the Government’s failure to secure our borders. Many readers will know British families who have made real sacrifices to help Ukrainians over the past few years. It is an insult to hundreds of thousands like them for Andy Burnham to suggest that only the poorest are “playing their part” towards refugees. Blaming middle-class Britain for Labour’s failure to control migration suggests that the new PM, like his predecessor, has no answers to the problems of migration and integration."
The Left is finally paying the price for its idiotic belief in open borders - "Burnham’s plan should have at least one tremendous benefit. Smug, middle-class progressives will finally receive their comeuppance because, for the very first time, they’ll be forced to face the consequences of their own idiotic beliefs. No longer will they be able to proclaim that refugees are welcome here, safe in the knowledge that the “refugees” will in reality be deposited in the type of frightful, gammony dumps that vote Reform, far from their own charming locales. And, just as importantly, no longer will they be able to delude themselves about the type of men that the boats tend to contain. These delusions were exquisitely exemplified by the BBC comedian, Zoe Lyons, during an edition of Question Time in November last year. Britain, she declared, was “missing a trick” by failing to take advantage of all the “talent” that the small boats’ occupants have to offer. “Many” of them, she explained, are “doctors”, “scientists” and “engineers”. Seemingly, it had not occurred to her that, if these men were doctors, scientists and engineers, they wouldn’t be coming to Britain by dinghy. They’d be coming by plane because they would have easily secured a visa. Also, if the boats are filled with doctors, scientists and engineers, why do the French do so little to prevent them from setting sail?... such imbecilic fantasies will not survive Burnham’s new plan. As a result, middle-class Left-wingers should belatedly grasp why it is that the rest of the country is so unhappy about illegal immigration, and realise that it’s not merely because everyone is a massive racist. Of course, I suppose it’s possible that these people will stay true to their principles by joyfully welcoming the new arrivals into their neighbourhoods, and eagerly inviting them to their dinner parties. (“And will you be bringing your wife and children, Mr...? Oh, I see. It’s a funny thing, but just about all you refugees seem to be single men. Don’t women and children flee war and persecution, too?”) Equally, though, they might respond like Rachel Millward, the Green Party deputy leader, who indignantly fought Home Office plans to house 600 male asylum seekers in a former Army training camp in her part of East Sussex. Or like Calum Miller, the Lib Dem MP, who’s been fighting plans to house 1,250 male asylum seekers in a former MoD site in his part of Oxfordshire. Given a choice between these two approaches, I would guess that most middle-class progressives will opt for the latter. If so, it will do our immigration debate the world of good. Because there’s only one way to cure the woke Left of their support for open borders. And that’s to give them exactly what they claim to want."
Brendan Clarke-Smith on X - "Doctors, nurses and engineers don’t generally throw their documentation away and pay gangs to smuggle them in on small boats."
In 2025, we still had left wingers claiming many "refugees" are doctors, engineers and scientists. The exact quote (~11:45): "As a country, we're missing a trick as well. If we have all of these people who have coming over seeking asylum, many of them coming from countries where they'll have been doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, and we're sticking them away"
The middle classes didn’t work so hard to see their areas ruined by illegal migrants - "The most infuriating aspect of Britain’s experiment with mass migration has been the way in which it was foisted upon the electorate with a contemptuous disregard for the very concept of a democratic mandate. Which party included in its manifesto a pledge to increase migration incrementally until it reached an all-time high of a million newcomers a year? Not New Labour. Not the Conservatives under any of their leaders. Not the Labour party of Sir Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham. Nobody asked us about it. Yet that is what we got. Which brings me to Burnham. Yesterday, our brave new leader announced that middle-class families should “play their part” by keeping schtum while small boat arrivals are given accommodation nearby... New YouGov polling has revealed that just one in five people now think that migration has been “mostly good” for the country. In January, 79 per cent of voters wanted the Government to concentrate on stopping small-boat crossings... how many of the illegal migrants streaming across the Channel are genuine asylum seekers? It’s absurd to expect people who have worked extremely hard to build a good life for their family to potentially jeopardise all that in order to accommodate migrants who shouldn’t be here in the first place. If our political masters really cared, they’d do something about that. Both legal and illegal immigration may be thorny problems to solve, but they are the product of Britain’s own policies and political culture, and our leaders are squarely to blame. Take the small boats: forget “smashing the gangs”, for heaven’s sake. If every man landing on our shores was incarcerated pending deportation, possibly in some nightingale-hospital-style pop-up prison on a remote Scottish island, with no mobile phone, no access to black-market work, no cash handouts and no hotel accommodation, the problem would soon dry up. This vandalism is, in other words, the result of political choices. It is not some natural disaster afflicting our country that requires us all to pull together and share the burden. It was brought upon our heads without our consent by a political class that is a) incompetent and b) steeped in the twin dogmas of centrist fundamentalism and niceism, both of which have been resoundingly discredited. Yet now Burnham expects the beleaguered middle classes, who are already groaning under historically vast levels of taxation, to put up with a load of foreign criminals – for they arrived, let’s not forget, illegally, and from the safe jurisdiction of France – on our doorsteps. I don’t want to live next door to a Hadush Kebatu, the Ethiopian small boatman who sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl within days of arriving, or a Mohammed Sharwarq, the Syrian who assaulted a cleaner, a head chef and other residents, or any of the numerous other violent migrants who have been welcomed with such generosity by our governments. Why should we? I repeat: we never wanted it, we never consented to it, and we have frankly had enough of it. For this reason, let me float a counter-proposal. Every prime minister since 1997, and every home secretary, should take four illegal migrants into their homes, and pledge to care for them with great compassion until such time as the migration crisis is over. Starting with Burnham himself. That should focus their minds."
One cope is to claim that net migration estimates are wrong because the methodology sucks
Human rights means you can't detain asylum seekers, so too bad
Andy Burnham still isn’t listening on illegal migration - spiked - "The post-Southport riots were like a heatmap of Home Office-imposed asylum accommodation. According to a private cabinet briefing, ‘15 out of the 20 primary disorder hotspots’ during those grim days in summer 2024 ‘are in the top 20 per cent of local authorities with the highest numbers of supported asylum seekers’. But the answer is not bussing more Sudanese to Sevenoaks, or more Afghans to Alderley Edge. If anything, the chances of ending up in one of Britain’s more premier postcodes could become yet another one of those ‘pull factors’, making a £2,000 ‘mega-dinghy’ ticket look like even more of a sound investment. The primary issue with illegal migration is clearly not the uneven distribution of illegal migrants. But rather than leave the ECHR, rip up the Refugee Convention and finally detain and deport those who violate our borders, Labour appears resigned to shifting the problem around. There is a curious literal-mindedness to how the government is responding to public outrage over asylum. Protests outside of migrant hotels? Let’s move the migrants into HMOs, then! Oh, you don’t like the HMOs, either? Let’s stick them on some old military bases instead! It’s almost like they think we’re mugs. If Burnham reckons any of this is going to placate the populace, he’s in for a shock. Indeed, the latest place to erupt over the asylum issue is well-to-do Piddington, a village in Oxfordshire, which is threatening to declare independence over plans to stick 1,250 male migrants in the nearby Bicester Garrison – a number almost four times larger than Piddington’s tiny population. The British people are not heartless, migrant-bashing bastards. They can be incredibly generous to refugees when there is a pressing need, a sense of historical or moral obligation, and precious few concerns around crime or cultural compatibility. Which is why hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Hongkongers have settled here in recent years without anyone raising an eyebrow. But they’re also not idiots. They know that allowing anyone to claim asylum, provided they can pay a people smuggler enough to ferry them across the Channel, is illegal migration by another name – not least given these people aren’t actually fleeing war, they’re fleeing France. They also know that opening the door to men, and they are almost all men, about whom we know nothing, often from cultures with frankly medieval attitudes towards women, is unlikely to end well. The now daily stories about horrific sex attacks committed by illegal migrants, have revealed, once again, the wisdom of the masses and the wilful blindness of our virtue-signalling elites. No one voted for mass and illegal migration. Voters don’t want the effects of it shared out more equitably across the income scale. They just want it to stop. One day they might get a government that is actually willing to listen."
Donna Louise on X - "Just when you think the UK couldnt get more ridiculous. Asylum seeker Amgad Abouelazm has 67 offences (51 of them theft). Homeless. On drugs. Stealing from shops and cars. Now the Home Office is housing him and paying him benefits. Magistrates give him a conditional discharge and order zero compensation because his means are “limited.” This is what “asylum” looks like in Britain in 2026. 67 crimes. Zero real consequences. Taxpayers still paying. We are being taken for fools!"
Tony Smith CBE on X - "It’s probably worth saying at this point something I’ve said before, lest it gets lost in the sands of time and political rhetoric about immigration and illegal entry, and how we got to this point. I was an immigration officer in the 1970s and 1980s. The power to grant or refuse leave to enter was vested to me in law under the authority of a Chief Immigration Officer. Anyone arriving without a valid passport (and a visa if required) was refused entry at the border, detained, and removed on the next available ship or aircraft whence they came. This was under the Immigration Act 1971 (still In force although amended massively by successive governments ever since). It was some 20 - 30 years after the 1951 ECHR and the 1951 Refugee Convention was signed. Nobody claimed asylum. Nobody claimed human rights. No country refused to take people back. Those who had destroyed their passports were removed on a letter, signed by me. Fast forward 50 years and now anyone who arrives at the border without a passport or a visa automatically claims asylum or human rights. Immigration Officers of today (or Border Force Officers) are thereby disempowered to send them back before their asylum claims or human rights claims are considered. And their appeals are dismissed. They cannot be detained in the meantime because under the Hardial Singh principles immigration detention is only lawful if there is a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period of time. Which there isn’t of course. So the only option available to the officer is to grant temporary permission whilst these applications are considered. And if the applicant claims to be destitute they must be given support and accommodation at public expense. Because failure to do so would put the government in breach of A3 of the ECHR (inhuman and degrading treatment). And even if the applicant is eventually refused protection - and loses their appeal - we need to get a passport to remove them on. And they often refuse to comply with the documentation process. Even if they do many countries still refuse to issue them with a passport and refuse to take them back. And even after all this they can abscond and if ever caught start the whole process again. This is where we are and so far no government has been able to break the Gordian knot that ties the hands of our officers. In order to do that they would have to reverse decades of laws and judgements - and demur from long held well intentioned international conventions. And probably look at the British Constitution itself to curtail the opportunity of political opponents to use the courts to thwart the will of Parliament. This is not to criticise or favour any political party or policy. It is simply a matter of record to inform the next generation of politicians and the civil servants charged with the duty of implementing any new laws or policies they may introduce. And to ask why - if we did it back in my day - why can’t we do it now? I even wrote a book about it. I hope someone keeps a copy for posterity - or even history - when thinking about how to fix this seemingly intractable problem."
Rupert Lowe MP on X - "The British Dental Association has accused me of 'potentially dangerous rhetoric' because I oppose illegal migrants getting priority dental care - as evidenced by Restore Britain's investigation. I suspect the British people agree with us..."
Daily Mail on X - "TV presenter who exposed people smugglers forced to flee home after police warned of death threats"
Mary Harrington on X - "This is also why rape gang investigations keep finding asylum seekers among the suspects Because it’s all the same network of criminal gangs Britain has an ethnic mafia problem"
