Best Of

The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.

I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from

I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income

In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it

We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here

I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.

This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.

It's not surprising the British are furious.

This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.

More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.

The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.

Yep me too. I'd love to put it all (or even mainly) down to low economic growth and increasing inequality but I'm afraid I can't. I'm not succumbing to 'Farage PM is inevitable' though. Not yet anyway.

The way I would characterise the situation is with reference to Newtonian Mechanics.

Britain is currently on a political trajectory that leads to Farage becoming PM. So we only avoid Farage becoming PM if something happens to change the trajectory.

Now, maybe Starmer, his Cabinet, and his new Chief Secretary, will do something, and the trajectory will change. Maybe they've already set plans in motion that will bear fruit before the next election to that effect and we simply can't see it yet.

Thus far I have seen very little evidence that they have done so, or are capable of doing so. But one lives in hope.

Morning all! Bright and sunny here again; not like autumn at all!

I struggle somewhat with this immigration issue. My natural inclination is to help people who are suffering and the idea of telling someone who has spent everything to escape persecution to "go away and knock next door.... any other door' fills me with horror. Equally the idea of telling someone that they can come because they're fit and strong and can do something the country needs...... like help someone like myself, who needs assistance with care ...... but they can't bring their spouse and children, or even their old granny who will help look after said children is anathema. I don't mind new religious establishments either.

But I'm not keen on having people about who are wearing so much on the heads that I can' only just about see their eyes. I do think that if one moves to a new country there ought to be an element of 'fitting in'... doing what the Romans do.

I can understand people objecting when asylum seekers are put up in hotels that they'd have difficulty in affording themselves, even if the hotels, in reality, aren't providing anywhere near the service they provide normally.

And I do feel sad when I see green farmland turned into housing!

Wise words from old shoulders which I wholly endorse

The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.

I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from

I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income

In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it

We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here

And those 'family' would be classed as legal immigrants.

Its one of the reasons why 'dependants' have increased as a proportion of immigrants.

More economically inactive burdens on the taxpayer.

Dig deep wage slaves. Others need your money.

Why presume they will be economically inactive?

Because statistically that is the case for adults and clearly children brought won’t be.

Some will, some won't. They're not a homogenous whole. The children will grow up and become economically active, like children born here do.

If we those granted asylum and their families to be economically active, let's help them to be so by resolving asylum cases promptly, so people can enter the labour market, and providing educational support, e.g. improving people's English. Let's stop viewing anyone as a "burden on the taxpayer" and start viewing everyone as a potential asset to the country.

So the £7B a year hotel bill is an asset, who would have thought. They get everything else free on a plate why not add English lessons to their driving lessons, laptops, phones , etc.
It is madness, we cannot employ our own wasters, so we pay a fortune to people on the dole and another fortune bringing in more wasters and then politicians wonder why things are crap.
Viewing all this from ivory towers by bleeding heart wokes may look great but not so good if you are in the middle of it I bet.
Some people are able to imagine that this is not the way forward and it will not end well if it continues.

It is in our interests that immigrants speak English.

Actually it's very hard to learn English in the UK, there are very basic English courses but if you want more than that you have to attend adult literacy or GCSE classes for adults, which of course are aimed at native speakers

I tend to assume that economic migrants should learn English at their own expense, but where are the coursrs they can pay for?

With school rolls predicted to start falling after 2026, there's a fairly obvious policy win/win for a vaguely imaginative government.

Boriswave levels of immigration aren't manageable, as the last few years have demonstrated, but the proposition that we need zero net immigration is, IMO, daft.

Unfortunately, we have a government scared of its own shadow, which seriously inhibits constructive (versus reactive) policy making.

The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.

I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from

I’m afraid the conversation has moved on . Reform and the Tories don’t want even genuine asylum seekers. If you’re non white and here legally you’re likely get more abuse as the atmosphere becomes even more toxic .

I do not accept your generalisation that conservatives dont want genuine asylum seekers and do not forget it was the conservatives who offered sanctuary to Ukranians and those from Hong Kong

Immigration into the UK has to be controlled, and it is not helpful for some to label those wanting the boats and migrants hotels to be stopped as far right and racist, because this has spread way beyond the far right to many in the population who just want fairness

Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, living here are integral to our community and if someone can stop the boats this issue will lanced

Yes, immigration has to be controlled (and it largely is). I think nearly everyone wants the boats to stop. It is government policy to get rid of migrant hotels. It is not far right or racist to want these things.

However, clearly some of the people protesting outside hotels and some of the people posting here are more generally anti-immigrant and want, in the words of one poster, more white babies.

There are extremes on both the right and the left but on the question of the boats and asylum hotels, it is unhelpful to brand those protesting and objecting as far right and racist when this is a view shared across many in the population and of course Starmer and Cooper would not be talking about deportation and even reclusing parts of the ECHR if they did not know this is a serious issue for them

It is a serious issue, yes. We agree on wanting to reduce the numbers coming over on boats and reduce the numbers staying in asylum hotels. However, those organising the hotel protests are objectively far right and racist. Those in the Epping Forest protests include, "Eddy Butler, a former British National Party (BNP) organiser previously linked to a violent neo-Nazi group; Callum Barker, an activist for the fascist Homeland Party; Toni Collins (AKA Ginger Toni), a key figure in the circle surrounding Tommy Robinson; Lance Wright, involved in the neo-Nazi music network Blood & Honour; former Combat 18 activist Phil Curson; and activists associated with the anti-Muslim group Britain First." See https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/07/18/violence-at-the-bell-hotel-far-right-footprints-in-epping-forest/

Indeed but again you miss the point that this is way beyond these agitators and is becoming the view of many of the population that the whole issue is unfair and has to be stopped

Both conservative and labour governments have singularity failed to address the problem which is spinning out of control

And the public dont just want the boats reduced, they want them stopped altogether

As I've said, I think we all agree that we want no boats and no asylum hotels. That's government policy. That has widespread support.

Yes, you're right that past governments have done badly at delivering on this. It was worst under Johnson, but hotel numbers fell under Sunak and have fallen further under Starmer. Those coming over on boats has gone up and done and has proven harder to stop, but criminal action against people smugglers is up. The first deportations under the new deal with France start soon. I hope these will be successful in reducing boat numbers.

Yes, we want boats stopped altogether, but the way to do that is to reduce the current numbers. The public want a solution, but I don't think the public want to give up traditional British values to get a solution immediately as long as we're moving in the right direction.

In the mean time, we shouldn't ignore the far right agitators who are bringing disorder to our streets. We shouldn't pretend that Eddy Butler and Ginger Toni and Tommy Robinson have legitimate concerns. We shouldn't let people legally in Britain be terrorised in parks because they have brown skin.

Regarding your penultimate paragraph the public do want an immediate solution and do not have any evidence that is anywhere near other than talk and vacuous promises

And what if there isn't an immediate solution? Or not one without unacceptable consequences?

There isn't an immediate solution but it suits the Conservatives and their lapdog Press to say that there is, even though they completely failed when they were in Government and, indeed, to a large degree were responsible for the situation in the first place.

The boats issue is missing the point. The problems are caused by three factors:

1. The Refugee Convention which defines widely who is entitled to asylum.
2. The fact that it removes the decision from the country concerned ie if the person fits the criteria they get entry automatically regardless of any factors (numbers, other unsuitability, resources, the wishes of a country's citizens). It is this loss of control which is a key issue. It might have been bearable when the numbers were small but seems less so when a significant proportion of the world's population fall within the criteria.
3. The fact that people can only apply for asylum when they are here and not from outside the country. This creates an obvious incentive to arrive here. (Plus the fact that when here it is easy to disappear into the black economy. @rcs1000 has said how this last might be addressed. So I won't repeat.)

So deal with each of these. Possible answers (each with their own pluses and minuses) include -

1. Withdraw from the Refugee Convention. State that if people want to come to live in Britain they have to apply in the normal way like everyone else and will only be accepted if they fulfil the criteria decided by the government here. Having a horrible time in a shitty state will not be enough. The govt could exceptionally give itself the power to admit some exceptional cases but this would be in its gift not an automatic right for the applicant. Brutal but probably effective.
2. Applications must be made outside Britain. If rejected only one very limited opportunity to appeal.
3. Anyone arriving here through unorthodox means gets arrested, detained in a secure facility ie not a hotel or HMO and gets deported to home state or third country. If they won't reveal where they are from, they get detained indefinitely. Again brutal but probably effective. No-one comes here to be detained and unable to work in the black economy or otherwise move around freely.

Lots of undoubted criticisms to be made of these suggestions. They may well be unacceptable for all sorts of reasons. But the ECHR criticism seems to miss the point. It is the Refugee Convention which creates the obligation and it is the wideness of its definitions which has made the gatekeeping so weak.

If you can't identify the problem accurately, it is harder than it need be to come up with an effective solution.

Morning all! Bright and sunny here again; not like autumn at all!

I struggle somewhat with this immigration issue. My natural inclination is to help people who are suffering and the idea of telling someone who has spent everything to escape persecution to "go away and knock next door.... any other door' fills me with horror. Equally the idea of telling someone that they can come because they're fit and strong and can do something the country needs...... like help someone like myself, who needs assistance with care ...... but they can't bring their spouse and children, or even their old granny who will help look after said children is anathema. I don't mind new religious establishments either.

But I'm not keen on having people about who are wearing so much on the heads that I can' only just about see their eyes. I do think that if one moves to a new country there ought to be an element of 'fitting in'... doing what the Romans do.

I can understand people objecting when asylum seekers are put up in hotels that they'd have difficulty in affording themselves, even if the hotels, in reality, aren't providing anywhere near the service they provide normally.

And I do feel sad when I see green farmland turned into housing!

This will help. Only four houses but it’s hard enough to get on the property ladder.


Asylum seekers 'are given new £300k townhouses with en-suites, EV charging points and underfloor heating'... while locals battle to get on the property ladder


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15052977/asylum-seekers-300k-townhouses-en-suites-Suffolk-village.html

So the actual story is Serco made an offer that was more attractive than the other options the builder / owners received

The reason is cost-plus contracting

Serco know that they can get any price from the Government, with a bit of profit on top.

So they can outbid anyone on vast swathe of the housing market.

And given that the profit is a percentage, the larger the actual price for the house, the better for Serco. "We only made 20% on the transaction".

The other advantage for Serco is that by going for new built, allegedly good quality housing, they don't get immediately sued for being slum landlords.

A suspected Russian interference attack disabled GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to land at Plovdiv on Sunday using paper maps, the Financial Times reported, citing three officials familiar with the matter.

We are at war with Russia. It's only a cold war at the moment, but it is a war nonetheless.

The sooner people start realising this, and acting on it, the better.

A suspected Russian interference attack disabled GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to land at Plovdiv on Sunday using paper maps, the Financial Times reported, citing three officials familiar with the matter.

We are at war with Russia. It's only a cold war at the moment, but it is a war nonetheless.

The sooner people start realising this, and acting on it, the better.

I know that.
But we're being invaded by asylum seekers. Which is far more important.
I know that because Russian bots are telling me and quislings are amplifying it and lapping it up.

The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.

I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from

I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income

In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it

We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here

And those 'family' would be classed as legal immigrants.

Its one of the reasons why 'dependants' have increased as a proportion of immigrants.

More economically inactive burdens on the taxpayer.

Dig deep wage slaves. Others need your money.

Why presume they will be economically inactive?

Because statistically that is the case for adults and clearly children brought won’t be.

Some will, some won't. They're not a homogenous whole. The children will grow up and become economically active, like children born here do.

If we those granted asylum and their families to be economically active, let's help them to be so by resolving asylum cases promptly, so people can enter the labour market, and providing educational support, e.g. improving people's English. Let's stop viewing anyone as a "burden on the taxpayer" and start viewing everyone as a potential asset to the country.

So the £7B a year hotel bill is an asset, who would have thought. They get everything else free on a plate why not add English lessons to their driving lessons, laptops, phones , etc.
It is madness, we cannot employ our own wasters, so we pay a fortune to people on the dole and another fortune bringing in more wasters and then politicians wonder why things are crap.
Viewing all this from ivory towers by bleeding heart wokes may look great but not so good if you are in the middle of it I bet.
Some people are able to imagine that this is not the way forward and it will not end well if it continues.

It is in our interests that immigrants speak English.

Actually it's very hard to learn English in the UK, there are very basic English courses but if you want more than that you have to attend adult literacy or GCSE classes for adults, which of course are aimed at native speakers

I tend to assume that economic migrants should learn English at their own expense, but where are the coursrs they can pay for?

Is there an issue with our prevailing southwesterly wind? If we dump migrants in life rafts just off France and they get blown into the shipping lanes, we just give the RNLI more work to do.

The last few days an easterly wind stopped all the pleasure boats from sailing in Llandudno and our son said on two shouts the wind caused problems for the operation of the RNLI inshore boat

As far as dumping the migrants in international waters off France no doubt in some type of lifeboat just seems a fantasy

There were unusual sea conditions last week due to sea swells resulting from storms in the Atlantic. The Waverley sailed from the Clyde to Dartmouth via the Pentland Firth and North Sea instead of via the Irish Sea. Sea conditions in the English Channel will have prevented small boats from sailing.