If you used Clearing in 2024, how did you find it?

Britain Under Siege: How Long Will We Tolerate Lawless Immigration?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511

The ongoing crisis of illegal immigration across the UK and Europe is, to put it bluntly, a problem that seems to be spiraling out of control. The numbers of those caught crossing the Channel in small boats are staggering—18,467 in 2024 alone by mid-August, surpassing the figures of previous years. It was 45,000 in 2022! More than 90% of these illegal immigrants are men. (https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/668) These are just the ones who have been recorded; the real numbers, hidden from the official statistics, are almost certainly much higher. Each of these crossings represents a failure of our borders, our policies, and, dare I say, our will as a nation to enforce our own laws.

Now, let us not mince words: illegal immigrants are, by definition, criminals. They are individuals who choose to break the law before they even set foot on British soil. The argument that these people are simply desperate for a better life, while perhaps true in some cases, does not absolve them of the fact that they are undermining the legal framework of this country. This isn’t just about sympathy or charity; it’s about maintaining the integrity of a system that is already overburdened. When we allow this sort of flagrant lawlessness, we send a message that our borders and our laws are optional, suggestions to be disregarded if inconvenient.

Consider the absurdity of the Conservative government's proposal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda—a scheme as impractical as it was sensationalist. It was always destined to fail, a stunt designed more to generate headlines than to solve any substantive issues. The plan ignored the complexities of the situation and ultimately did nothing to deter the tide of small boats making the perilous journey across the Channel. It was the kind of policy that reveals more about the desperation of its creators than the seriousness of their intent.

However, acknowledging the failure of the Rwanda scheme does not absolve us of the responsibility to act. Something must be done, and it must be done with more seriousness and efficacy than the farcical attempts we've seen so far. Our government needs to address the root causes of this crisis, clamp down on people-smuggling operations, and—perhaps most crucially—send a clear, unambiguous message that illegal immigration will not be tolerated.

Let me be crystal clear—this discussion is not about legal immigration. Legal immigration is an entirely different matter, governed by laws and processes that ensure those coming to the UK do so through the proper channels. This post focuses solely on illegal immigration, where individuals bypass these established routes, breaking our laws in the process. Legal immigrants contribute to society through their skills, taxes, and cultural diversity, and they are welcomed within the framework of our immigration system. The issue at hand is the uncontrolled and unlawful entry of people into this country, which undermines both the rule of law and the very concept of national borders.

In the end, if we continue down this path of inertia and half-hearted gestures, the UK will face not just a crisis of illegal immigration but a crisis of governance, where the rule of law is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. We have already seen wide-spread riots across England and Northern Ireland about this in the last few months, we may see more of this. This may also see the growth of popular support for groups like Reform UK and we may see their already shocking vote share grow. That is a price we cannot afford to pay, so what is to be done?

Reply 1

PS Reviewer

Terry Pratchett would be sickened to read this guff by someone named after one of his characters.

Have you even read Jingo?

Reply 2

Rincewind_Bored

Original post by PQ

Terry Pratchett would be sickened to read this guff by someone named after one of his characters.
Have you even read Jingo?

A+ debating and intellectual engagement there!

So I take it you're all for illegal immigration? Now, keep in mind that it is distinct from legal immigration.

I think any sane person can recognise unchecked illegal immigration is a problem. Terry Pratchett was famously left-wing but was far from a groupthink sheep incapable of critical thinking and considered independent thought.

Reply 3

SHallowvale

Illegal immigration, of the nature we're seeing, does not constitute as a "siege". I think such language poisons the debate about immigration and sends a rallying cry to those who despise all forms of immigration, legal or not.

Reply 4

Gazpacho.

We chose to take back control of our borders.

(edited 1 month ago)

Reply 5

Rincewind_Bored

Original post by SHallowvale

Of course, don't engage in the debate... just engage in tone policing. Classic.

There is also a difference between posting an eye-catching forum topic name to encourage engagement and whatever hyperbolic nonsense you're talking about. Just desperately grasping at a deplorable to affix to dismiss rather than engage in any debate.

(edited 1 month ago)

Reply 6

SHallowvale

Original post by Rincewind_Bored

Of course, don't engage in the debate... just engage in tone policing. Classic.
There is also a difference between posting an eye-catching forum topic name to encourage engagement and whatever hyperbolic nonsense you're talking about. Just desperately grasping at a deplorable to affix to dismiss rather than engage in any debate.

Nobody here has to accept the way you've framed the issue. I happen to think that illegal immigration should be lowered, but I disagree with how you've framed the problem. "Seige" is an incredibly strong word, the kind that encourages idiots to riot in the streets and set fire to buildings.

I trust you used the word to make the thread "eye-catching" but I still don't think it's justified. Inflammatory language like that should play no part in this debate, certainly not after what we saw a few weeks ago.

Reply 7

Admit-One

Universities Forum Helper

What a load of twaddle.

Reply 8

Genesiss

are you specifically talking about preventing people smugglers, or who are you referring to when you speak of 'illegal immigrants'?

cuz travelling by small boat alone doesn't make one a criminal nor an illegal immigrant; to be in an illegal immigrant one must be living in a country illegally, as in they failed to present themselves to the authorities and claim asylum; alternatively, they make an asylum claim and it is rejected, in which case they would be deported.

see links below – there is no such thing as an illegal asylum-seeker. seeking asylum is a legal process, and everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country that has signed the 1951 Refugee Convention (there is no obligation to seek asylum in the first 'safe country' one travels through, though the UK has adapted measures to encourage it). people who don't qualify for protection as refugees will not receive refugee status and may be deported, but just cuz someone doesn't receive refugee status doesn't mean they are an illegal asylum-seeker.

note that it is recognised in the 1951 Refugee Convention that people may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.

https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/

since such travel is dangerous (and for political optics, and cuz the executive knows brits don't want to import poverty) to deter small boat crossing, the tories passed the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to make asylum claims 'inadmissible' if the person arrived by 'irregular routes' (small boat) therefore could not be processed in the UK and instead the person may be removed to a 'safe' third country whilst their application was considered (exceptions apply). thing was shut down by the Supreme Court and the High Court of Belfast, and massively criticised by local/international legal authorities/experts, cuz it is incompatible with international law obligations. also note the then home secretary was unable to make a declaration under the HRA 1998 that all its provisions were compatible with the UK’s human rights commitments under the ECHR.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/illegal-migration-act-2023/

tl;dr: IMA 2023 massive failure, rwanda scheme scrapped, and currently thousands of asylum claims received since its passing are now being considered as a priority by the home office cuz of a successful claim for judicial review (see link below for more info). applicants have a legal right to stay here whilst their applications are considered; they are not 'illegals'. however, Starmer has said he is open to the idea of offshore processing.

https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/news-and-cases/home-office-agrees-to-consider-asylum-claims-for-everyone-in-rwanda-cohort

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/19/home-office-will-decide-asylum-claims-of-thousands-stuck-in-rwanda-scheme-limbo

just point this out cuz it's not uncommon to spread myths about immigration, like all those asylum seekers in hotels are here illegally (they are not). idk how to stop small boats cuz one can't claim asylum unless they are here. also idk how to tackle people smuggling if that is the question

Reply 9

Jebedee

If you didn't apply for your visa and await approval before turning up then in my eyes you are an illegal immigrant. Despite what euphemism the home office uses.

Reply 10

hotpud

Original post by Rincewind_Bored

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511
The ongoing crisis of illegal immigration across the UK and Europe is, to put it bluntly, a problem that seems to be spiraling out of control. The numbers of those caught crossing the Channel in small boats are staggering—18,467 in 2024 alone by mid-August, surpassing the figures of previous years. It was 45,000 in 2022! More than 90% of these illegal immigrants are men. (https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-release/668) These are just the ones who have been recorded; the real numbers, hidden from the official statistics, are almost certainly much higher. Each of these crossings represents a failure of our borders, our policies, and, dare I say, our will as a nation to enforce our own laws.
Now, let us not mince words: illegal immigrants are, by definition, criminals. They are individuals who choose to break the law before they even set foot on British soil. The argument that these people are simply desperate for a better life, while perhaps true in some cases, does not absolve them of the fact that they are undermining the legal framework of this country. This isn’t just about sympathy or charity; it’s about maintaining the integrity of a system that is already overburdened. When we allow this sort of flagrant lawlessness, we send a message that our borders and our laws are optional, suggestions to be disregarded if inconvenient.
Consider the absurdity of the Conservative government's proposal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda—a scheme as impractical as it was sensationalist. It was always destined to fail, a stunt designed more to generate headlines than to solve any substantive issues. The plan ignored the complexities of the situation and ultimately did nothing to deter the tide of small boats making the perilous journey across the Channel. It was the kind of policy that reveals more about the desperation of its creators than the seriousness of their intent.
However, acknowledging the failure of the Rwanda scheme does not absolve us of the responsibility to act. Something must be done, and it must be done with more seriousness and efficacy than the farcical attempts we've seen so far. Our government needs to address the root causes of this crisis, clamp down on people-smuggling operations, and—perhaps most crucially—send a clear, unambiguous message that illegal immigration will not be tolerated.
Let me be crystal clear—this discussion is not about legal immigration. Legal immigration is an entirely different matter, governed by laws and processes that ensure those coming to the UK do so through the proper channels. This post focuses solely on illegal immigration, where individuals bypass these established routes, breaking our laws in the process. Legal immigrants contribute to society through their skills, taxes, and cultural diversity, and they are welcomed within the framework of our immigration system. The issue at hand is the uncontrolled and unlawful entry of people into this country, which undermines both the rule of law and the very concept of national borders.
In the end, if we continue down this path of inertia and half-hearted gestures, the UK will face not just a crisis of illegal immigration but a crisis of governance, where the rule of law is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. We have already seen wide-spread riots across England and Northern Ireland about this in the last few months, we may see more of this. This may also see the growth of popular support for groups like Reform UK and we may see their already shocking vote share grow. That is a price we cannot afford to pay, so what is to be done?

Just out of curiosity, you are in charge and a boat full of men, women and children arrive on the south coast shores. What do you do? Here are some things you can't do.

•

Push them back out to sea where you would potentially put them at risk of injury or death (immoral on every level)

•

Send them back to France - France won't happen and you would risk a huge diplomacy row which could ultimately risk food and goods imports being stranded in Europe causing massive hikes in food prices

•

Send them back to their country of origin - see last point

•

Go on - your turn. What do you do with them?

As long as we have a thriving economy and are a safe country, people will come. I suppose we could become a pariah state like Russia but is that really what you want?

Reply 11

Rincewind_Bored

The notion that we can deal with this migration crisis by each country going it alone, particularly after the Brexit debacle, is not just misguided—it's downright delusional.

First and foremost, what we need, what we must have, is a coordinated effort across the European continent. This isn’t merely a British problem, nor is it a French one, or Italian, or Greek. It's a pan-European issue, one that affects the entire socio-economic fabric of the region. To imagine that we can resolve it without the collective might, intellect and will of the European community is to indulge in the same kind of small-minded nationalism that led to the Brexit vote in the first place—a move that, by the way, has only exacerbated the very problems it claimed to solve.

It’s not just about sharing the burden; it’s about recognising that in an era of globalisation, our fates are inextricably linked. Whether we like it or not, what happens in one part of Europe has a ripple effect across the entire continent. So why not tackle these challenges head-on, as a united front? Why not pool our resources, our intelligence, and our capabilities to create a system that works not just for the UK, but for the whole of Europe?

I do not pretend to have an overall solution to this problem, I am simply saying there needs to be a solution to this issue. I do think that solution needs to be set at a European level however. This is more complicated in a post-Brexit Europe, but it is possible.

I am sure whatever the solution we will be talking about temporary holding measures for illegal immigrants until backgrounds can be checked, and applications for asylum can be made, heard and granted or declined. The problem is that this will cost a lot and burden the taxpayer. But again, if we deal with this at a European level, we can ensure a fairer share of that burden.

We would need to have repatriation agreements in place with the countries these people are coming from, and the ability to enforce repatriation if the asylum requests are denied.

Another serious issue is what happens when and if people are granted asylum. We need to streamline their opportunity to become gainfully employed to avoid the inevitable draw of making money through nefarious means and their being exploited.

It is also vitally important the public are informed on what is going on. The more transparent we are about this, the less opportunity populists have to spread disinformation and sow the seeds of mistrust and hatred. If the public feel we are hiding things from them, at our expense, then resentment will grow and we will see growing support for populism.