I’ve just watched a rather tedious parliamentary questions session with Priti Patel fending off accusations of incompetence. The debate, if we can call it that, centres around the Rwanda plan, but it was in answer to a question from Kevin Hollinrake about the Linton on Ouse reception facility where she gave the game away.



“Reception centres are the way forward” she remarked, before offering vague assurances that she continues to work with Hollinrake (but not actually committing to answering his question). Regardless of the Rwanda plan, if it even gets off the ground, the plan is still to escort migrants ashore and file them away in reception facilities. There is still no plan for removing asylum cheats.

In all probability the Linton on Ouse facility will go ahead because the government is running out of places to put new arrivals and hundreds more are arriving every day. We’re running out of hotels. The pressure will continue to build. The NGOcracy will continue to close down means of removal and the issue will continue to fester. There is no plan to stop the boats.

But then there is no incentive to solve the issue for the Tories. For as long as this remains an active concern, the Labour party continues to reveal its motives. The director of one of the main groups involved in preventing the Rwanda flight taking off is standing to be a Labour candidate at the next general election. Labour remains an open borders party, and their idea of a solution is to create more “safe and legal routes”. The Labour view is that hotels and reception facilities are unacceptable and that migrants should be housed in the community. Labour doesn’t have a problem with flooding our towns with Somali gang rapists and child groomers and giving them a free house.

Being that the right are absolutely terrified of a Labour government, they will tolerate endless incompetence from this government, and the longer it goes on, the more Labour reveals itself to be unelectable. It’s a win win for the Tories.

In the Commons today we saw renewed calls to exit the ECHR, which brings the issue back into Brexit territory, opening up the usual debates about national sovereingty, but again this is a red herring. We do need to rethink human rights, but one thing Labour is right about is that the Home Office is underperforming by every single measure, and the number of asylum decisions under Patel has collapsed.

One wonders if the long delays are part of the deterrence strategy, but if it is, it’s not working. Economic migrants have sussed that the system will eventually reach saturation point and if removals are effectively outlawed, we may well see a change of government and an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Mass detention in Britain is not a long term solution.

Personally I don’t see why we don’t just fly them out to a camp in the Falklands. As it’s a British territory, it removes any legal basis for challenging removals. But that won’t happen either. This has got to go one of two ways. Either we effectively abandon border control of any kind, as preferred by Labour, or we start acting unilaterally and scrap the entire human rights framework. Since the Tories won’t do the latter, the issue will fester in its current state until the Tories lose an election. Ultimately this is only going to get solved if a UKIP type party is capable of threatening the Tories.

The bottom line, as Priti Patel notes, is that Britain’s capacity to help refugees is not infinite, not is Britain able to cope with a perpetual stream of incomers from alien cultures. We still haven’t properly integrated the first waves of mass immigration and our northern towns are still reeling form it even today. Pouring more petrol on the bonfire will further contribute to the ghettoisation of Britain and the disintegration of law and order. As cities become multicultural and ethnic Brits leave for the boondocks, we then become a two tier country of county and conurb, where any kind of national consensus based on shared values is impossible.

This week we’ll be bombarded with sob stories, but Britain, a small insignificant island (so we were told), cannot provide for anyone who rocks up, and certainly not without doing an injustice to Britain’s own needy. It comes down to one basic assessment. Either we believe in borders or we don’t. If we do them immigration must be controlled, and any system of asylum has to be proportionate and fair. If we don’t believe in borders then we can no longer sustain a welfare state or an NHS, and we become a low trust society where equal enforcement of the law is impossible. This is a wedge issue because you can’t have it both ways – and now is the time to pick a side.