Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

So what can in practical terms fully halt illegal immigration?

662 replies

Wellwhatnowbellaboo · 09/05/2026 10:06

Reform has won by a landslide .... immigration is probably by the look of it the biggest issue. What can realistically without breaking laws be done to really halt this with a big impact ? What would Farage actually do ? Would and should we as a country break some laws to get this done and speak to what people really feel is an issue ? (Many countries do). This is not in labour's dna so I doubt anything will come if it now ... but if you've thought about it or you have solutions what are they ?
And if you are opposed- why and what's the answer ?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
Jamesblonde2 · 09/05/2026 16:41

SomedayIllBeSaturdayNight · 09/05/2026 12:21

Illegal immigrants cannot access benefits of any kind. So already done!

But they are housed and fed and receive medical treatment, given taxi transport, free legal aid to fight their claim. They are better off than some British citizens who have to pay for EVERY one of those things.

What is that then, £1500 per month or more?

Yes it might not pass their hands, but it’s a free bloody holiday isn’t it?

Then the illegal working at the dodgy shop.

Don’t be so bloody naive.

Friendlygingercat · 09/05/2026 16:40

Having a tough policy like Australia where cases are processed offshore and people are never allowed to settle within this countryunless they can prove they have some unique skill that we need.. We could process them on cold and miserable Scottish islands and send them to the Fallklands to build a nice new life there. Another cold wet miserable place.

ilovesleep6 · 09/05/2026 16:39

Jamesblonde2 · 09/05/2026 16:35

Hope you’re in the top 1% of tax payers to pay for it all.

I would like to ask people like this: when would be the point where they say ‘stop’?

When the population hits 100 million? 1 billion? When there is no countryside left because we’ve had to built houses on every spec of land?

likelysuspect · 09/05/2026 16:39

EasternStandard · 09/05/2026 16:34

What has changed in terms of funding and collaboration?

On how many we’d take if it was based on population density England would have fewer than most places in EU and Wales and Scotland could take more.

It costs us a lot more, a lot more and we cant rely on reciprocal returns in the way we used to. Theres more detail than that, but thats the upshot.

I didnt say we would take more than other EU countries, I said we would take more than we do now. I talked about the UK in general, I didnt separate it out into our countries.

Whatifitallgoesright · 09/05/2026 16:38

Two Hundred Thousand. Four Per Cent Removed. This Is the Record.

A milestone was passed today. Over two hundred thousand people have crossed the English Channel illegally since 2018. That is the population of Norwich arriving uninvited over eight years. Of that number, fewer than 8,000 have been deported. That is under four per cent. The boats keep coming. The removal rate stays static. And the government calls this a managed situation.

The numbers surrounding this milestone are equally damning. Forty-one thousand crossed last year alone, a thirteen per cent rise on the year before. Seventy-six per cent of arrivals are adult men. The threat level has been raised to severe. Foreign nationals imprisoned for sexual offences have reached a record high. Three hotel migrants were convicted of gang rape in Brighton last month. A 12-year-old girl was raped in Nuneaton by Ahmad Mulakhil, an Afghan who had arrived four months earlier on a small boat. He was processed, housed, handed a Home Office debit card, and left unsupervised in a community that never consented to the risk.

The small boats are not the whole picture. Nearly 3,500 asylum seekers from 112 countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya entered Britain using visa schemes designed specifically for Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion. The same countries MI5 has publicly identified as primary sources of Islamist terror plots against British citizens on British soil. And a secret Afghan resettlement programme was run under a superinjunction for years, meaning Parliament and the public were legally barred from knowing it existed. It cost £400 million. The public found out in July 2025 when the injunction was lifted.

This is how 200,000 becomes possible. Boats across the Channel. Legal schemes hollowed out and filled with nationals of 112 countries never intended to use them. Secret programmes run behind superinjunctions. And a removal rate of four per cent that has barely moved in eight years.

On St George's Day, April 23, the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood signed a £662 million deal with France and called it a landmark. The detention centre at the heart of it holds 140 people. In the week that followed, French authorities intercepted 74 of 323 attempted crossings. The arithmetic requires no commentary. Days later the 200,000 milestone was passed anyway.

Meanwhile the 2039 accommodation contracts, worth an estimated £10 billion, sit quietly in the background. You do not sign thirteen-year housing contracts for a problem you intend to solve. You sign them for a situation you have decided is permanent, while maintaining for public consumption that the boats will stop and the hotels will close.

The lie is not that the system is broken. Broken systems can be fixed. The lie is that anyone in authority is seriously trying to fix it. The contracts, the interception rates, the removal figures and the milestones all point in the same direction. This is not failure. It is policy.

greenapplez · 09/05/2026 16:37

HermioneWeasley · 09/05/2026 11:27

A polish friend was saying to me that if people try to get into the country illegally the army use water cannons on them. They are removed if spotted on the streets. Local communities don’t tolerate the building of mosques - if any are attempted they are pulled down in the night.

What happens to British born people who are muslims? Would they have to worship in secret?

Jamesblonde2 · 09/05/2026 16:35

usedtobeaylis · 09/05/2026 12:00

Stop criminalising migration. You're not going to stop it, people will always try to move, they always have and always will. The focus should be in creating a more humane system to process migrants.

Hope you’re in the top 1% of tax payers to pay for it all.

EasternStandard · 09/05/2026 16:34

likelysuspect · 09/05/2026 16:27

Ok, I got confused because you seemed to think that if a new scheme started where each country has to take a proportion based on size, the UK would have fewer asylum seekers, whereas we would have more. So you knew already it would lead to more?

You also said that they should be claiming asylum in the first safe country and when I pointed out they dont have to and this is legal you seemed suprrised and said this needed to change?

You've also made a comment about 'The French dont want to do that' in terms of preventing asylum seekers from getting on boats to come here but didnt seem to understand that our collaboration and funding to France changed after Brexit which means of course the joint work that we relied on, has changed slightly to our disadvantage

The French do try to stop people getting on boats because they dont have permission to make a channel crossing, the busiest channel in the world (dont quote me on that) and so they stop it from that perspective. Or try to.

What has changed in terms of funding and collaboration?

On how many we’d take if it was based on population density England would have fewer than most places in EU and Wales and Scotland could take more.

Jamesblonde2 · 09/05/2026 16:34

Allseeingallknowing · 09/05/2026 11:51

Completely agree. Nothing will happen otherwise.

And those dodgy legal advisors and firms telling the illegals to say they are gay, or whatever. They need clamping down on. The number of them in cities, all claiming legal aid (fees increased last year by 10%) is another layer and complete steal of taxpayers money. It’s an absolute racket.

DefiantRabbit9 · 09/05/2026 16:32

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 09/05/2026 13:58

And join Russia and Belarus as the only European countries not party to it?

And why not? Clearly it's not fit for purpose. When the human rights of bona fide criminals, which make no mistake is exactly what anyone who enters the country illegally is, are protected more than the human rights of people who are native to a country there's a problem.

likelysuspect · 09/05/2026 16:31

Vivienne1000 · 09/05/2026 16:27

Farage could send every single one back to their country of origin and tell them to reapply through the legal route. We are the end of them passing through many safe countries. We all know why that is.

Each country has to agree to take the person back. We would have to have proof of the country in the first place

The legal route for someone to claim asylum in this country is to do so at point of entry, there is no other route.

Vivienne1000 · 09/05/2026 16:31

Passaggressfedup · 09/05/2026 10:55

Why arent they seeking asylum in the first safe country? Once they choose to go through another safe country, or many other safe countries, imo they are no longer asylum seekers. They have other reasons for wanting to come specifically here, not just to a safe place
Typical 'its not my problem, don't give a shit if it becomes my neighbour's' attitude.

The fact that the UK is the furthest away from where most asylum seekers land doesn't mean it's lesser their responsibility to the problem.

Of course many decide to make it here. Because the closer countries are already overwhelmed (yes, news scoop, it's not just a UK issue!), and of course the language and free NHS is going to be part of their reason to keep going too!

And in France they live in tents…..

Wordsmithery · 09/05/2026 16:31

HermioneWeasley · 09/05/2026 11:27

A polish friend was saying to me that if people try to get into the country illegally the army use water cannons on them. They are removed if spotted on the streets. Local communities don’t tolerate the building of mosques - if any are attempted they are pulled down in the night.

Is that really what we want for Britain?

likelysuspect · 09/05/2026 16:29

DrasticAction · 09/05/2026 16:21

@likelysuspect do you really think we have any capacity to take more people in than we do legally ??

Im not sure where I said this? Could you point to it?

Jamesblonde2 · 09/05/2026 16:28

Latenightreader · 09/05/2026 11:39

If that is true it sounds horrendous. "Local communities don't tollerate the building of mosques - if any are attempted they are pulled down in the night"? I am really struggling to articulate quite how sick this makes me feel.

Poland isn’t a Muslim country?

Vivienne1000 · 09/05/2026 16:27

Farage could send every single one back to their country of origin and tell them to reapply through the legal route. We are the end of them passing through many safe countries. We all know why that is.

likelysuspect · 09/05/2026 16:27

Allseeingallknowing · 09/05/2026 16:21

Yes, I know those things, but that doesn’t help the problem !

Ok, I got confused because you seemed to think that if a new scheme started where each country has to take a proportion based on size, the UK would have fewer asylum seekers, whereas we would have more. So you knew already it would lead to more?

You also said that they should be claiming asylum in the first safe country and when I pointed out they dont have to and this is legal you seemed suprrised and said this needed to change?

You've also made a comment about 'The French dont want to do that' in terms of preventing asylum seekers from getting on boats to come here but didnt seem to understand that our collaboration and funding to France changed after Brexit which means of course the joint work that we relied on, has changed slightly to our disadvantage

The French do try to stop people getting on boats because they dont have permission to make a channel crossing, the busiest channel in the world (dont quote me on that) and so they stop it from that perspective. Or try to.

EasternStandard · 09/05/2026 16:24

ByQuaintAzureWasp · 09/05/2026 16:19

Let's be honest. Nigel Farage duped the public into thinking that Brexit would solve our immigration problems. What it did was make it 100 times worse ... no longer can we just return said asylum seekers to France.

Look up the numbers for this, here and anywhere else. No one is just sending people back otherwise Italy, Spain and Greece would have to take everyone back.

We took more than returned, criteria is high and the country has to say yes.

likelysuspect · 09/05/2026 16:23

LoremIpsumCici · 09/05/2026 16:16

Yes although that is not for seeking asylum. You cant do that unless you're on our shores. You can request settlement here under a number of criteria but its very narrow.

People are talking about all sorts of immigrant here so the conversation veers from one thing to another.

Allseeingallknowing · 09/05/2026 16:21

likelysuspect · 09/05/2026 16:19

Out of interest, genuine question, did you really not know that people dont have to seek asylum in the first safe country they get to? Also did you not know that we take a small proportion of asylum seekers compared to our size and in comparison pro rata to other countries?

Are you aware that our collaborative abilities with Europe changed after Brexit to our disadvantage?

Im interested to know how people dont know this.

Yes, I know those things, but that doesn’t help the problem !

DrasticAction · 09/05/2026 16:21

@likelysuspect do you really think we have any capacity to take more people in than we do legally ??

Allseeingallknowing · 09/05/2026 16:20

EvangelicalAboutButteredToast · 09/05/2026 16:16

I think we should have a one in, one out policy. We put together a national database of all the British nationals that are happy to allow asylum seekers to have full access to citizenship and the NHS, welfare etc and we ship those Nationals out to the country if the individual entering the country. This would obviously be dependant on the asylum seeker having the correct paperwork on entry and would also need to involve the British National having accommodation that the asylum seeker could occupy.

This is a workable solution as we don’t then have a problem with finding accommodation for rhe asylum seeker although obviously paying bills on the residence could be problematic. Perhaps access to welfare for a set amount of time to get them on their feet? It would also allow the British National to contribute to building uo the developing country the asylum seeker has left.

We already have a one in, one out policy- it’s a flop! The one you suggested wouldn’t work.

DrasticAction · 09/05/2026 16:19

@HermioneWeasley ironically my polish sister in law' has said due to the iron curtain the eastern European counties haven't seen much diversity and can be quite racist

LoremIpsumCici · 09/05/2026 16:19

Latenightreader · 09/05/2026 11:39

If that is true it sounds horrendous. "Local communities don't tollerate the building of mosques - if any are attempted they are pulled down in the night"? I am really struggling to articulate quite how sick this makes me feel.

It’s not true. It’s a fart in a teacup.

likelysuspect · 09/05/2026 16:19

Allseeingallknowing · 09/05/2026 16:15

Hmmm, thinking cap on again. Back to the simplest solution then, slash the boats! Stop them getting on them. Of course the French don’t want to do that! That’s what they should always have been doing. Raise the criteria for eligibility to live in the U.K. There’s not a one size fits all. Useless to keep saying it’s a small amount of people and money. It’s big enough to make a difference, as people who were interviewed in the street before the local elections, made clear.

Out of interest, genuine question, did you really not know that people dont have to seek asylum in the first safe country they get to? Also did you not know that we take a small proportion of asylum seekers compared to our size and in comparison pro rata to other countries?

Are you aware that our collaborative abilities with Europe changed after Brexit to our disadvantage?

Im interested to know how people dont know this.