This migrant problem is going to let Reform in isn’t it?

[EvangelicalAboutButteredToast]

Honestly it’s such a bloody nightmare. Reform are making a total hash of local government from what I’ve read, putting teenagers in charge of whole departments with no relevant experience. What are they going to do if they are elected to run a country!!!! I’m honestly terrified. Labour need to be seen to be actively doing something to quell the far-right momentum that’s gaining traction from ordinary folk. I’m amazed at the average, usually pretty sensible people around me who are now telling me they are going to vote Reform.

there was an interview I saw yesterday where the minister said that thousands of people were being deported regularly. The interviewer asked why there were no videos of this and she said there could be. Well let’s see it! It would absolutely help.

Lol, no.

I work in adult social care and there is an huge amount of protection for disabled and older people in this country. This is why adult and children services are taking up most of the local authority budgets.

That's 20% of what we're currently spending on asylum seekers every year.

If it had discouraged just 20,000 asylum seekers it would have paid for itself. That's how much asylum seekers cost us.

Do you really think 20,000 people would have been discouraged because the UK planned to send 300 people to Rwanda?

Safe and legal routes would discourage people risking their lives in a small boat.

For the majority of refugees, the only way to claim asylum is being on British soil. The Rwanda plan would not have changed that.

£2m inheritance tax free band (mine is currently only £325k and the state takes 405 of all for which I have worked if I die) is very tempting - the Reform proposed limit. USA has an allowance of $15m tax free for single people and has for years and China and Sweden have no IHT. However I do not want the Tory vote split so it is going to have to be very tactical indeed come 2029 otherwise Labout will just get in again.

Only 10% of estates come within IHT so it is not likely to be relevant for most voters. VAT threshold to rise however and other points might https://www.tax.org.uk/general-election-2024-reform-uk-propose-big-cuts-in-income-inheritance-and-corporation-taxes

It was effective in voluntary movement to ROI, that wasn’t even paid for by the tax payer.

Instead we have tear gas on French beaches, overwhelmed police there dealing with fearful migrants plus protests, plus high costs.

I think everyone is over complicating this as usual.

If a woman posts on mumsnet saying she wants another kid, has 5 kids already and can’t afford to meet their needs. Most posters say well you have to think of your current children. You have to stop until your in a better position. It’s exactly the same. Just macro rather than micro.

The solution is quite simple and combines everyone’s ideas.

Safe and legal routes only.

You arrive in this country illegally then you are being deported somewhere else; and will never be eligible for citizenship. Where is a question, but plenty of countries manage to do this. No idea why we can’t.

Families primarily eligible for legal routes under asylum; a family must include women and children. Single males are foot loose and can go anywhere in the world. Unless you are a net contributor. Then you may apply as a single male. There is a cap.

Yes harsh to single males. I have a son. It’s sad for them. But men are statistically a risk. They might have family and friends here. So they can come on holiday. Sure they want to live here for xyz. Well likewise. There’s plenty of countries I would love to live in but can’t. Such is life. Life’s not fair.

Yes these safe routes and deportation routes take time to organise. Doesn’t matter. They can announce from tomorrow anyone entering illegally will no longer be eligible and will simply be risking their lives for no reason. They will be held until deported. Please await the new system.

That’s it. Simple as that.

I think that it would definitely have discouraged people, yes. I remember when the policy was being bounced around, I watched a journalist interviewing a potential immigrant on a French beach who was very knowledgeable about what was going on. The immigrant said that he didn't believe Rwands would go ahead, so it wasn't putting him off.

Potential asylum seekers are absolutely making rational, economic choices. The Left are hugely underestimating them - part of the weird racism the Left often display, where they see non-Westerners as Noble Savages for them to rescue.

If we implemented some of the suggestions by a pp above such as clamping down on the black market, maximum fines for businesses employing people illegally etc that would very quickly get our numbers back down.

The Left can tackle immigration effectively. It’s just that controlling migration requires saying no, and being mean to migrants. This is true whether you are coming from the left or the right.

Denmark has been cery tough from the left. From a recent economist article:

For a place with a cuddly reputation, Denmark has been cruel to its migrants. Authorities in 2015 threatened to seize asylum-seekers’ assets, including family jewels, to help pay for their support. Benefits were cut, as was the prospect of recent arrivals bringing in family members. Being granted permanent residency, let alone Danish nationality, takes longer than almost anywhere else. And it is far from guaranteed: those offered refuge are afforded protection only as long as conflict in their home country rages, their status reviewed every year in some cases. Somalis and Syrians once settled in Denmark are among those who have been asked to head back to a “home” their children have never known.

https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/07/10/denmarks-left-defied-the-consensus-on-migration-has-it-worked

clamping down on the black market, maximum fines for businesses employing people illegally etc that would very quickly get our numbers back down.

I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

More effective than protesting outside a hotel housing asylum seekers.

Getting Labour out in Wales will significantly weaken Starmer's position and will be another step to getting rid of him, with relentless public pressure.

I agree people make rational decisions and Rwanda would have made people decide differently, or more likely move on to ROI when here. That was happening already, not at a cost to the taxpayer, unlike pretty much all other stuff related to asylum which is very costly.

The illegal thing is just part of it, the asylum grant rate is quite high here so over half will know that they will be granted a yes eventually.

Have Labour done a good job so far? Maybe in some areas, but it's not like we ever hear about them because good news doesn't interest many people. Have they made a hash of some bits? Yes, but governing a country is really hard and I'm inclined to believe that it's not for lack of effort or good intentions.

It's due to sheer incompetence.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-asylum-seekers-are-entering-ireland-via-the-uk-and-what-does-it-mean-for-rwanda

The chart on that link shows the projection at IPOs

If people want to reduce costs then voluntary movement is pretty much free to tax payer, and doesn’t involve tear gas at migrants eg French coast. People just leave and pay for that themselves.

But not something individuals can do.

Until the government start listening and act on people's concerns, civil unrest will increase.

Why shouldn't they come to the UK?

The black economy is always blamed as the reason, and ID cards and digital money only will be the only way to solve that one.
They are just getting a grip of the level of fraud going on
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-yield-real-world-impact-in-companies-house-economic-crime-crackdown

• queried and removed false, misleading or incorrect information from the registers, with an impact on 100,400 companies - this often relates to the hijacking of innocent people’s identities or addresses, usually to enable criminality such as fraud or money laundering
• rejected 10,200 suspicious applications including where evidence has suggested mass incorporations at certain addresses are taking place - this practice has a known link with money laundering
• collaborated with The Insolvency Service and partners to identify approximately £50 million in UK property related to companies owned by organised criminals, which is now subject to ongoing asset recovery investigations
• played an active role in the first Europol Asset Sprint, which saw 43 law enforcement agencies across 28 countries, along with private sector partners, participating in this unique initiative aimed at enhancing the number of criminal assets seized globally

Individuals can report businesses or not use them.

People can express their concerns without it leading to civil unrest

Farage is good at stirring the pot.

This is why we need to try to coordinate internationally as regards tax on the super-wealthy. Nobody has the right to that amount of wealth, so we just need to try to claw back as much as possible from them. They have enormously increased their own wealth over the last two decades, and they do not care that the rest of society is falling apart.

I agree that the NI employers rise is not necessarily the best choice.

It could get much worse if they 1) Move our healthcare system to a more American model and make the majority of the workforce, and everyone else even more ill (this would be a good pretext for cutting statutary annual leave as well - if you are reliant on your job for medical care, they have more power over you). 2) Undermine our democratic constitutions, making it harder for other parties to unseat them, as we have seen in Turkey, Hungary, Poland to some degree, and which we are starting to see in the US. 3) Trial extremely risky tax changes which may trigger Truss-esque financial difficulties (only this time the rest of the party won't be there to chuck Farage, or whoever, out). 4) Undermine the existing expertise in the Civil Service (which isn't perfect, but image people like Robert Kennedy being put into ministerial positions and how they would behave). 5) Not only undermine climate change efforts but continue to deny the science behind them, that commands a consensus of the scientists who actually know about this stuff and which has done for years. Potentially they may undermine even the infrastructure we already have in place regarding this if they are puritanical enough.

This I am sure is just a selection. I've not even included anything which tends to get leftwingers like me incensed such as economic inequality, racism, sexism, and so on. Any reasonable conservative would agree that at least one of these would be a worry. The people in Reform (note: not the voters) are just people who want the world to be like they want, and will be completely unable to confront reality in the face. They will potentially ruin this country.

Individuals don't have the means to identify illegally eorking employees. 🙄

A government agency with the power to request proof of eligibility is obviously the only way they can be identified.

Governments and police have repeatedly ignored people expressing concerns. They've dismissed their experiences, tried to gaslight them that there's nothing to see here, and called them racists and bigots.

I don't want civil unrest, but it is pretty obvious that unless Labour make some genuine progress, it will happen. No one trusts the platitudes any more.

Yes this is happening on my feed too despite me hiding the posts every time.

Same.

Farage’s mostly illegal immigration plans:

1. Recognise a National Security Threat

Legal.
• The UK government can declare a national security emergency if it deems there is an existential threat (e.g. terrorism, uncontrolled migration).
• But this declaration must be proportionate and evidence-based.
• It cannot be used arbitrarily to override all human rights protections, especially if the UK remains party to the ECHR or UN treaties.

2. Leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Legally possible, but politically and diplomatically explosive.
• Parliament can vote to withdraw via the Human Rights Act 1998 repeal.
• However:
• It would violate parts of the Good Friday Agreement (Northern Ireland).
• It could damage trade deals, especially with the EU (the ECHR is embedded in some agreements).
• It would likely remove individuals’ ability to appeal to Strasbourg, but UK courts would still be bound by some human rights law via other international treaties.

3. Zero Illegal Immigrants to Be Resettled in the UK

Not entirely legal under current obligations.
• The UK is bound by:
• 1951 UN Refugee Convention
• European Convention on Human Rights (unless exited)
• These allow for asylum claims, even from those who arrive illegally.
• Blanket refusal to resettle any illegal migrants would violate non-refoulement rules i.e. not returning someone to a place where they face torture or persecution.

4. Offshore Processing for Illegal Arrivals

Legally complex; politically controversial.
• Countries like Australia and Rwanda have done this, but:
• It must comply with international humanitarian law.
• UK’s Rwanda plan has been blocked by UK and ECHR courts for now, due to safety concerns.
• Would require:
• Treaty agreements with safe offshore countries.
• Strong human rights safeguards.

5. New Department of Immigration

legal.
• Creating a standalone immigration department is a domestic administrative choice.
• Would likely involve restructuring the Home Office or carving out a new ministry.

6. Pick Up Migrants and Return to France

Illegal under current treaties.
• International law (UNCLOS and SAR Convention) obliges rescue at sea, but not forced return to another country without their consent.
• France must agree to take people back which they do not currently.
• The claim that “we are legally allowed to do this” is not accurate under current treaties unless the migrant was rescued in French waters or France agrees.

7. Secure Detention for All Asylum Seekers

Legally questionable in blanket form.
• UK can detain individuals on case-by-case grounds (e.g., flight risk), but:
• Indefinite or automatic detention violates UK case law and ECHR rulings.
• Reform would require significant legislative changes and likely exit from ECHR.

8. Offshore Processing in British Overseas Territories

Legally possible, but raises concerns.
• Technically feasible, if the territory consents (e.g., Ascension Island).
• However:
• It would likely face judicial review under domestic and international law.
• Could be seen as evasion of asylum rights.

9. Immediate Deportation of Foreign Criminals
Possible, with limits.
• UK already deports foreign criminals, but:
• Deportation must respect Article 8 (right to family life) of the ECHR.
• Courts often block deportations for individuals with UK-born children or long-standing ties.
• A new policy would require a change in the legal balancing test.

10. Withdraw Citizenship for Immigrants Who Commit Crime

Legally possible, but subject to strict limits.
• UK law allows revocation of citizenship in cases involving terrorism, treason, or serious national harm, especially if the person has dual nationality.
• You cannot make someone stateless unless the person is not born British and citizenship was obtained by fraud or error.
• Withdrawing citizenship for “significant crime” would require new definitions and would be legally challenged.

But individuals have to means to identify dangerous asylum seekers?

What does genuine progress mean to you?

Oh and the media has suddenly exploded on immigration since Labour got in. Despite it being caused by the Tories and in particular Brexit.