Migration & Asylum


Mainstream is calling for a FIVE YEAR BREATHING SPACE from Asylum applications. We need this to give our overstretched services a respite. All the allocated reception centres for seekers are full and overflowing. Local council social housing for the 'seekers' are all taken up, it's all concentrated in our big cities and towns, so increasingly councils have taken to putting them up in hotels - which are not suitable and are very expensive. Not only this, many of our own indigenous families have been on council house waiting lists for more than a year (in one case, four years and still waiting), and it's demoralising for them to see newcomers keep coming in and pushing past them, to the front of the queue. It's also unjust. Our British way in queues is, 'First Come, First served.' Let's keep to that.

Also, let's not think just about ourselves, the 'big fat welcome' policy has caused years of misery and blight for communities on the Northern France coast, such as Calais and Dunkirk, we owe it to them to give them a few years respite. And really if you think about it, 'seekers' in France should, according to the letter of the law, make their claims in France, as they already went to France before coming here.


Everyone agrees inward migration needs to be managed; we can't carry on with the Tory shambles of a free-for-all. All the public, and all politicians, acknowledge the numbers can't be unlimited - there has to be some limit - otherwise it will be impossible to absorb the additional population; integration with the indigenous citizens will be impossible and society will implode. All the arguments are about numbers - how high should the limits be? And how do you select who's allowed in - and who stays out?

The latest bright idea from wannabe Tory 'leaders' Hunt and Johnson - a points system. Copied from Australia, this allocates points based on how 'useful' the applicant would be to our economy. But is it fair?

Mainstream says NO, this Tory system discriminates against the poor in favour of the rich and better-educated. Mainstream would like an annual QUOTA . When the quota is filled for a given year, applicants have to wait till next year but then, like a council-house waiting list, they would be at the front of the queue. Should there be any preferences in the queue? The obvious policy is to give priority to applicants who arrive here legally - in a port of entry such as Heathrow or Dover - over the illegal ones who, by paying vast sums to traffickers, are able to sneak in by the back door in the middle of the night.

Dont forget, by clamping down a bit on illegal crossings, we'd be hitting the criminal gangs. Trafficking is big business, connected with illegal money-laundering, illegal working, modern slavery and drugs.

After they've been allowed in, Mainstream policy would be to encourage rapid integration with the indigenous community, rather than leaving foreign communities stranded in isolation, developing separately, as now in parts of London and Yorkshire. Our watchword would be 'Assimilation, not Apartheid'. We'd incentivise integration by not translating any documents, so all newcomers would have to English (or Welsh if appropriate) quickly.


What percentage of asylum-claimers are genuine? There's no exact figure but it's believed that between 40% to 50 % of claimants have no genuine claim: they just pretend to do so. That never used to be the case - where did it all go wrong? Let's have a look back in time.

Windrush - now there's a name to conjure with. The Windrush generation were thousands of West Indian men and women, who came here looking for work on the buses, as nurses, whatever; in the 50s and 60s when there was a shortage of labour. Like today's migrants they could have 'claimed asylum ' pretending they were 'fleeing persecution', to get the freebie council flat and other help on to the ladder. They didn't. They TOLD THE TRUTH - they were here to look for work and support themselves. Starting with the tiny savings they brought; sharing rented accommodation; working hard. They all spoke good English; they had a Christian background (Protestants from Jamaica, Catholics from St Lucia, etc). So they fitted in and are an inherent component of today's Britain. (These are the immigrants that Enoch Powell got so uptight about in the 1960s).

In the 1970's came a huge wave of Asians from East Africa - expelled by Idi Amin's evil regime. They all had a genuine and obvious asylum claim, we welcomed them in accordingly and they're now part of our society particularly in Southall, Leicester, Slough and other areas.

Sometime between then and now, the notion became widespread that people from the Third World who wanted to come and live here for economic improvement, should pretend to be fleeing persecution even if they weren't - and this would guarantee them entry here for at least 6 months to a year. The beauty of this method was, you didn't even need any connection with Britain (like be from the former colonies). You didn't need to speak or know English, or even have any admiration for our way of life. It would work wherever you came from. You just had to do two things. A. Get onto our shores (even if via France or the rest of Europe). B Say the magic words 'I claim asylum'. Bingo. Open Sesame. You were in, and if you'd broken any laws in the process (like hijacking the odd airliner) - this was ignored by our government.

Why did things change? There are reports that, sometime during the first Blair administration (1997 to 2001), and probably during the Balkan wars, a decision was made by someone up high, to encourage the practice of 'pretend' asylum claims. It's been said this was thought to be a way of, in time, increasing Labour's share of the vote and reducing the Conservative share. It's not clear whether this has happened or if it has, the causes; so a lot is speculation.

In the early 2000's the numbers of illegals increased aided by three technology events: (a) the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1994, had caused a big increase in lorry traffic and possibilities to stow away, (b) the growth of the Internet which now had dedicated websites to help illegals get in touch with trafficking groups and (c) mobile phone networks extending to Africa and Asia made the journeys easier.

Employers soon noticed there was a big pool of young men, quite happy to work (even illegal work) for lower wages than our indigenous workforce. They weren't too concerned that this might keep wages down for all of us.

Don't get things wrong - almost all of these people are good people, they like it here and want to fit in; they're not criminals; and in many cases are more honest than some of our own. . A very, very small minority of the illegals hate our culture and want to change our society, rather than they change themselves and fit in. And a very TINY minority are actual terrorists; (but unfortunately, in our open society it only takes a tiny few to do a lot of harm and killing; which has happpened ).


Your Asylum FAQs

Q. Surely we can't unilaterally stop processing seekers, this would be in breach of our international treaty obligations.

A. No we wouldn't be STOPPING asylum seeking, just SUSPENDING the arrangement for five years, like in a state of emergency. That is allowed under international law.

Q. Do we need to enforce immigration laws more forcefully?

A. If you or I try to enter a country by-passing immigration controls, we'd be arrested and face charges. You either have entry controls, or you don't. If you do, they must apply to everyone.

Q. Shouldn't some asylum-claimers be allowed to break immigration laws, because they're poor and desperate to get here?

A. No that would be "one law for the rich, one law for the poor", you can't have that. Our laws apply to everyone - poor as well as rich. That's called equality.

Q. Does Mainstream agree with the "Merkel" rationale that Europe's birth-rate is too low, so we need to import babies from the Middle East?

A. YES in general Europe's birthrate is too low, European pensioners are living much longer, so we need a big increase in the under-21 sector to fund future social spending. But this problem is not uniform all over Europe, in this country our native birth-rate is quite OK at the moment; where the birthrate is disastrously low is in some Eastern European countries and in Portugal. But the answer is not "importing" babies from Asia like they are some kind of commodity, what Europe's politicians should be doing is persuading European women to have more babies. Don't forget this brings a "win-win" in women's health, when women have their first babies early and remember to breast-feed, not bottle-feed, this is their best safeguard against catching breast cancer.


Alfred Dubs (now in Parliament); genuine refugees: Dubs era 1945, Rohingyans leaving Burma

Refugees in 1945, and today. All families. Women with babies and children, a few old men. Not a young man in sight. They're penniless, on foot all their worldly goods in their bags. They've no home to go back to. They don't carry I-phones or money in their pockets to pay traffickers.

These are true refugees and come within the scope of the United Nations definition as eligible to claim asylum .

What about the recent boatloads of young men crossing the channel in the middle of the night ?

These groups seem a bit different. Not a family in sight. All fit young men, I-phones in their pockets. They paid 10,000 Euros each for the crossing .They do have homes to return to. Many of them 'lose' or or destroy their id documentation, making it difficult to establish who they really are. They're from poor countries, they're looking for prosperity in Europe, to better their lives and their families' lives, hoping for a new start in life.

But do they fall within the scope of the UN definition of Refugees - and therefore, entltled to claim asylum without any proof of who they are, with all the associated financial and material support from European governments? Or should they be classed as 'Economic Migrants' - and have to fend for themselves, rather like immigrants to the USA during the 1930s depression ? Should we in Europe, differentiate between the two sets of travellers? And what's the correct label for these all-male groups. Are they 'fake refugees' or just eco-migrants? Is there a correct terminology that's not offensive to some people? Maybe the old-fashioned term 'emigres' is better.

Do we treat and process these two sets of people in the same way? How can we balance being just and compassionate, with protecting our shores and our society? Is it more humane to have 'No Borders' as some pressure groups want - letting any amount of people move from their own country, into other people's countries as and when, without checking their identity or questioning their motives or background, no limits on numbers, no frontier controls?

Migration: we all know what the politicians think.

But Mainstream wants to know WHAT THE PUBLIC THINKS. So please tell us what you think, . Join the Conversation now,


No wonder we're the laughing stock of the world!

A thirty-something man worms his way into a children's school class, masquerading as a 15-year old schoolboy. (NOT as the BBC reported, as a student). Anywhere else in the world, the police would be called and he'd be arrested on the spot. But not here. There is a humourous side to it but seriously, it's dangerous, not to mention downright pervy.

 Why isn't this man in police custody tonight?

Suffolk police say they are 'not aware' that this man, an Iranian asylum-seeker, is being dealt with by their force. (You would expect a modern, professional police force to keep records of what cases they're dealing with, but I guess with the pressure the police are under with rocketing crime and the Tory cuts in their numbers, it's understandable that they don't know.)  We'll take that as a 'NO'.

The school staff and teachers knew about this man, but did nothing. It's down to the courage of the pupils for speaking out, telling their parents and the media, that he's been 'outed' and is now 'in the care' of the Home Office - who bear the most responsibility for allowing this to happen.

Should Home Secretary Sajid Javid (right) be thinking about resigning? Many people think so.

And why have all the establishment media published his photo with the face redacted? Their excuse is, it's against the European Directive of Human Rights to publish a child's photo without their permission. But hang on - he's NOT a child, he's an adult, so that doesn't apply for a start, and anyway we're leaving the EU so we're no longer bound by their 'directives'.

Is this happening in other schools? Are YOU a school pupil who's aware that one of your classmates is an adult MAN, impersonating a child?

It's no use calling the police - they won't do anything about it, too busy dealing with the important stuff like Hate crimes and historic allegations. Tell your teachers and parents of course - but also tell Mainstream, we will publish his photo UNCENSORED.

It's bad enough we've got men self-defining as women.

Now we've got ADULTS self-defining as CHILDREN. OMG what next?