HomePage Economy Europe Crime Environment Foreign Health Family Housing Education Government Transport Consumers Asylum Media
Migration & Asylum


Mainstream wants to see 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. That's called the "Dublin Convention", asylum seekers MUST make their claim in the first civilised country they come to; or else they lose any rights to asylum for all time.

Hello! Are people saying France is not civilised? France is a very civilised place, in some ways a lot more civilised than we are.


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 learn English (or Welsh if appropriate) quickly.

Mainstream policy is one of common sense : respecting the rights of genuine refugees; while also respecting our own indigenous society's customs, rules and needs.


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.

How did asylum start to go all wrong?


In 1999 a little boy, Elian Gonzales, fled Cuba to Florida with his mum on a makeshift boat which sank; the mum died, Elian was lucky to be rescued by the US coastguard. The mother had wanted him to stay in the USA; Elian's dad and other family in Cuba wanted their boy back home. Elian himself? He was what they call a "dreamer", and wanted to remain in America having seen the American way of life on TV and in movies. The case developed into an international tussle between the USA and Cuba. Which country would be allowed to keep the child? Eventually it got resolved by the World Court, which quoted a longstanding United Nations convention on unaccompanied children. This states, the best place for unaccompanied children is ALWAYS their own country; with their own family. Whatever a child's dreams, a child is a child and not capable of making the life-changing decision to move to a different country or a different continent. (This convention especially applies where a child from the third world arrives unaccompanied in the West and do-gooder adults want to keep him or her there, because they're well off and can give the child a "better life"). Elian was returned in May 2000 to Cuba, to scenes of jubilation in his Cuban hometown of Cardenas.

We've got a serious problem here, over a hundred unaccompanied children, far from their parents and family; stuck in foster care in this country. It's appalling that these children are kept separated from their mum and dad, that's why we need "Elian's Law" NOW to repatriate these minors to their own family, and their own country, NOW. No more waiting - please. Don't wait till next week or tomorrow - take them back home and re-unite them TODAY.

Purfleet tragedy postscript: are we asking the right questions?

The Purfleet tragedy of 39 Vietnamese migrants freezing to death in a container has been a shock wake-up call to many: not just for the terrifying way these young people died, also shock at the vast amounts of money involved. They usually pay £10,000 each to enter here illegally, apparently you can now get an "express service" for £35,000. Where do people in poor countries get such big sums of money? Our perception of Vietnamese illegals is them working in nail bars, massage parlours and restaurants. But if they can repay these huge amounts of money from earnings - then our "black economy" must be much, much bigger than we thought. Are there whole factories, warehouses, agricultural estates that we don't know about - hidden in plain sight?

We rightly blame the trafficking gangs for every tragic death by freezing or drowning. But the rogue employers who take on cheap workers, knowing they are trafficked - are every bit to blame for Purfleet as the traffickers. It's them who's creating the demand, which drives the whole multi-billion trafficking industry. Right now these employers should be looking hard at their consciences.

One question that always comes up, after every container tragedy or drowning tragedy: maybe it's all OUR fault, for trying to control our borders. Should we just open the borders and allow anyone to come in who wants, no id checking or controls? Yes that would put an end to tragedies like Purfleet. But it's like saying, the way to end burglaries is, you leave your front door open, with a big sign outside "come in and help yourselves lads". Yes your house wouldn't get burgled any more. But is it the right thing to do? Well .. hmmm .. hmmm .. maybe ... not so sure on that one.


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, pretending to be 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 - but also tell us, 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? The world has gone mad.

Imagery acknowledgments: All images published are taken from open-source material on the internet or scanned from magazines; political organisations are allowed to use these for instructional purposes or to make a point. We regret we don't have the resources to put acknowledgments alongside every individual image.