Migration & Asylum


We've been welcoming asylum seekers for hundreds of years - long before there was any EU, United Nations or European Convention of Human Rights. There were Huguenots from the Netherlands in the 17th century. There were jews fleeing persecution in Tsarist Russia. Then millions more jews - and French, Poles, and others fleeing from the Nazis. There were the Hungarians in 1956. In the 1970's there were the East African Asians, fleeing from war criminal Idi Amin's brutal persecution. In the early 1990's there were Yugoslavs escaping from the Balkan war. All these groups without exception were FAMILIES - men, women and children. Never groups of exclusively young single males.

In all these cases - even though the total numbers were many millions - because the migrations were spread over many years, the numbers at any one time were only small, in relation to our total population. Every one of these groups has integrated totally and successfully, into our society, enriching our culture and making valuable contributions. They integrated well because (a) they were families (b) they wanted to integrate and learn English, they respected our existing cultural traditions and didn't want to force change on us.

In all these cases we didn't 'assess' their asylum claims. In many cases they didn't even need to 'claim' asylum - we KNEW they deserved protection, we invited them in.

All this changed after 1997 after the Blair administration took power. Crucial policy decisions were made which changed the nature of asylum seeking - but these decisions were kept completely secret, only a handful of UK officials knew what was going on. (To this day, we don't know exactly WHO made the policy changes, or the EXACT date. It appears that - rather like Hitler's 'Final Solution' decision - no written records were kept.) The new policy was to welcome as many as possible, but especially young men, from all over the Third World, to come here and say there were fleeing persecution (even if this was not true), and 'claim asylum'. Crucially, if they came in illegally, they would be immune from prosecution for immigration offences, and they would still be guaranteed financial support and accommodation. They would then have their asylum application 'processed', but knew it was best not to co-operate with this process and to destroy or 'lose' identity documents, by dragging the process out as long as possible, they would eventually get residence and benefits. The motives behind these policy changes are not known.

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.

A very small minority of the illegals hate our culture and want to change our society, rather than they change themselves and fit in. Also, some illegals believe they have the 'right' to live here and don't need our permission!  Obviously moving to a new country to live is not a right, it's a privilege which needs the permission of the indigenous population in the destination country.(Just if one of us wishes to make a new life in Canada or Australia, or Africa, we accept that we haven't got the 'right' to move in, we need the permission of the indigenous people.)

Mainstream would like 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 Blair '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.


What happens after the Five Years are up?

Mainstream policy would be to have a cap on the total numbers, to ensure the percentage stays small in relation to our population size and land area. We're a fairly small island. We'd probably take a harder line on illegal entries, this is only fair to those who obey the law and come in at airports and show identity documents. By clamping down a bit on illegal crossings, we'd be hitting the criminal trafficking gangs, and the associated money laundering when the newcomers send money back from the UK. (It's 10,000 Euros each to get on a trafficker's boat. A lot of the migrants have to borrow this money from the gangs, and then repay it from benefits or work via Western Union or similar, while their families back home are held hostage. )  We would be reducing this criminality and the associated tragedy of drownings at sea. We would encourage faster assimilation by not translating all documents, giving an incentive for applicants to learn English faster.


Your Asylum FAQs

Q. Surely was 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 them for five years, like in a state of emergency. That's allowed.

Q, Do you believe most of our voters would support the 'Five Year Breathing Space' policy?

A. YES. All except three small groups really, they are the establishment politicians, establishment media, and Human Rights lawyers.



Above:  Alfred Dubs (now in Parliament).  Below, left to right: Refugees from the Dubs era 1945, Rohingyans escaping from Burma, Honduran refugees in Central America.

Walking : Refugees in 1945, and today in the 21st century. All families. Women with babies and children, a few old men. Not a young man in sight.

They're penniless, all their worldly goods on their bags. They've no home to go back to. They all carry some form of identifying document - not usually passports, but national id cards.

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


Now what about these?

Below: Crossing the Mediterranean , to Italy (left) , to Greece (right).

Boating in 2018: These groups are different. Not a family in sight. All fit young men, I-phones in their pockets. They each pay 10,000 Euros for the crossing . So, not exactly empoverished - you can bet that true refugees, like the Rohingya from Burma, wish they had 10,000 Euros in their pocket! (I'm sure the thousands of rough sleepers in our own land wish that as well!)

These 'boaters' do have homes to return to. Most 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 the all-male groups. Are they 'fake refugees' or just migrants? Is there a correct terminology that's not offensive to some people?

Do we treat and process these two sets of people in the same way?

Or 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 questioning their motives or background, no limits on numbers, no frontier controls?

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Mainstream wants to know. 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 who 'self-define' as women.

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