I'll tweak it for 'em:
- Top-down Home Office reform. Restoring it to non-partisan status
- Withdrawal from the ECHR
- Withdrawal from the UN Global Migration Pact
- NGOs involved in the aid of migrants (legal or otherwise) to have their charity status removed and be declared proscribed organisations
- Law firms aiding migrants' entry to the UK to be investigated by the SRA and/or lawyers disbarred
- Total freeze on legal aid for asylum claims
- Social media accounts aiding entry to the UK to be shut down. If they are operated by UK citizens; owners' assets are frozen
- Total freeze on asylum claims. Any claims in progress to be halted
- Ex-service bases to be converted into internment camps. No more "free to roam". All illegals to be held in these facilities indefinitely until they can be returned to their point of origin
- Royal Navy to patrol the English Channel. Returning all migrant boats in UK waters to sections of the Channel that are classed as International Waters. Any further incursions into UK waters are classed as a hostile act
- Any asylum claimants coming into the country via routes policed by the Border Force are to be returned immediately. If they cannot be placed on a return flight, train etc they are to be held prior to processing
- Companies found to be employing illegal migrant labour have their assets frozen
- UK ICB to issue international warrants for all of those known to be involved in trafficking into the UK
All of these doable if any of them have the bottle for it.
1: Done via repealing or overwriting
CRAG 2010
2 & 3: Made easier to achieve after repealing CRAG, which also mandates a 21-day wait before you can officially leave a treaty without first having it be discussed. Repeal the
1998 human rights act to take the ECHR out of law also. UN migration pact is non-binding so it doesn't officially have to be left, but it's better safe than sorry regardless. Also America has already done it.
4: NGOs are protected by 3 different pacts/treaties in Europe. ECHR is one of them, but these mostly just protect their free speech and right of association (yes, NGOs have more protection from the law to say and do shit than people, hence Hope not Hate's ability to dox yet face no repercussions) but they also get protection from the ECRE (European council on refugees and exiles) and the ICCPR ( International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights I.E. United Nations Human Rights Committee). Removing or ignoring protections might make you a bit of a faux pas but you can still act against them in the interests of security or abiding by your own country's laws without anything but kvetching from the usual suspects. Charities like Care4Calais and CalaisLight are also multi-national, so banning them or revoking charity status here doesn't prevent them from operating out of France and Belgium.
5: You can solve this by simply changing the laws. The only advice a pro-immigrant lawyer has to give an immigrant to make them a forever-parasite is: "Denounce citizenship (stateless citizens can't legally be removed), claim asylum (process takes long enough now that if they have a kid, they can claim residency due to right of family), get any sort of prescription from the NHS (can't get back home for free means they can legally stay), etcetera." The pain is whilst they deserve to lose their jobs for what they helped enable, the fact our laws and obligations allowed them to do so means the only fault you can heap on them is working within the confines of
our law to help their own. If you give them 0 arguments to work with, they won't be able to argue anything.
6:
LAPSO 2012 already cut legal aid for immigrants and asylum seekers, however the
ECF allows you to claim funding if your human rights would otherwise be violated under the...
sigh — ECHR. Or if you can argue not getting the funding and having your case
lose would result in your facing discrimination or human rights violations back home. Lawyers can make your arguments for you. So in theory, just leaving the ECHR would fix this too. This is also how a lot of the lawyers who are protecting these lot for free make their money, so they double-dip with charitable donations and getting paid for the privilege of arguing why a brown should be able to stay forever.
7: A lot of these are charities and NGO-shits are propped up so I wouldn't worry about their social media presences; I would worry though that banning social media accounts would just ostracise people who'd otherwise agree with us because we are just "censoring" them. It'd unironically be better for optics if you just outright charged them for aiding and abetting human traffickers, which is a very asspull argument to make I admit but I think it's more acceptable lmao.
8: Agree with this wholeheartedly.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is the law which binds the government into providing a certain quality of care for illegals and asylum seekers, and the
2003 order amending the 1996 Housing act makes it so that lodgings where the homeless have to share a bathroom or washing facilities
is not suitable. Housing them in hotels was picked over more a
reasonable arrangement for a couple of inferred reasons too. "Self-catering accommodation" (cook for yourself, buy your own toilet paper, toothbrushes, soap (lmao as if), ect) would require paying each of them £47 a week instead of £9 on top of already giving them free housing, which'd probably piss people off even more than they already are. Also, self-accommodation would mean them
going outside to buy shit. I wouldn't be surprised if the hotels, where their whims and needs are fully catered, was entirely to prevent them being able to leave and terrorise the community more than they already are. Repealing the 1999 act and the 2003 order or just passing a new act entirely to overwrite them should allow us to put these people where they should be.
9: Mentioned
it a while ago but the reason we don't already do this maritime law and associated acts. The reason the French fully allow it is because the people camping in Calais aren't officially claiming asylum there, so the French are under no obligation to take them in. If we scrap the asylum system entirely then the ones in France will have no choice but to claim asylum there or go home, and that should stop any new boat crossings. Of course it turns Calais into a organic grenade for the French as however many are already there will suddenly become a burden on the French, but fuck 'em. Maybe Le Pen can do something about it before we do, who knows.
10: The ECHR prevents us for holding into a migrant/illegal for more than 3 hours without some sort of trial, process, or accommodation. I'm being completely fucking serious. It's why the French have just allowed them to loiter in Calais, they can't legally act according to the ECHR/EU. The most we've ever done about this is give the ability for port masters to hold them for 3 hours, not just police/border patrol, but after that they can just
roam unless we do something about them.
11: This alone as a deterrent would probably force Deliveroo, Uber, etcetera, to implement additional requirements and checks just to ensure their drivers are who they say they are. Many illegals/non-citizens have a relative or someone with citizenship just create an account for them, and then they work under a false identity. You don't get any American-esque flagrant employ of illegals (unless illegals are being assisted by friends/family/kin in one of their own businesses) due to all the checks and shit with the HMRC and whatnot. This mostly online-based service/delivery/taxi problem and they'd absolutely kowtow.
12: No reason not to do this, but I think the inconvenient truth is these guys are mostly just helping themselves with NGOs providing food and basic accommodation. Boats are either being given by NGOs (totally grounds for total bans and the argument I made in "7"), local weepy-eyed citizens, or they crowdfund their own boats. Since NGOs tend to get given free shit by large brands and companies to forward onto the immigrants, I wouldn't be surprised if they use collect that shit (since it's brand new) and re-sell it to a local or something. Iphone 16 = £799 pounds brand new, whereas an inflatable dinghy can cost you anywhere from £800 to £2000 pounds. It's absolutely all being done from Calais itself and the "traffickers" are more than likely in our hotels as well.
TLDR: 70% of all our issues are caused by the ECHR, 1998 Human rights act, and CRAG 2010. These 3 gone, all our immigration problems could fall in rapid succession like dominoes. Some UN stuff and a possible international reaction is why we can't just drop them all off in the ocean. ;(
