Explaining Remigration

A long read on how to undo the damage of mass immigration

This post is not intended as a comprehensive piece on immigration. It very easily could have been, but it was necessary to reduce it in scope to explain and contextualise remigration measures, and the reforms we must make to tackle immigration pipelines. Remigration involves systematically reversing laws and policies that permit and encourage mass immigration - while implementing new laws and policies to facilitate and encourage mass emigration.

This work is intended for those who already know and understand that mass immigration must end, and that much or most of it must be reversed. What’s needed is a realistic assessment of what can be done.

Some believe this is a straightforward case of slamming the borders shut and sending out snatch squads to grab migrants off the street. This leads to political parties relying heavily on macho rhetoric that will lead them to over-promise and under-deliver when they realise that reality is uncooperative. A complex problem requires more sophisticated thinking. To address this, we must examine each constituent part of the problem.

Asylum

The concept of refuge is predicated on the idea that wars end and refugees should return. In practice, they don’t. As such, asylum has become a means by which economic migrants attempt to circumvent the regular immigration process. It is hardly controversial to say that the vast majority of asylum seekers coming into the UK are economic migrants, with many hoping to exploit ECHR loopholes and laws that facilitate chain migration.

Western nations do not have a moral obligation to accept economic migrants. Moving to Britain is not a human right. We should not facilitate the brain drain of other countries. Furthermore, since none of our near neighbours are at war, there is no reason to have an asylum system.

If we have one at all, its numbers should be capped to fewer than 1,000 annually as a means to offer safe harbour to political dissidents, journalists, informants and intelligence assets. It is not meant to be a free for all. Asylum decisions should rest solely with the minister responsible, and any system of appeal should be deleted.

The deficiencies in our asylum system have now seen tens of thousands of bogus refugees crossing the channel, lumbering the taxpayer with bills heading into the billions. In short, the asylum system as presently constituted must be closed down, and all refuge decisions made under that regime rescinded. All irregular entry by sea and air, without prior consent, must be treated in law as illegal immigration.

To remove any legal ambiguity, and to put an end to NGO lawfare, we must terminate Britain’s association with the ECHR and withdraw from the Refugee Convention (and related agreements) and forbid any state funding or foreign funding of NGOs.

The established consensus on the dinghy crisis is that if all the incentives are removed, and the means to frustrate removals are dealt with, then the problem will slow to a trickle. We must ensure nobody profits from the attempt. Proper deterrence must be established. Stepping into a dinghy should mean that no more than four days later, you’re in a remote detention facility pending repatriation.

There are complexities to this. We are often dealing with migrants who have disposed of any formal identification[1]. They are determined to stay and will actively deceive immigration authorities. Some migrants coach each other on false stories to exploit asylum loopholes. Without being able to establish who they are and where they come from, it proves difficult to deport them. This would point to the need for long term detention and overseas resettlement along the lines of the ill-fated Rwanda scheme.

Resettlement schemes, though, are of limited use. There are few, if any, countries willing to take thousands of migrants off our hands and even modest schemes prove expensive. As yet, there are no real world examples of this functioning at scale. Supposing all legal impediments and human rights issues are resolved, there are still ethical questions surrounding resettlement when we are effectively bribing unstable third world countries to take the problem off our hands.

Most migrants, where possible, should be returned to their country of origin. Some countries, though, will be reluctant to take back their people. In this eventuality we should be prepared to impose trade tariffs, sanctions, and flight bans. Social dumping of garbage immigration must be viewed as a hostile act.

Some figures on the British right such as Rupert Lowe suggest cutting foreign aid may be leverage, but foreign aid amounts to only tens of millions of pounds for most recipient, and would not be missed by economies such as India. Similarly, the threat is unlikely to influence Pakistan. They make more in remittances. It’s not a credible threat. Moreover, the British NGOcracy spends aid on things that recipient countries themselves would never spend money on, thus it is not revenue they would miss.

As such, we must at least explore taxes on remittances. Though this seems like an obvious point of attack, it may prove difficult. We may see a switch to cryptocurrencies which are increasingly used for cross-border transfers due to low fees and anonymity. UK authorities have limited tools to track these without major regulatory overhauls, as crypto wallets aren’t tied to real-world identities. Surveillance of other financial transactions is problematic.

There are further complications to this. Would it apply to all outbound transfers? Or only to specific countries? Administering it would be a nightmare. Banks and money transfer services would need to verify sender status, which is nearly impossible without a politically contentious national ID system. This could end up being a game of regulatory whack-a-mole. A more elegant solution might be to place all immigrants on a higher rate of national insurance.

The bottom line is that our best efforts may not be able to secure the return of bogus refugees, leaving us with morally and financially unsustainable mass detention. The problem requires additional creative diplomacy. Trade preferences are one tool in the box. We must look at carrots as well as sticks. Returns agreements are one such instrument but these often entail offering work visas in exchange. Such agreements are not optimal if the intention is to bring immigration down, and will likely be unpopular, but if visas are temporary and rights such Indefinite Leave to Remain are abolished, return agreements could be a useful interim fix to solve the backlog.

One thing that’s clear is that the tendency of nationalists towards isolationism and disengagement must be questioned. The world will not simply leave us alone by unplugging from international affairs. For refuge to function as intended, where a crisis unfolds, it is better if refugees stay in neighbouring countries to hasten return and expedite rebuilding. Western countries can and should support orderly refuge systems in those neighbouring countries, not least to prevent the destabilisation caused by sudden influxes. It is also in our interests to lend resources to peacekeeping initiatives. There is a role for foreign aid, for preventing the spread of conflict and to provide health facilities and access to clean water. Outbreaks of disease in refugee camps, coupled with the lack of safety, will see migrants making their way to Europe for sanctuary.

That said, some will come regardless. In light of that we must assist our European allies in defending their frontiers. If our border defence posture begins and ends at the border, we are waiting for the problems to come to us. As such, there is a role for international cooperation and aid spending where it contributes to Britain’s border security. We may wish to fund Interpol initiatives to disrupt the people smuggling trade in North Africa.

Pushbacks

Some on the right have taken to creatively interpreting maritime law and believe that intercepting boats and pushing them back to France is the answer. They often cite Australia’s successes in international waters. The English Channel, though, is a different kettle of fish. Australia pushed boats back into international waters. That’s different to pushing flimsy dinghies back into French waters. If we attempt to push boats back migrants themselves will puncture their own boats. Morality and the law of the sea compel us to rescue them. We cannot return them to France without French consent.

Some would prefer a confrontation with France and to defy international convention. This could lead to French authorities slowing down port operations at Calais, terminating surveillance and intercept work of their own, and perhaps even closing off energy exports to Britain. It is not a game in which we have the upper hand. In short, forget it. Pushbacks can only be described as playing silly buggers. A game in which we are likely to see British border workers placed in danger, and the potential for the loss of life, which will ultimately turn public opinion in the wrong direction.

Foreign prisoners

We can safely assume the majority want to see foreign prisoners deported. This would be met with little opposition. Prisoner return agreements can work but sometimes they are ineffectual. An agreement that existed with Pakistan was suspended when on the first occasion it was used, prisoners were immediately released. Such agreements can only take place between trusted partners with similar justice systems, otherwise prisoners will be released and likely find their way back into the UK.

As with returning illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers, creative diplomacy is required, and may require a multilateral framework of sanctions against those who refuse to take their own citizens back, functioning on a NATO Article 5 basis. We should not get carried away with the idea that sending foreign prisoners back is an easy win. It may be cheaper to simply pay countries to take prisoners than to house them, but as with transfer agreements, that carries risks of early release.

In any case, return of asylum seekers and prisoners will probably demand a degree of inter-governmental bribery. As such, anyone getting carried away with the idea that foreign aid spending can be reallocated to domestic priorities is in for a disappointment.

Illegal immigration

Most voters certainly agree to some extent that illegal immigrants (at the very least) must be deported. Given the scale of illegal immigration, this is no small undertaking. Mass deportation as a concept may enthuse certain sections of the electorate but the execution has certain practical limitations. As much as anything, it’s going to get expensive and messy.

Some suggest privatisation of the deportation process could expedite matters, offering a bounty for each migrant located and detained. But that’s not where we want to be, not least since the track record of government contractors in this field is less than stellar. Ironically, they depend heavily on migrants workers.

Part of the reason illegal immigration is out of control is because the risks of being caught are minimal. Illegal immigration is a symptom of a collapsing administrative state. Procuring the services of Serco or Capita is little more than a quick fix to a structural problem. What we need to do is rebuild local authority capacity to detect, prosecute and remove.

That will require a full spectrum of local authority inspections on care homes, high streets shops, and an expansion of housing inspections looking for overcrowded HMOs, beds in shed, and illegally sublet social housing. It will require coordinated actions between trading standards, environmental health and the tax office. These are the routine local authority functions which have been steadily degraded over the last three decades. We can argue that overall quality of life has declined as a result, and that restoring these functions is in the public good regardless of immigration concerns.

Still, though, this strategy is heavily dependent on immigration enforcement. It should be recalled that most illegal immigrants are economic migrants, and are working low skill jobs under the radar. What we have to do is remove the economic advantage illegal immigrants enjoy. What we really need to do is institute policies that will encourage illegal immigrants to remove themselves. It is better for everyone if illegals either make their own way home or hand themselves in.

There is a certain vindictive catharsis at the thought of "mass deportations" but it really doesn't bear any close scrutiny. One of the reasons mass deportations is a non-option is because the state will face major pushback on three fronts. You may recall a while back when a deportation operation in Glasgow was halted by a mob of leftists[2]. We would see far larger coordinated efforts to frustrate any concentrated government action. Just from an optics and economics perspective, you can't deploy full riot squads every time you detect an illegal immigrant.

Then we should recall the Harehills riots of 2024 when the entire community turned out to prevent the authorities taking a child into care. Deportations are a non-starter in majority ethnic areas. We would likely see minority communities developing their own resistance networks, closing off streets and rapidly raising the alarm. This underscores why remigration is necessary, but still doesn’t make the case for mass, forced deportations. We would rapidly turn our major cities into West Belfast of the 1980s, precipitating a collapse of law and order which is beyond the means of civilian police to bring back under control.

The third front is the media. If we set about a campaign of mass deportations, we will likely see a number of blunders the media will exploit, and the news will be wall-to-wall sob stories. The effect of this in mobilising popular opposition should not be underestimated. Images of families being dragged from their homes by uniformed men are too rich for the blood of the average normie. They might want something done about immigration, but the urge to virtue signal will soon assert itself and mass deportations will lose popular support. It's just not the way to go about it. Dawn raids should mostly be reserved for terror suspects and criminals who are an imminent danger to the public.

In summary, mass deportations sound appealing, but we are more likely to break the back of the problem with remigration measures. Ideally, we want as many people as possible removing themselves safely, and without a fuss.

Local enforcement

As we discuss above, it is necessary to employ local enforcement to eliminate all the means by which migrant works can undercut native workers. At the top of the list comes enforcement of housing, not least HMO overcrowding. This works in tandem with gig economy labour. It’s all part of the same business model. We know that crackdowns yield results but crackdowns are PR exercises for ailing governments. To stay on top of it, councils need dedicated inspection teams whose primary function is to deal with the pull factors. We have to better understand the terrain.

A recent Telegraph investigation[3] reveals that unsupervised asylum seekers make up to £500 a week working as bike couriers, reported under the headline: “Illegal migrants flock to Britain for ‘easy money’ takeaway delivery jobs”. These are asylum seekers who are housed by the Home Office at the taxpayers’ expense in hotels, all expenses found, and are thus able to pay off “people smuggler” debts by illegally working as bike couriers for fast food and grocery delivery companies.

Migrants, the Telegraph found, are working for delivery services, including Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats. Most are banned from working because of their immigration status but are still able to wire cash back home to cover the cost of loans that were used to pay criminal gangs for small boat trips across the English Channel.

What stands out here is that the migrants easily by-pass employers’ checks, operating a scam whereby they work for the delivery companies as “substitute” riders, sub-contracting to legitimate employees who rent out their accounts for between £75-100 a week on the black market.

The worst of this is that the Home Office must be fully aware of this abuse – almost everybody else is, with a lengthy report[4] in the Mail, dated 16 August 2024, telling us that illegal immigrants were “using legal loopholes in the fast-food delivery industry to fund their lives in Britain”, only one of several stories which had been run in the legacy media.

But then, the Home Office itself had found in 2023 that 42 percent of delivery drivers stopped during random checks had been working illegally. Then, 60 riders were arrested after a supposed “crackdown”. At no great speed following that, we had Deliveroo in February of this year announced[5] that it had sacked over 100 riders in its own crackdown on illegal workers.

A month later, we had Yvette Cooper for the Home Office made her own announcement[6] of a “crackdown on illegal working and rogue employers in ‘gig economy’”, telling us that, “in the latest move to restore order to the asylum and immigration system, the government will introduce tough new laws to clamp down on illegal working”.

Companies hiring people in the gig economy, Cooper claimed, will now be legally required to carry out checks confirming that anyone working in their name is eligible to work in the UK, bringing them in line with other employers. Here we are, though, after years of visible and reported abuse, after multiple “crackdowns” and action taken by the delivery companies, there is no appreciable difference in the scale of offending.

It is this sort of thing, where the migrants are clearly abusing our homeland, and people smugglers have even built the abuse into their business models. The bottom line is that if companies like Deliveroo and Uber were operating to the law, in the spirit of the law, they would largely be luxury services that could only operate at a fraction of the scale. We must not flinch from putting them out of business. CEOs of such companies should face jail time and bankruptcy.

The reality is that the gig economy is a relatively new economic development and one that only exists due to a high availability of exploitable cheap foreign labour. If we have to put a complete stop to it, so be it.

Further to this, councils must stay on top of the money laundering activities happening in plain sight, not least Turkish barbers, vape shops, phone shops and car washes. Many of them can be identified as criminal with minimal surveillance. In this there is a role for trading standards. The UK trade in counterfeit apparel, such as football shirts and designer wear, is substantial. Investigation of retail outlets will no doubt uncover further organised criminality.

Much of this criminality is conducted in the open. The police know who and where they are, as do the public. The challenge is to overcome the bureaucratic and political indifference to it. Part of the solution is a campaign of public information. Consumers must be made aware that buying counterfeit goods and procuring the services of illegal immigrants is very far from a victimless crime.

Many migrants are able to undercut native workers by accepting sub-standard conditions, exploited by practices which verged on criminality.[7] Specifically, migrants tend to gravitate to the bottom end of the private rental market, with poor quality, overcrowded accommodation.[8] One local authority found that nearly 60 percent of migrant workers in its area lived in Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).[9] Almost 14 percent lived in homes shared between seven and ten residents. In one house, raided in June 2015, 25 adults and one child were found. At least seven tenants were found to be living in the cellar of the property, which was accessible only via steep concrete steps from the back garden.[10]

Immigrants are often allowed to congregate in squalid, overcrowded housing, with the local authorities rarely taking action, thus creating conditions where they are able to undercut the settled population, often then being paid – illegally – less than the minimum wage.[11] And when illegal immigrants are caught working contrary to the law and their employers are fined, the fines are often not collected.[12]^,[13] The problem thus lies with the government failing to create a "hostile environment" for illegal workers.

If existing statutory overcrowding limits were applied, with fire protection and basic fitness standards enforced, densities would be reduced and individual rents would increase substantially, reducing the economic gain from employment in the UK. This would have the effect of reducing the longer-term "pull" from low-wage countries.

Dealing with the so-called "beds in sheds" epidemic would have a similar effect, where tenants can find accommodation for as little as £20 per week.[14] In areas such as Ealing, in the western suburbs of London, unscrupulous landlords are creating homes in garden sheds, garages and makeshift outbuildings and charging untaxed rent – sometimes up to £600 a month – from largely migrant workers looking for somewhere cheap to live. Pockets of the country are beginning to resemble shanty towns.

Slough Borough Council estimates that up to 3,000 people are living illegally in the town. After sending up an aircraft with thermal-imaging cameras to detect heat being emitted from outbuildings, it identified 210 suspected illegal dwelling in a two-hour flight. The London Borough of Ealing, which is one of nine to have been allocated £2.5 million from the Department for Communities and Local Government to tackle rogue landlords, has carried out nearly 4,500 site inspections in the two-year period from October 2011 in addition to unannounced fortnightly raids.

But outbuildings often do not require planning permission if they comply with size restrictions and are not used for sleeping accommodation. Landlords are able to claim they are gyms or playrooms. Under the Housing Act, councils must give 24 hours' notice before inspections, meaning evidence is often destroyed and tenants simply moved on. Even if a fine is eventually imposed, the penalties (a maximum of £5,000 for letting a property in a hazardous condition) are far outweighed by the untaxed profits landlords make.[15]

This notwithstanding, the London Borough of Newham has taken a multi-agency approach involving multiple departments within its own organisation, the Metropolitan Police, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the UK Border Agency and HM Revenue and Customs, apparently with some success. This suggests that if all local authorities adopted the practices of the most successful, the stock of sub-standard, ultra-cheap accommodation would be substantially reduced.[16]

Plans for new offences have also been discussed, making it illegal for employers to cram migrants into mobile homes to cut accommodation costs and undercut domestic workers. With stronger enforcement of the national minimum wage – including prosecutions and the doubling of fines – and extended action against gangmasters employing illegal migrants in the social care, hospitality and construction industries, the idea was "to create a fair framework that benefits domestic workers, prevents exploitation of foreign labour and reduces the demand for it". This was an opposition approach intended to tackle the factors that attract low-skilled migrants to Britain.[17]

Voluntary returns

Any programme of remigration must employ a carrot and stick approach. There is a lot we can do to create a hostile environment for migrants, to the point where there is no economic merit in staying here and no real way to get a foothold. This risks pushing migrants into poverty and vagrancy, the externalities of which could get expensive. It is therefore in our interests to offer financial assistance to leave. The government already operates such a scheme and other countries around Europe are implementing more ambitious schemes.

Some have mooted remigration centres, along the lines of job centres in towns and busy suburbs, where migrants can present and enter a managed emigration service. This option should be explored along with a dedicated government website portal/mobile app.

Closing the pipelines

Universities

There are certain truths we must first establish. Our ailing and decrepit university system is relying on foreign students for no other purpose than income. Most British universities are not in the education business. They are in the empire-building business. They are in the business of selling visas and facilitating immigration. Education is a distant second. They prioritise bums on seats while passing on the externalities to the towns and cities in which they are based. It must end.

Most British universities have no real reason to exist. Most people do not need to go to university. The number of universities and degrees must be shrunk. Reversion to the status of polytechnics and vocational colleges would be the optimal fix, impressing upon them that they exist to train our own people. There is no good reason why they should be sprawling enterprises.

Still, though, some of our universities are leading international brands, and foreign students are lucrative. This is not something we should be in a rush to close down completely. Offering courses in law and medicine is a means by which Britain asserts its cultural soft power. Foreign students are also, for the most part, a healthy and positive manifestation of (much maligned) diversity - provided academic institutions uphold rigorous section processes and ruthlessly maintain a code of conduct (i.e. letting them know that joining anti-Semitic hate marches or engaging in direct action groups such as Just Stop Oil will pretty much bury their career prospects).

At present, universities are serving as an immigration pipeline which is then a source of chain migration. It is unpopular and unsustainable. Universities cannot keep expanding. The writing is on the wall. Some of them must radically scale back and focus on their specialisms. Instead of betting the farm on exponential growth, relying on foreign students, they must become centres of excellence and use research to develop lucrative intellectual properties.

The care sector

The care home sector is a mess. It’s contingent on cutting every corner, exploiting low wage foreign labour, and the sector has become a backdoor for immigrants and their dependents. It is rife with fraud. The Observer reported in March 2024, that hundreds of newly-established care providers have been granted licences by the Home Office to sponsor workers from abroad despite having no track record of providing services in Britain. Suspected bogus companies with copy-and-paste websites, fake-looking reviews and PO boxes as addresses are among those granted licences allowing them to sponsor workers to come to the UK[18].

Sponsor licences have been granted to newly formed firms that have never filed company accounts and are only a few months old. At least 268 companies that have never been inspected by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) have also been granted licences. Others appear to have been granted licences by the Home Office despite not being registered with the watchdog at all.

A Daily Mail exposé[19] found that Vulnerable UK patients are being looked after by unqualified migrants, as rogue fixers charge up to £20,000 for '100% success rate' in getting work visas. A watchdog warned there had been 'widespread abuse' of the system since early 2022 after ministers relaxed immigration rules to plug mass job vacancies.

Vacancies in adult social care hit a record 164,000 in 2021/22, prompting the Government to lower the barrier for such staff to be allowed to work in the UK. The change meant the total number of foreign workers given permission to come to Britain rocketed to a record high last year, figures revealed last week – driven by a 349 per cent rise in care worker visas to more than 89,000. The largest numbers come from India, Nigeria and Zimbabwe.

Employers usually need a sponsor licence to hire someone from outside the UK. Depending on its size, a qualifying company must pay either £536 or £1,476 to the Home Office for a licence. This allows the firm to issue Certificate of Sponsorships for eligible overseas employees, which cost £239 per worker and has to be paid to the Home Office. Employees use the Certificates to obtain a UK work visa.

This system is little more than visa laundering, leading to a surge in low quality immigration often resulting in the import of welfare dependent extended family. It is a net drain on Britain’s resources and a false economy. It is cheaper to pay home-grown care workers properly.

We must immediately close this visa scheme and end the reliance on foreign labour. This has come about because we ceased to recognise care work as skilled work. We must restore care work as a valid career path with structured career progression. We must look at all the ways by which we can make care work a respected and viable long-term career choice instead of viewing carers as minimum wage dogsbodys.

Visa management

Anywhere there are visa schemes, particularly when administered by government, there is fraud and corrupt lobbying. Pimlico Journal recently ventured an innovative private sector administered cap and trade system for visas[20]. It is not strictly in the scope of this document, but offers potential avenues for scaling down immigration without the involvement of the dysfunctional Home Office. Ideas therein may be transferable to aspects of remigration. Privatising the visa system may go a long way towards curtaining the activities of corrupt backstreet immigration law firms who specialise in exploiting loopholes[21].

We note, however, that a major source of problem migration is from visa overstays, resulting in prolonged unauthorised residence. The present approach leads to automatic deportation and re-entry bans, but we should also consider harsher penalties, including jail time. We should consider implementing digital tracking for visa expirations, enabling swift identification and deportation of overstayers.

Britain should look to terminate or renegotiate any trade deals involving visas, especially with partners whose citizens are statistically likely to overstay.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Saving this author some considerable hassle, political researcher Sam Bidwell has done the groundwork on this matter. He notes in The Critic[22] that the “open borders experiment” is reversible.

With the latest figures from the ONS showing that net migration to Britain stood at more than 700,000 in 2024, with total incoming migration standing at more than 1.2 million, it’s long past time that substantive action was taken, says Bidwell. That means revising our visa rules in the first place, making it more difficult for new immigrants to come to this country — but even if we change those rules, we are still left with an almighty conundrum.

Under the current immigration rules, most migrants on work and family visas will be eligible for Indefinite Leave To Remain (ILR) status after just five years. ILR status holders have a right to live and work indefinitely in the UK — and gain access to additional support from the state, in the form of services like universal credit. ILR status is also tricky to remove, without amending the Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002.

Combine this legal mechanism with a migration wave of several million people, and the result is a slow-motion fiscal car crash. Fail to act now, and in less than five years, millions of low-wage, low-skilled workers will be eligible for a lifetime of support from the British state. After just a few short years in the workforce, the British taxpayer could be left on the hook for a migrant’s benefits, social housing costs, healthcare, state pension — and the cost of any dependents that they choose to bring to the UK. This would, effectively, lock in this migration wave — deepening the fiscal impact of migration, and making it more legally challenging to remove those who came here over the past few years.

It is not necessary to reproduce his article here. The point is that ILR must be terminated – and it can be done.

Welfare reform

There is a requirement here for a research paper all of its own. Not that I’m going to write it. Some of the work has already been done. Research from the Centre for Policy Studies[23] sets out how recent migration is set to cost the country billions, and additional arguments are provided by the CPS paper written by Robert Jenrick[24].

Quite obviously, there is no economic or moral rationale for filling up London’s social housing with low-skill, non-English speaking third-world migrants. Immigrants should have zero entitlement to housing, benefits, healthcare or free education for their offspring. Migrants who cannot sustain themselves should be encouraged to leave. Welfare systems simply cannot function without boundaries.

Ending Multiculturalism, sectarianism & foreign influence

Dealing with foreign offenders, asylum seekers, and illegal immigrants is certainly not straightforward and will require a range of measures. Addressing the problems will be more of a process than an event, and it’s going to take time. At least, though, there is popular support for such measures. Those who object are the minority, and far out of step.

Still, though, this won’t be enough. If current demographic trends are to be addressed then corrective polices must go much further. A lot of immigrants came here legally and are within their legal rights to remain. Addressing this takes us into murkier territory where we have to balance civil rights against existential threats. It requires to to address the ECHR and related issues first.

Perhaps the most contentious of all remigration policies are those that finally address multiculturalism. Even if we get illegal immigration under control, Britain is still left with the problem of unchecked garbage immigration – i.e. those who will never contribute to the economic and social life of the country and live separately according to their own values and customs.

Moving forward, any immigrants must be subject to a probation regime, where citizenship is revocable, but unfortunately, this cannot be retroactive. To remove undesirables, we have to turn up the heat on the boiling frog. This is where we must assert our own culture as the primary culture.

The philosophers who promoted the ideal of religious freedom in Britain did so with a view to ending sectarianism among Christians. They never envisaged having to incorporate primitive cultures and alien religions based on political and demographic conquest. As such, we must adjust our thinking accordingly.

To that end, we must ban the burka and the wearing of traditional ethnic clothing outside of a place of worship. We then disallow sex segregation in mosques. If Britain stands for sex equality then it must apply to all citizens. We must not stand for the endemic misogyny that goes with primitive tribal customs we’ve imported. Britain must be a hostile environment for alien cultures which are at odds with our values.

There are over 80 recognised Sharia “community” courts in the UK. These courts (councils) are not part of the British legal system and are not subject to judicial review. Some Sharia councils, contrary to English law, discriminate on the basis of sex. The lack of real protection on the part of state structures puts women who are victims of domestic violence at particular disadvantage. This must end. No religious legal framework can be allowed to operate outside or in parallel to the Common Law justice system. We must ban things like cousin marriage and genital mutilation, enforce our laws on forced marriage, and end non-stun slaughter.

We also need a degree of electoral reform. Non-citizens and foreign born people must be prohibited from holding public office or working in the civil service. The postal vote must be restricted to service personnel. The Commonwealth vote must be ended. Measures must be taken to correct the democratic deficit where there is evidence of ethnic bloc voting.

Religious leaders and members of religious groups should refrain from promoting any political party or cause under the cloak of religion. Community/religious leaders should not incite their faithful to defy, challenge or actively oppose secular Government policies; much less mobilise their followers or their organisations for subversive purposes. Those who do must face prosecution and removal, and their organisations must be wound up. Robust measures are also required to stem sectarianism in schools and prisons.

As the British demos fragments under the weight of unrestrained mass immigration, we are perhaps closer to experiencing major civil unrest than most would care to admit. Certainly, authorities are on high alert over the prospect of conflict between Indian and Pakistan, that could easily see violence breaking out between Muslims and Hindu nationalists on the streets of Britain.

We must put forth a civil emergencies act that enables the Home Office to immediately deport anyone participating in such activity, along with their immediate families. Their British citizenship should be revoked, regardless of where they were born. Any mosques or places of worship, or community venues acting in support, or facilitating such disturbances must be shuttered.

As I've detailed earlier, and in recent blogs and videos, mass forced deportation is a non-starter. I did not say, though, that forced deportations are off the table. There should be a remigration pincer movement where migrants understand that if they wish to ignore the hints, they are only one infraction away from being forcibly deported. Such tactics can be used sparingly, but remain in play as a looming threat. Remigration is non-discriminatory and humane, but it must be underwritten with a less than subtle message of FAFO.

We can no doubt expand these measures, but the overall point is that non-natives will have to decide whether their religious and cultural identify takes precedence over their British citizenship. If so, we invite them to leave, and if they give us cause to, we will remove them by force.

One such cause, of course, is the grooming epidemic. This was a profoundly racist crime against white British girls. Those responsible must see time in prison, and must also have their citizenship rescinded along with that of their families and dependents.

Demographics is destiny

There’s a lot we can do rid ourselves of illegal immigrants and a lot we can do to stimulate high levels of emigration. This can be done without resorting to inhumane and forceful deportations. Still though, this may not completely address the worrying demographic trends. To that end we could look at incentives to bring home the British diaspora. If, for instance, Australia starts to go the way of South Africa, there would be little opposition to allowing our own people to come home.

Beyond that, we need to address the native fertility rate. This is achieved through family friendly policies, tax policies favourable to raising children in wedlock, and housing policy that prioritises decent sized, affordable homes for our own people. Any political manifesto cannot expect to fix the problems through border measures alone. A comprehensive array of policies is necessary to restore Britain to a homeland.

Conclusion

Many would prefer to solve the problems with the blunt instrument of mass forced deportations. It is likely, though, that the cumulative effect of general and targeted remigration policies will yield the greatest results. Remigration is not characterised as any single measure. Much of it is merely a restoration of the invisible layers of governance that were dismantled under austerity, or for ideological notions of government efficiency. Getting a grip on illegal immigration ultimately requires us to rebuild the administrative state.

Defunding of sectarian entities is pragmatic, but it’s addressing something that should never have been allowed in the first place. We can say the same of banning foreign born MPs. Though some remigration measures could be described as tactically vindictive, most are pragmatic sensible and the bare minimum we should expect from any functioning government.

Any political party movement or party has two main concerns. Obtaining power, and retaining power. On that basis, a remigration framework must be firm, fair and humane, and executed in such a way that it does not undermine the political and public mandate. Since immigration is a complex issue, the solutions are necessarily multifaceted, and as such, the mission is to explain it without resorting to simplistic and misleading slogans.

Critics of this approach fear that it does not go far enough and will not yield results fast enough. That may well be true. We do, however, have to operate within the confines of what the public will permit for the moment. If the law and order, and social cohesion situation continues to deteriorate, remigration policies can be firmed up accordingly to track levels of public discontent. We must go as far as we need to in order to restore the demographic balance, but this is ultimately a problem we will need to innovate our way out of. It must be done with patience and skill.

Some would prefer to set explicit goals and deadlines for remigration. That would lend some clarity to the mission, but our experience with Net Zero points to the folly of setting arbitrary political targets. If targets are too tough, they are unachievable, thereby discrediting the agenda, and if they’re too soft, there is no actual point.

Moreover, an aspiring political movement is well advised to promote pragmatic and workable policies in that the incumbent parties will adopt some or all of them, which buys time for the movement and the party.

Acknowledgments

Much of the prose above is repurposed from my previous works, but it is reframed in the context of remigration; a concept introduced to me by the Homeland Party, who have set out a reasonably comprehensive policy – which is easily the best in its class.

https://homelandparty.org/our-thinking/migration/

Ends.

---

[1] https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2021/12/20/deliberate-destruction-of-identity-documents

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/13/glasgow-residents-surround-and-block-immigration-van-from-leaving-street

[3] https://archive.ph/BY9wy

[4] https://archive.ph/r9Qbe

[5] https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/deliveroo-sacks-over-100-riders-in-crackdown-on-illegal-workers/

[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crackdown-on-illegal-working-and-rogue-employers-in-gig-economy

[7] The Guardian, Wisbech: the end of the road for migrant workers, 8 October 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/08/wisbech-migrant-workers-exploited-gangmasters-eastern-europe, accessed 9 October 2014.

[8] The Daily Telegraph, 3 July 2013, Immigrants create overcrowding and fuel tensions, report finds, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10158678/Immigrants-create-overcrowding-and-fuel-tensions-report-finds.html, accessed 10 October 2014.

[9] http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/immigrant-workers-forced-into-overcrowded-homes/1447730.article, accessed 10 October 2014.

[10] The Guardian, 25 June 2015, Housing raid finds 26 people living in three-bedroom east London home, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/25/overcrowding-housing-raid-26-living-three-bedroom-east-london, accessed 21 July 2015.

[11] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/24/cowboy-landlords-council-crackdown, accessed 30 October 2014.

[12] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23535938, accessed 30 October 2014.

[13] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/18/employers-illegal-workers-report, accessed 30 October 2014.

[14] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674921/Welcome-Shanty-Town-Britain-Desperate-Britons-paying-20-week-landlords-renting-beds-sheds-UKs-housing-crisis-spirals.html, accessed 29 December 2014.

[15] The Daily Telegraph, 26 June 2013, Blighted by an epidemic of "beds in sheds", http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10143697/Blighted-by-an-epidemic-of-beds-in-sheds.html, accessed 28 December 2014.

[16] Planning Resource, 1 November 2013, How we did it - Tackling rogue landlords and beds in sheds, http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1218790/--tackling-rogue-landlords-beds-sheds, accessed 29 December 2014.

[17] The Guardian, 5 March 2013, Labour plans crackdown on employers exploiting migrants, http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/mar/05/labour-crackdown-employers-exploiting-migrants, accessed 9 October 2013.

[18] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/03/alarm-over-suspect-care-agencies-granted-home-office-licence-to-act-as-visa-sponsors

[19] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13152411/Undercover-investigation-reveals-cash-care-jobs-scam-rogue-fixers-charging-unqualified-migrants-20-000-work-permits-vacancies.html

[20]

Net-zero migration: a how-to guide

[21] https://www.ein.org.uk/news/government-says-taskforce-step-action-against-corrupt-immigration-lawyers-law-society-says

[22] https://thecritic.co.uk/the-open-borders-experiment-is-reversible/

[23] https://cps.org.uk/media/post/2025/recent-migration-wave-may-cost-country-billions-warns-cps/

[24] https://cps.org.uk/research/taking-back-control/