Why mass deportations are a non-starter

One point I'm going to have to bang on pretty hard is the actual definition of remigration. I think the Homeland Party definition is definitive. "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 is where the serious thinking has to go - not least because "mass deportations" is a non-starter. It's better, and cheaper, if immigrants remove themselves.

One of the reasons mass deportations is a non-option is because the state will face major pushback on three fronts. You will recall a while back when a deportation operation in Glasgow was halted by a mob of leftists. I think 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 last year when the entire community turned out to prevent the authorities taking a child into care. Deportations are a non-starter in majority ethnic areas.

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 is 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.

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. That will require a full spectrum of local authority inspections on care homes, high streets shops, and housing inspections for overcrowded HMOs, beds in shed, and illegally sublet social housing. It will require spot checks on factories and heavy penalties for employers and landlords flouting the law. It will require coordinated actions between trading standards, environmental health and the tax office.

We're going to have to identify the worst sectors and fine businesses into the stone age if they employ illegals. Then we're going to have double up on money laundering enforcement. Where you find illegal immigration, you're looking at a pipeline to organised crime. What's needed is a major deterrence operation.

To deal with immigration as a whole, we're going to have to look at each avenue and design specific measures. In many cases, it's just a matter of properly enforcing the laws that we already have. 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.

There is a certain vindictive catharsis at the thought of "mass deportations" but like Reform's simplistic idea of channel intercepts, it really doesn't bear any close scrutiny. Remigration measures are the only thing that will work, not only for illegal immigration but also legal immigration. As many have rightly observed, turn off the ready supply of freebies and benefits and many will simply remove themselves. We have to make life here untenable for those who cannot support themselves. We don't owe them anything.

We then have to close down the pipelines. That's going to require a structural overhaul of the university model and higher education funding. It will require a completely new model of social care to end the reliance on foreign labour. There are a galaxy of measures we can take, all of them reasonable, sensible and humane, all of which are popular. The cumulative effect will be seismic, without having to knock down any doors.

Behind the scenes, we are also going to have to review labour laws, and the modern slavery act and all the loopholes immigration lawyers can exploit. There is a huge immigration law sector, most of whom are expert in exploiting a deeply broken and inadequate system. All necessary actions must be taken to put them out of business.

Parties like Reform will pledge to deport all illegal immigrants, but that's likely upward of two million people at this point. These are people who don't want to be found and don’t want to be removed. In many cases they will be difficult to locate and difficult to remove. As such, leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights Act is the first port of call, so any serious party needs to set out their alternative constitution so they can get busy on day one. The idea that a prime minister is going to send out fleets of snatch wagons on day one is for the birds. It's not how the job is done and it is not going to work. Policy must be realistic and geared to stay on the right side of public consent.

Again it must be stressed that remigration does not mean mass deportations and it doesn't mean deporting all the brown people. Remigration is an array or targeted non-discriminatory measures.

Whether or not remigration measures will be enough is another debate. We are going to need broader measures to tackle foreign influence in our politics, locally and nationally, and we're going to have to remove foreign born peope from the civil service and the home office. We're going to have to come down hard on sectarianism and reform postal voting. We're going to have to look very closely at political campaign finance, and ban election addresses in foreign languages. Ultimately remigration and related issues will have to be the preoccupation of parliament over two terms.

On that basis, any party that doesn't have a comprehensive manifesto of remigration measures is not one to be taken seriously. Do not be fobbed of with lightweight slogans, bullet points and populist slogans. Don't let them get away with serving up slop. Demand detail and demand better thinking.

There is an unfortunate tendency in all parties, sadly without exception, to pander to their bases. They all think (with some justification) that voters cannot cope with complexity. This leads them all to campaign on simplistic slogans, promising what they cannot deliver. This lack of preparation is why a Reform government would flounder in its first year. Voters on the right will again cry betrayal, but ultimately the underperformance of successive governments is because we let them get away with half-baked slogans in place of actual policy.

I've made this point for years, but still hardliners prefer the comfort zone of extreme rhetoric. What peope don't want to hear is that there are no quick fixes to this mess, and no universal solutions. As such, I do not have a great deal of sympathy when they cry betrayal. To a very large extent, you get the politics you deserve.