Britain has always had a large mix of peoples throughout its history, so I'm really not sure why the default stance always defers back to essentially 'white folk' wishing foreigners to abscond?But illegal immigration is a tiny part of the overall number, and it has been right the way throughout the last 30 years.
For the longest time it was mostly (legal) internal EU migration, Brexit made the UK much less attractive to EU residents so it was just replaced with (legal) immigration from elsewhere.
'Small boats' asylum seekers are a small subset of an already small slice of the overall immigration picture.
View attachment 199298
'Preserving one peoples over others' is a pretty telling statement in and of itself, like, what does that actually mean? How would you define that? Is it people who've lived in the UK for a certain amount of time and then they're OK, does it count if you're born in the UK? Do you have to be a certain colour, or worship a certain God? How many generations back counts as acceptable?
Farage played the racist wolf-whistle with Sunak leaving the D-Day celebrations early, saying he 'didn't understand our culture' (WINK WINK KNOW WHAT I MEAN RIGHT?), and yet Sunak is most definitely British. Or is he not British enough for Nigel? Or just the wrong kind of British?
Bit thorny isn't it.
When in reality, just growing up in many parts of London, no one batted an eyelid as to where anyone else was from. I've seen multiculturalism in effect, and it was rarely an issue.
The notion that other ethnicities and cultures living here aren't dismayed at our politicians' allowing unvetted arrivals in their hundreds every day is something that's conveniently overlooked, yet it's of grave concern to most folk, so yes Preserving one peoples over others indeed.
Last I checked we are supposed to be a collective nation. Championing unknown elements without knowing their background does unquestionably harm its peoples, sorry to say



