The Greens' immigration plan is cultural suicide dressed up as compassion. This is no joke - Adam Brooks

At a time when Britain is already struggling under record levels of migration, when housing is scarce, public services are stretched, communities feel overwhelmed, and a migrant sex crime is a daily occurrence…the Greens appear to be arguing that enforcement itself is the problem.

No detention, no meaningful deterrent at all and the right to stay, even after failed asylum claims.

That isn’t reform, that is absolutely bonkers.

For years, voters were promised control. The Conservatives said that numbers would fall, but they didn’t… in fact, net migration soared to historic highs. Channel crossings surged, and migrant hotels filled up.

Trust in Government has totally collapsed.

While in opposition, Labour criticised the chaos yet the problem has got even worse under their 18-month tenure so far.

And now the Green Party’s answer appears to be - remove what little immigration control remains.

Think about the signal that sends to the world.

If detention is scrapped and amnesty becomes policy, what message travels across smuggling networks, WhatsApp groups, migrant TikToks and word of mouth chains around South Asia, the Middle East and Africa?

It basically says get to Britain, and you will get all you want and get to stay, no matter what.

Green supporters will say that this is about compassion, human rights and about building a “fair” system.

But immigration policy is not built on slogans… It should be built on deterrence.

When border enforcement weakens, the flows of migrants always increase. When removal becomes a rarity, then attempts will multiply. When rejected claims no longer mean deportation, the deterrent disappears. It’s a no-lose bet for these foreign men.

That is not harsh… it is basic logic.

Britain is not a limitless welfare state floating in the North Atlantic. It is a small island with a finite housing stock, finite public funds and finite capacity.

Every GP appointment, every school place, every social home, every pound of public spending exists within limits.

A government that ignores those limits is not compassionate. It is reckless and completely anti - British.

Scrapping detention entirely would put Britain outside the norm of every serious sovereign nation. Granting amnesty on a wide scale would fundamentally alter the scale of migration to Britain.

And once regularisation happens, numbers will never stabilise, because family reunification follows, multiplying the numbers rapidly. Demographic change is unfortunately inevitable, affecting whole communities of non-English speakers.

These are not fringe concerns. They are measurable realities.

The public has already endured ten years of broken promises on immigration. We were told the system would be controlled and that illegal crossings would stop. We were told that numbers would fall.

Instead, we watched the opposite happen.

A country without enforceable borders is not progressive. It is vulnerable and weak.

A state that cannot remove those with no lawful right to remain does not have a functioning immigration system. It simply has an open invitation to millions of chancers.

And the consequences would be catastrophic. They would be felt in housing queues, on wage pressure, in overstretched services, in crime figures and in the erosion of public trust.

This debate is not about hating migrants. It is about whether Britain remains a nation with laws that mean something.

Borders are not extreme… they are normal.

Control is not cruel - it is necessary.

If the Green Party wants to argue for a world without borders, they should say so openly and defend the consequences honestly.

Because the British public deserves clarity.

And what they appear to be looking at here is not moderation, it is a gamble with the country’s future… and I don’t like the odds.