'There is nothing British about allowing people to jump queues and dodge rules to work here' - Kevin Foster

Can the UK really provide a home for all who would like to live here? Should those already living in a safe and democratic country be able to abuse our asylum system to avoid applying for a visa? Then ask yourself what is British about not looking at all options to end deaths in the Channel?

Whilst John Major may have a point that immigration should not be seen purely as an ill - we do welcome highly skilled individuals to our country - it is the sense of not having control created by the small boats crisis which most angers voters. This combined with the costs of supporting what are often migrants with limited skills, further infuriates voters who face the pressures on local housing and public services not affecting or visible to wealthier members of society.

For any system of law, including immigration rules, to work there must be a way of enforcing them.

This is where the key challenge comes with illegal migration and with it the business model of people trafficking gangs: What can you do with someone whose own country won’t accept their return and neither will the country they left to come to the UK?

If the answer is nothing, then ultimately you end up stuck with them no matter how many times you refuse their application. How is this outcome rooted in the values of British fair play?

Some overseas Governments will refuse to accept deportations with an aim to please a domestic audience, others we simply cannot deal with on immigration matters, eg. Assad’s Syria.

If we don’t have an alternative option, we hand sovereignty of our border to the government of someone’s passport, not ours. How does that sit with parliamentary supremacy?

Back in 1997, John Major asked his candidates not to bind his hands at the negotiating tables of Europe. Without a comprehensive alternative plan to deal with small boats, going cap in hand to the EU for a returns deal is unlikely to produce a great outcome.

Labour is now finding out, pledging greater co-operation with European law enforcement to “smash the gangs” is not very effective in solving the problem when you discover the previous Government was already co-operating on law enforcement work.

LATEST OPINION FROM GBN MEMBERSHIP:

• Is there any socialist in town not getting handouts from Lord Alli? - Kelvin MacKenzie
• 'The Rwanda plan to stop small boats was a populist gimmick and falls short of British values,' says Bill Rammell
• Kemi Badenoch puts fight back in the Tory party - Gareth Bacon

John Major also tries to dismiss the idea Rwanda is a deterrent by saying: “Somewhere in the back woods of some North Africa country, they actually know what the British Parliament has legislated for? I think not.”

Yet those travelling over the Channel are not in the “backwoods” of Africa, they are already in safe and democratic France, having travelled through various safe European countries with functioning asylum systems they could apply to.

They get the news there, as evidenced by the gleeful reactions from some setting out after Labour scrapped the Rwanda Plan. John is also slightly naïve if he thinks small boat migrants head to the UK 'because they're not quite sure where to go'. Most intend to head for the UK from the very start of their journey.

There is nothing British about allowing a situation where people seek to jump the queue for resettlement and dodge the rules around who can come here to work. Or to put it another way, it’s simply not cricket.