STEPHEN GLOVER: At last! A politician who sees the enormity of the problems caused by mass uncontrolled immigration – and who now has a credible plan to stop it

Nigel Farage’s press conference yesterday was an extraordinary political event. The reform did not tear the British leader rule without fuel.

Immigration and asylum knows that it is the most urgent issue of our time – according to a recent survey, the basket case has demonstrated policies that it would not dare to rise a year ago even more than our economy.

My reaction was to shout: ‘Finally!’ The first Tories and now after all the failures of preventing the channel of boats – the numbers rose to the record level at Sir Keir Starmer’s weak -hour – Nigel Farage finally understood nettle. In fact, he was torn by his roots.

However, this was not just about taking a series of effective precautions that would slow down small boats from the channel. Perhaps more importantly, Farage announced a war on all illegal immigrants in England, which may be at least one million.

A reform government would follow Trump’s example in America and gather illegal immigrants before sending them back to origin countries. This policy has some practical and moral aspects that reform has not yet thought. More later.

First, a great excellent plan to stop boats. Tories claims that Farage has just copied his ideas. This is garbage. The main proposal of the reform is the withdrawal of the British Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the scrapping of Tony Blair’s Human Rights Law.

It was the ECHR and Human Rights Law, which examined Tories’s plan to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda. However, they were afraid of a liberal hill, either they had no courage to take out or repeal the action. Nevertheless, excellent civilized countries such as Australia and New Zealand have not registered to the ECHR.

Even now, Kemi Badenoch has not yet decided to leave the ECHR, even though it sympathize with this idea. It was very timid and very slow. As expected, if he announced a policy change at the Conservative Party Conference in October, he will be accused of following the reform.

Farage also said that a future reform government would ‘disappear’ for five years of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. The aim of all these proposals is to deprive the ‘activist’ judges and human rights lawyers from legal devices that disappoint or delay the deportation of illegal immigrants.

It is deterrence at the center of Farage’s thought. A reform government would build detention camps that holds up to 24,000 people to be sent to all illegal immigrants passing the channel on boats before they were sent to origin countries.

At the press conference, both Farage and his assistant Zia Yusuf are sure that the arrangements made with such countries can be reached. Some foreign leaders think that their palms should be lubricated.

I believe that an British political party first produces a reliable plan to prevent the passage of the channel that will not be weakened by judges and lawyers based on human rights law (unlike Tories’s Rwanda program).

How will the government react? It would be great for Farage to buy a leaf from his book. Indeed, with the tongue on the cheek, the reform leader is the deputies of the people in the labor election zones yesterday.

They will not listen. Labor is dependent on a part of a part that he develops on the toynnic – signing another agreement with the French here promises to accelerate the appeal system there – at best will have a marginal effect.

Human Rights Lawyer Sir Keir Starmer will not be brave enough to withdraw from the ECHR or other international regulations. Former workers’ home secretary Lord Blunkett, whose government should suspend our membership in these organs, will not even have the bottle to receive the last proposal.

Farage’s ideas as ‘bringing together the back of the fagot package’ how rich workforce. If someone constitutes a policy while going on, Keir Starmer and Interior Minister Yette Cooper. The reform found a detailed and consistent plan.

Zia Yusuf and Farage show the program operation that restored justice at a press conference in Kidlington, Oxford Airport, Kidlington

However, there are loose ends. During the press conference, several journalists asked Farage about real refugees who escaped from the tyranny. Would he be happy if he was sent back to a certain torture and death?

The response of the reform leader was that there was no middle way. ‘The alternative was not to do anything’ and the British people were tired of the national security threat, and they were tired of the rising crime of ‘undocumented single men’ to our shores.

Of course they are. But can the Prime Minister Farage really pack the real refugees in their graves? I hope not and I don’t believe it.

There was no similar reality in their plans to deport the illegal immigrants living here. Nigel Farage claimed that a reform government would send 600,000 back in the first period.

Yesterday, according to Zia Yusuf, the Muslim son of immigrants, who usually gave a harder sound than Farage, could be more than a million illegal immigrants in England. However, some of them faced only 180,000 channels on small boats returned.

In other words, most illegal immigrants came to this country in other ways. Either they exceeded their visas or they came here in an illegal way.

Many people think that it is probably a few years ago that a person staying in the UK after his visa has expired. What about someone who has been in this country for 20 or 30 years, is married to a wife and child and has a job and a house?

Should they all have been forced to leave those who have become their homes? And in any case, how will hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants be defined? Doesn’t Farage’s new limitation department look a little ominous and without British?

Although many of us are about illegal migration, I do not believe that the deportation of the residents can be accepted by the majority of the British people, including some reform voters.

More thinking needs to be made and there is a distinction between the recent illegal immigrants who have been able to pose a threat and those who live here for a long time and who do not openly do.

For Kemi Badenoch, although it comes at the party, some humanity sometimes has the scope of injecting the plans that voice Draconian in both Farage and Yusuf’s mouths. If he can find offers that look both effective and humane, he can gain some support.

All this is the first British politician to announce the policies of Nigel Farage, which have the chance to interrupt the illegal migration in the future. The next difficulty is to show how this country will reduce the dependence on legal immigration, which is many times larger.

Occasionally, for his occasional false notes, he finally recognizes the magnitude of the problems caused by uncontrolled migration and plans to do something about it.