A few weeks after the Brexit referendum, a friend who voted to leave told me what he saw as the biggest benefit. “We’ll never have to hear about immigration again,” he said. The logic was that if people got the border control they wanted, politicians would no longer be able to use immigration as a political tool, and the country could finally focus on other important issues. Needless to say, that prediction turned out to be spectacularly wrong—so much so that we haven’t even needed to revisit the conversation.
That’s because immigration debates don’t work that way. The goalposts are always moving. Nothing illustrates this better than Nigel Farage getting exactly what he said he wanted—the UK leaving the EU and ending free movement—only for a new controversy around immigration to flare up, with Reform UK now claiming to be the only ones who can fix it. It’s never enough. Just look at the escalating crackdowns in the US, where the net keeps widening. In a matter of months, immigration enforcement has expanded so aggressively that even documented and undocumented immigrants are afraid to leave home for groceries or work, with National Guard troops patrolling the streets.
It starts with the border—portrayed as so porous that it requires military-level force to police and maximum punishment for those who cross. People attempting to enter are often labeled “invaders” intent on crime or exploitation. Right-wing politicians in the UK have used the word “invasion” for years. After Donald Trump returned to office, he formalized that idea, expanding the constitutional protection against invasion to include immigrants.
The US southern border is now so militarized that armored vehicles once stationed in Iraq are deployed there. Border crossings had already been declining before Trump’s presidency, but the drop accelerated under his administration. By April of this year, crossings were down 94% compared to the previous year. Is that enough? No. Because the numbers don’t really matter—the point is to maintain a dramatic show of force. As Brigadier General Jeremy Winters put it, “Containment is at 95%. But 95% is not 100%.”
Something similar is happening in the UK, where some media outlets have even suggested “gunboat diplomacy” in response to small boat arrivals—which made up only about 4% of total immigration to the UK in 2024. These responses are about political posturing, not practical results.
And it doesn’t stop there—in fact, it can’t. What about those already in the country? Under new laws empowering US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), everyone from undocumented migrants to lawful residents has been arrested, even though the administration claims “criminality” is the main criterion. ICE is on track to become the largest police force in the US, and its aggressive public arrests—sometimes involving flash-bang grenades and confrontations—create the appearance of a massive, unsolvable problem rather than addressing one. Trump promised to deport millions, and if those millions don’t exist, old laws can be reinterpreted to make it happen.
Similarly, Farage has said that after automatically deporting all small boat arrivals, he would aim to remove 600,000 people over a five-year parliament. That number, like Trump’s, seems arbitrary, yet entire plans are built around it. The path only leads one way: toward larger enforcement agencies, rewriting laws, and redefining what it means to be a legal resident. It’s easy to foresee a future where even those who arrived irregularly but were later granted permission to stay could be targeted.Staying in the country could eventually be made illegal, and those affected might then be counted among the so-called “invaders.” If that sounds like dramatic speculation, you haven’t been watching closely.
Once a climate takes hold where a nation is fighting immigrants at its borders, in its streets, and in its workplaces, what’s to stop that hostility from spreading to British citizens? The very idea of Britishness is already shifting, with some redefining it to mean simply “born in Britain.” When academic Matthew Goodwin notes that “more than 50% of social housing in London is now occupied by people who are not British,” he’s referring to those not born in the UK—many of whom are naturalized citizens. This focus on a non-native population without rights ends up casting uncertainty even on those who hold citizenship. The outcome is that mixed families—with both citizens and non-citizens—are tied to the least protected among them. In the U.S., even citizens, including children in some cases, have been deported as part of crackdowns.
One could argue that the actual facts or numbers don’t really matter, because asylum hotels provoke anger and small boats make people feel overwhelmed. It’s the job of politicians to address public concerns and meet people where they are. But that assumes the public’s views are static, not shaped by political and media influences that amplify a sense of crisis and then push for ever-tougher measures. When Keir Starmer gave a major speech outlining plans to require migrants to “earn” the right to stay, the Daily Mail’s headline blared: “NO CAP ON MIGRANTS IN LABOUR’S CRACKDOWN.”
That’s because the core question in immigration crises isn’t “how many is too many,” but “how few is few enough.” The answer, for some, is “fewer than zero.” And since that’s impossible, no matter how extreme the promises, solutions, or policies become, they will never feel sufficient. Each time a decisive action is taken—whether Brexit, ramping up deportations, or deploying the navy—a chorus will insist these are necessary compromises, only to quickly move on and support the next demand when it arises.
Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the topic presented in a clear and natural tone
BeginnerLevel Questions
Q What does Vote for Brexit to stop the boats mean
A It was a promise made during the Brexit campaign that leaving the EU would allow the UK to fully control its borders and stop small boats carrying migrants across the English Channel
Q How was Brexit supposed to stop the boats
A The idea was that by leaving the EU the UK could end the free movement of people and create its own stricter asylum laws making it harder for people to enter the country illegally
Q Has Brexit successfully stopped the boats
A No the number of small boat crossings has remained high or increased since Brexit was completed This is because the boats are mostly from countries not in the EU so Brexit did not directly affect the routes or reasons for these crossings
Q What are the shifting targets mentioned
A It refers to how the governments stated goals on immigration keep changing For example the focus shifted from a specific net migration target to stopping the boats to deporting people to Rwanda as each previous goal was not met
Advanced Detailed Questions
Q If Brexit gave the UK control of its borders why are boat crossings still happening
A While Brexit gave the UK legal authority to make its own immigration laws it didnt solve the practical challenges The boats are a complex international issue involving human trafficking international law on asylum and cooperation with other countries like France
Q Why do opponents seem never satisfied
A Critics argue that the governments solutions like the Rwanda deportation plan are expensive unethical illegal under international law and dont address the root causes of migration They want solutions focused on safe legal routes and international cooperation which the government has been reluctant to pursue fully
Q What is the Rwanda plan and how is it supposed to work
A Its a policy to send some asylum seekers who arrive illegally to Rwanda to have their claims processed there If granted refugee status they would stay in Rwanda not the UK The government says this will deter people from making the dangerous journey The plan is currently stalled by legal challenges
Q Has overall immigration gone down since Brexit
A
