The dinghy issue is very much subject to a class divide. It does tend to be middle class polite society who buys into the narrative that dinghy arrivals are desperate and vulnerable refugees. Some genuinely believe this because they’re quite stupid, while the open borders activists know demand well these are economic migrants but are all too happy to use them as pawns in their culture war.

Here in York, opposition to the Linton on Ouse migrant processing facility has been hijacked by local branches of the NGOcracy and the well-to-do socialites who are happy to brand anyone off-message as “far right”. The Linton Action Group has dropped any pretence of being an inclusive campaign and is now retweeting open borders activists and liaises with Hope Not Hate. When it comes down to it, they’d rather make room for itinerant males of fighting age than allow the Brexit voting oiks a say in the matter. Locally as well as nationally, the term “far right” has come to mean working class people whose opinions differ from their polite society betters – they who must be denied a voice at all costs.

Having monitored this issue for some time now, I do not believe for a nanosecond that the majority of those crossing the channel by dinghy are legitimate refugees. Most of them will say without prompting that they came to Britain to start a new life. Paying smugglers to gain entry is their best bet to circumvent our system of immigration laws. Anyone who destroys their ID and cooks up a sob story can easily evade deportation. The bigger game in play is to saturate the system until such a point when weak politicians will cave in and grant amnesty and the right to work. It’s a waiting game.

This is very possibly a safe bet on their part in that if Labour wins the next election, Labour MPs will push for such an amnesty. York Central MP, Rachael Maskell, has said “segregating asylum seekers in large centres such as that proposed at Linton-on-Ouse was not the right way to go. Instead, efforts should be made to integrate refugees and asylum seekers within communities”. That basically means a free house for anyone who rocks up. This is also the view of the self-appointed Linton Action Group, which is ok with flooding the UK with fighting age men just so long as it’s not in the leafy villages. They don’t care if it’s working class communities who have to live with the fallout and the inherent risks.

These are the same people who trot out the line about there being no safe and legal routes so migrants are “forced” to make the voyage by dinghy. There is no safe and legal route for illegal immigrants and there’s no reason why there should be. British taxpayers are not obliged to roll out the red carpet for third word adventurers, many of whom have already has asylum applications rejected by EU states. We have even identified some refugees who make regular trips to their country of origin. This is a systematic abuse of Britain’s asylum system which ought to be helping vulnerable women and children. Ukrainian men are out on the front lines. Why aren’t the dinghy migrants?

It is not surprising that the issue splits along familiar Brexit lines. The NGOcray and open borders activists are all die hard remainers who, ironically, bewailed the loss of EU citizenship while attacking the very concept of citizenship. But it also transcends the issue of immigration. We’re back to the essential Brexit question. Who really governs us? In this instance the NGOcracy is asserting its power through the courts, each time thwarting a government that was explicitly elected to take control of our borders. Democracy once again loses to established technocratic power – pointing to the urgent need for major constitutional reform and the rollback of Blair’s human rights empire.

The liberal left believe Britain is an inherently racist and intolerant country and sees immigration as a means to punish those with whom they disagree. They really don’t care if illegal immigrants are rapists and paedophiles because in their eyes neither is a sin worse than being working class, white and conservative. We’re all meant to conform to the “diversity makes us stronger” dogma, despite a torrent of daily evidence pointing to the contrary.

The dinghy migrant issue is set to be a festering sore in British politics for the long run. It’s looking like Patel’s Rwanda plan will be ineffectual as a deterrent and that the numbers removed will be so low it won’t make any meaningful impact on the numbers presently in the system. Migrants still have good odds on evading deportation, and the Home Office won’t keep pace with the levels of new arrivals. The Nationality and Borders is not likely to improve matters when the Home Office is deeply dysfunctional and when the Tories are reluctant to make any radical reforms to the Human Rights Act.

On present trajectory we are set to use up all vacant hotels and barracks until the backlog is unsustainable. If then we see moves to place migrants into communities, we’ll see a surge of support for far right parties and a new wave of vigilantism. The NGOcracy is laying midwife to a new anti-immigration movement. We’ll see EDL style groups mobilising in the cities and clashes between extremist groups. We’re building up a powder keg.

Ultimately, the problem is a lack of leadership. The Tories don’t have it in them to do anything radical even if it would be wildly popular with the Tory base. They’re just going to let the situation coast along until it explodes. Perhaps more dangerous, though, is the growing divide in the country as voters watch a feral elite shredding the civic contract and making Britain a free for all. MPs are presently drafting the Online Safety Bill to protect themselves from hurty tweets, but if they keep this up, they’ll have much more to worry about. Tolerance has a breaking point.