Only the naffest or the most cynical of politicians (see Khan, Sadiq) would still utter the Blair era slogan that “diversity makes us stronger” and that we are “enriched” by it. Though it might ring true for middle class white academics and FCDO civil servants who have the benefit of a wide array of foreign influences in their midst, for most others, this shtick elicits a hollow laugh.

The “enriching diversity” the rest of us must contend with comes in the form of terrorism, grooming gangs, forced underage marriage, virginity repair surgery, FGM, inbreeding, machete crime, acid attacks, witchcraft, forced conversion, honour killings, sex selective abortions, the commodification of women and girls, visceral antisemitism, homophobic attacks, knife crime, industrial scale benefit fraud, international organised crime, food fraud, money laundering and racism. Our Christmas markets are now surrounded by a ring of steel and the police carry automatic rifles.

Though much of this serves as fodder for the far right, there’s so much of it going on that even the Guardian can’t ignore it. I don’t feel very enriched by any of this. What has been done to Britain in the name of diversity is an absolute tragedy.

Sadiq Kahn would have it that much of this is “just part and parcel of living in a big city”, and to a point he’s right. After the likes of him have finished with them, that is. We now see inter-ethnic rivalries fighting it our on our own streets, feeding into the political corruption that’s now rife in the inner cities. And worst of all, we were never asked about any of this. This is something that has been done to us without our consent. We are told immigration is vital to keep our NHS running and to pay for our pensions. Even that has proven to be a lie.

It is then difficult to muster any sympathy for migrants who pay criminal gangs to facilitate their illegal entry into the UK. We know the asylum is wide open to abuse and it’s hard to buy the line we’re looking at poor and desperate people when the majority of them are itinerant males who not so long back were throwing rocks at lorry windscreens in Calais and stabbing the drivers.

I don’t dispute that there are destitute people among them, who would very much like to start a new life in the UK, but there we come down to the basic fact that the UK cannot accommodate everyone who would like to come here. We’re short on houses, infrastructure is creaking and we’re running out of hotels and barracks. For the NGOcracy to now be talking about flinging open the borders for anyone who wants to come is galling. I am minded to take a zero tolerance approach simply because the left have made it an all or nothing ultimatum.

I could, however, be persuaded to be more generous - if there were proof that we were helping only the most vulnerable, in manageable numbers and that cheats will be swiftly deported, I could, perhaps, give my consent. For that to happen we need a system that favours women and children, only admitting husbands where there is verifiable evidence of marriage and a long term association. I won’t take any persuading that women from Muslim countries are fleeing oppression, abuse and torture. We ought to be helping women and girls escape the very men the RNLI is picking up.

Instead we have a procession of thieving politicians telling us we have a moral obligation to admit any biped who rocks up in dinghy and the admissions criteria gets weaker all the time. Enver Solomon of the Refugee Council pushes the narrative that almost all arrivals in the 18 months to June this year were from 10 countries, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Eritrea and Afghanistan, “where persecution is not uncommon”. By the time this factoid reaches the ears of Guardian columnists it becomes “Research suggests two-thirds of those crossing the Channel are ultimately judged to have been genuine refugees, escaping conflict and persecution”.

This jars very much with what we can see with our own eyes, where the majority are men of fighting age, showing little sign of actual distress or even poverty. After all, they have the means to pay thousands to the smugglers. More than half of Brits have in their savings accounts. This is a mechanised abused of the asylum system, exploiting the weaknesses born of our inherent compassion. They know to say they’re gay or a Christian covert. They know exactly what sob stories help them game the system and there’s a well established, well funded NGOcracy helping them do it.

At this point I struggle to see what our “obligation” to them is. There is a basic humanitarian obligation but we have no obligation to open our borders to all comers. An immigration policy which can be by-passed by bogus asylum seekers demanding entry is no policy at all.

The nuances of this debate, though, are completely ignored by the NGOcracy who, aided by the Guardian and the BBC, have endless airtime to peddle their narratives, demanding of us that we admit more, and give them more irrespective of the stresses that places on the system. Stresses which they themselves have exacerbated by frustrating deportations. For all that they have plenty to say, and endless opportunities to say it, not one of them has ventured any kind of detailed plan as to how their alternative would work. They know as well as we do that it falls down when subject to even cursory scrutiny.

They one thing they won’t do is seek to balance the political equation and find a consensus approach that could secure the consent of the public. Instead we get wall to wall propaganda, fictional narratives, and usual smears of xenophobia. The people calling for “safe and legal routes” for itinerant thugs in Calais are those least likely to live in the places they’ll be dumped. It’ll be communities in Rotherham, Hull, Doncaster and Rochdale who pay the price for their preening narcissism - whereupon the local press and the police will play their part in suppressing the details.

It is not that Britons are xenophobic or intolerant. It’s just that they can detect the truth gap between what the NGOcracy and the metropolitan media is saying and what they have to contend with when this crisis comes closer to home. The anger is not a “hatred of foreigners”, rather it is a hatred of an establishment engaged in a deception, yet again imposing their agendas on the public without their consent and with no regard for their legitimate complaints. People voicing their concerns are likely to be branded far right extremists. Exactly the sort of cynicism that does push people further to the right. Myself included.

I’m far from alone in saying it, but illegal immigration has the potential to destabilise Britain. It’s not even about the numbers. It’s about a fundamental breach of the civic contract where those who have the power (including the NGOcracy) can ram home their agendas and the public has no say in it. Somehow I think we probably could absorb the material stresses of more migrants, but the bottom line is that we have failed to properly integrate those who have been here for a generation or more, exacerbating a sense of alienation and abandonment among the white working class, particularly as they are no longer reflected in media content from London. It’s little wonder that the “great replacement” theory has traction.

If it comes to pass that the government, elected to “take back control”, caves in to the path of least resistance, seeking to pacify the NGOcracy and the left wing media, thereby rendering our votes worthless, then we will follow the mainland of Europe. We will see an active far right, possibly even arson attacks on mosques and asylum centres, and a fragmented local politics where skin colour and heritage matters where for a long time it didn’t.

You’re then on a path to racially segregated tribal politics much like the USA which leads to money favouring and corruption and the erosion of basic good governance, where public officials are appointed on the basis of which cohort they visually represent rather than aptitude and talent. This is exactly the sort of identity based politics that destroyed America and has brought it to the brink of a new civil war. This is what happens when the establishment pushes its luck imposing their minority views on to the majority, believing they have a divine right to do it.

This could even heat up by the next election. I strongly suspect Patel’s borders act isn’t going to make a difference. That leaves only the nuclear option of feeding the Refugee Convention into the shredder, which this Tory government won’t do. Against a backdrop of legal challenges from the NGOcracy, driving a horse and cart through our system of immigration, the public will begin to see who really has the power. It’s hard to say how that disaffection will manifest, but only a fool believes there are no consequences for this dangerous arrogance.