They say we have a moral obligation to take in refugees. I'm not sure that we do. We may have a basic humanitarian obligation as a wealthy country to ensure the safety of refugees but that doesn't necessarily mean importing them. Britain does contribute financially to the upkeep of refugee facilities around the world. But the often overlooked point is that refugee status is temporary. Refugees are supposed to return.

That the dinghy influx freely admit they are "seeking a new life" in Britain tells us they have no intention to return thus cannot be considered refugees. They are economic migrants. They are economic migrants who would not be admitted under existing immigration rules so they pay smugglers in order to game the asylum system. We are under no obligation to show favour to them.

There are then those who say "It is only right that we should take our fair share". To which I ask, what is a fair share of illegal immigrants? To what extent is the UK liable for the failure of EU states to control their own borders? But let's entertain that for a moment. The system is already at capacity. There is no room for the current number in asylum system. So in order to accommodate more, who is bumped from the housing list? To whom is that fair?

I could be persuaded to take in more refugees were it the case that we were helping the most vulnerable. If that were the case we'd, primarily, be admitting women and children. Dinghy occupants would be women. They have more to fear than men. Women in refugee camps the world over are subject to rape, forced sex work, FGM and beatings.

The UN says that female refugees are "highly vulnerable to all forms of sexual and physical violence. In addition to the dangers women face from contesting armed groups, once on the move from the conflict zone, they are also at risk of being brutalised by human traffickers or even border security forces. Even after exiting the conflict zone, safety can be elusive. Staying in a refugee camp within the country of origin or seeking protection elsewhere brings serious threats to women’s security, freedom and health". Female refugees need protection from the very men the RNLI is escorting ashore by the thousands.

We are urged to "show compassion" by left wing NGOs and charities, but I don't understand why we are supposed to be compassionate toward those who are cheating a system designed to help vulnerable refugees. Strip away all the self-serving talk about compassion and moral obligation, and what you tend to find is a profoundly ignorant virtue signaller who has never examined the issue in any detail - and is usually of the ilk who will face no material consequences for their fashionable attitudes. They're often the first to accuse others of racism but one can only imagine how royally pissed off I would be as an immigrant who had followed the rules and gone through the expensive processes to comply with British law, to then see wave after wave of chancers who abuse the system. This abuse is the least fair on them.

When it comes down to it, those who seek to enable the mass invasion of dinghy migrants are ideological opposed to borders, for whom citizenship is a tradable commodity and national identity just equates to living somewhere regardless of where you were born. Often the most shallow and narcissistic views are held aloft as the most virtuous - especially by our media class. Citizenship and identity mean nothing to them.

But borders exist for a reason. They allow peoples to define their own laws within their own territories according to their own values. Values which are not universal. That means we have a continuous culture and system of national norms, upon which trust is built in our communities. When that starts to break down, when virtually anyone is allowed to settle, with licence to ignore our laws from the get go, and special dispensations made for them, we gradually become a low trust society beset by tribal rivalries and ethno-identity politics. Our cities are halfway there already.

The same people who wave "refugees welcome" placards are the same people who cheer when mobs prevent the Home Office from deporting illegal immigrants. There exists a privileged class of well-to-do leftists who lobby for open borders, and have successfully weaponised asylum law to erode our immigration system to the point of uselessness. If the Home Office can't or won't deport illegal immigrants then we are, in effect, a borderless country. They know this which is why they campaign through the courts and not through normal channels of politics.

The danger in this is that a small but powerful elite is imposing its flawed moral construct on the majority who are increasingly marginalised at the ballot box, not least since the main parties have long since abandoned ordinary Brits. Eventually these tactics erode the legitimacy of law and we then see a breakdown of law and order. When the police won't enforce moral norms of the country enshrined in law then vigilantes will.

Liberal think tanks are presently manufacturing the narrative that Britain is at ease with the rate of migration since the issue has dropped down the list of current concerns since Brexit. They're only fooling themselves. The cost of living crisis and related issues have certainly displaced immigration as a concern, but we're only at the beginning of the food and energy crisis, and we're heading into a recession that will have lasting ramifications for living standards in the UK. With any recession goes crime and drugs and inter-ethnic violence.

We are soon going to see just how ungovernable our cities have become, and voters will rightly be asking why we have a supposedly conservative government sitting on its hands over what amounts to an invasion of illegal immigrants. When people can't get what they want from mainstream political parties, they will turn to the extremes.

I believe a reckoning is coming. I don't believe in the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, but it is observable that native Brits are being displaced from their own politics as minority ethnic bloc votes turn elections. The Tories pander to Indians while Labour panders to Muslims, and the disputes over Kashmir and "Palestine" are, bizarrely, just as influential in elections as the state of local health and education. Brits are not yet a minority in terms of demographics, but as mainstream political parties abandon them, they will be the minority at the ballot box. Labour and the Tories will each abuse the immigration system to gerrymander the outcome of elections. The SNP has already given refugees the right to vote in local elections. Labour will do likewise.

I've always found "land and peoples, blood and soil" nationalism to be rather grubby and though not actually Nazi, it's in the same ballpark. But I do see a revival of it in the future when it becomes clear that our own politicians put us last in the pecking order. When there isn't a moderate alternative, the extremes will prosper. You then start to see vigilante groups enjoying more legitimacy and public consent than the police. It won't happen soon, but we are drifting into a point where our lawless cities will reach a tipping point that could be called a low-level civil war - but nobody will actually call it that. The establishment will simply pretend it isn't happening. But it won't be contained forever. We're already witnessing the cultural Balkanisation of Britain, and if immigration isn't controlled then it will become deadly.

Britain can be a successful multi-ethnic country but only if the rate of influx is in harmony with the inherent absorptive capacity and minorities are compelled to integrate. If it isn't, you end up with a transient society with values constantly in flux and then there is nothing left for immigrants to integrate with. Just a morass of competing ethnic lobbies and gated communities.

To avoid this fate we need to ensure we have a functioning system of border control and one that deters the mass abuse we're presently seeing. The Linton on Ouse facility is a signal that our government isn't even managing the basics and lacks the political will to do what is necessary. Nobody wants it, it is fair to nobody, and is symptomatic of a collapse of local democracy - but our political class doesn't care. On that basis, the fight is only just beginning.