Across Europe, a troubling silence persists. It is not the silence of ignorance, but of evasion—deliberate, cultivated, and maintained by a political class unwilling to confront one of the great questions of our age: what happens to a democracy when it no longer decides who enters it?
In Britain, the boats keep coming. In 2023, over 52,000 migrants arrived across the English Channel, most without visas, many without documentation, and a considerable proportion, according to government figures, being unaccompanied young men of military age from Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.
They are not “invaders”, as the far-Right might have it, but nor are they mere abstractions. They are individuals, each with stories, ambitions, and traumas. But taken collectively, their arrival poses a profound and under-examined risk to the security and social cohesion of Western democracies.
This is not merely about resources. Yes, public services are strained. Yes, housing is in crisis. Yes, the backlog of asylum claims is now so vast it stretches credibility. But more fundamentally, what we face is a challenge to the liberal democratic order itself: to its ability to regulate its borders, to shape its civic identity, and to maintain internal trust in the legitimacy of state authority.
When a System Refuses to Say “No”
A liberal democracy cannot function without borders. It cannot guarantee rights without also having the power to withhold them. When migration becomes a free-for-all, when people can cross seas and settle in defiance of legal process, then the idea of law itself begins to erode. The state loses credibility and the citizen loses trust.
In such circumstances, even legal migration becomes controversial, because the distinction between lawful and unlawful is no longer enforced with any seriousness. And with that erosion comes something more dangerous still: a creeping sense that the liberal compact, between the individual and the collective, between freedom and responsibility, has quietly been torn up.
In Britain, the challenge is particularly acute. Unlike continental Europe, which has faced mass movements overland, Britain’s geography once offered natural insulation. It no longer does. Organised criminal networks now shepherd thousands across the Channel every month. Detention capacity has long since been exhausted. The Rwanda deportation scheme was never going to succeed, and the wider immigration system appears adrift, both morally and operationally.
Religion, Identity, and the Question of Integration
What distinguishes this wave of migration from those of previous decades is not merely scale but also culture. Most of the recent arrivals do not share the historical, linguistic, or religious frameworks of their host society. This is not inherently a problem, Britain is no stranger to multiculturalism. But integration is not automatic. It must be cultivated, and more importantly, demanded.
Yet when it comes to Islam, there is a marked hesitancy. France is perhaps the only Western country facing this head-on. It has banned the Islamic headscarf in schools, clamped down on foreign funding for mosques, and openly acknowledged that parallel societies are emerging in its banlieues. Britain, by contrast, tiptoes around the issue. The grooming scandals in Rotherham and elsewhere, ignored for years out of fear of offending sensibilities, demonstrate what happens when politics is paralysed by politeness.
The point is not that Muslim migration is inherently dangerous, it isn’t. But where large numbers settle without assimilation, and where cultural practices diverge sharply from liberal norms, conflict becomes inevitable. Especially when the host society is unsure of its own identity, and fearful of asserting it.
Western secular liberalism was once confident in its values. Today, it seems reluctant even to name them. How, then, can it expect newcomers to adopt them?
The Security Angle No One Dares Discuss
If the social consequences of mass migration remain taboo, the security implications are more so. And yet they are real. Europol has warned repeatedly that irregular migration routes are exploited by jihadist networks. MI5 has tracked radicalisation patterns among recent asylum seekers. A report from the Henry Jackson Society in 2023 noted that several individuals involved in recent UK terror plots had entered the country under false identities via small boats.
Again, the point is not that most migrants are dangerous. But even a small minority, when embedded within a system incapable of proper vetting or deportation, poses a disproportionate threat.
And then there is crime more broadly. Government data from 2022 showed that black men, who make up just 3% of the UK population, accounted for over 12% of the male prison population, a massive and alarming disparity, and one that long predates the current migration crisis. But now, with a sharp rise in unaccompanied African men arriving via illegal routes, one must ask: are we simply importing further dysfunction into already-strained urban environments?
We are told that the solution lies in “investment” and “community outreach.” But what if the problem is not only economic but also cultural? What if integration fails not because of poverty, but because the host society no longer believes in integration at all?
Sovereignty Is Not Racism
The central trick played by the modern liberal consensus is to conflate concern with cruelty. To worry about immigration levels is to be “anti-immigrant.” To raise questions about religious compatibility is to be “Islamophobic.” To cite crime statistics is to be “racist”, or even “fascist.”
But this sleight of hand is losing its magic. Across Europe, voters are pushing back. In Sweden, a centre-right coalition now governs with the tacit support of the once-maligned Sweden Democrats. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni swept to power promising a firm stance on borders. Even in France, long the bastion of European secularism, Marine Le Pen now enjoys more credibility than most of her rivals.
Britain remains more cautious—partly due to its political class, partly due to the unique legacy of empire. But public patience is wearing thin. Polling consistently shows strong support for immigration limits, deportation of illegal entrants, and stricter citizenship tests. The appetite for enforcement is there. What’s missing is the will.
A Sane Alternative to Uncontrolled Migration
So what would a rational migration policy look like?
First, it would restore control. That means robust border enforcement, fast-track processing, and the deportation of failed claimants. It means treating the Channel not as a humanitarian corridor but as a line of sovereignty.
Second, it would recalibrate legal immigration. Not according to sentiment, but need. The UK needs doctors, engineers, and skilled tradespeople. It does not need, nor can it absorb, hundreds of thousands annually from radically different societies with little prospect of, or even desire for, long-term contribution or cohesion.
Third, it would rediscover civic confidence. A liberal society must expect newcomers to adopt its values, not as a favour, but as a precondition. That includes language, law, gender equality, and tolerance. If a migrant’s worldview is incompatible with these, then a question must be asked: why are we admitting them?
And finally, it would speak truthfully. The public can sense dishonesty. They can see the boats, the hotels, the protests, the statistics. They know that the official narrative no longer aligns with reality. When the mainstream refuses to articulate what people experience, more extreme voices rush to fill the void.
The answer is not to demonise migrants, nor to close off compassion. But nor is it to pretend that all is well, or that cultural differences can be glossed over with slogans. The fate of a democracy depends on its ability to regulate who joins it, and on what terms.
We have forgotten that truth. The consequences of our forgetting are only just beginning to unfold.
Main Image: Irish Defence Forces via Wikipedia
