Lincslass
...or do you agree with our ex border force Pratt, that we should just let all and sundry in. Like the Liverpool bomber who was helped by a lovely couple and hid his hatred of us, until thankfully he blew himself up, instead of killing others as was his plan.
The problem is that some of those who commit terrorist atrocities are native Brits - they were born here.
We are not condemned to let "all and sundry" in either. But those agencies that deal with processing refugees are underfunded, understaffed and - from what can be gleaned from various bits of information - not really very well run. Hardly surprising therefore that some go below the radar.
It's the same with East European migrants, who have been accused simultaneously of "taking our jobs" / "living on benefits". When Tony Blair - who supported the idea of the eastward expansion of the EU - decided to open the door in 2004, he ignored the option that all EU members had, which was to stagger the numbers allowed in. The EU recognised that it's member states would need to build up their infrastructure to accommodate an increase in the population. But, we didn't do it, he took the come-one-come-all approach. So, again, we had it within our power to control immigration. We also had it within our power to send back those migrants who were not gainfully employed, or who appeared unlikely to be, after three months. But as far as I can see, we didn't do that either.
In effect, we've always had the option to control our borders, we retained our sovereignty in these matters, but successive governments, both Labour and Tory, have, basically, just not bothered. Training, staffing and funding of the agencies involved are, I suspect, the issues. I think successive governments have simply expected these agencies to function, 'on the cheap'.