How to Break "the Business Model" of the Gangs
- Alistair McConnachie
- Oct 4
- 7 min read
Updated: Oct 6
One of our banners, photographed after A Force For Good's "Enough is Enough" rally outside the Scottish Parliament on Saturday 6th September 2025.
The Prime Minister regularly says that he aims to "break the business model" of the gangs which are organising the dinghy Channel Crossings. By this he appears to mean that he wants to make the business unprofitable for them by ensuring fewer people are willing to pay them to cross the Channel. However, he is missing the obvious fact about this "business model"...
BRITAIN's MEMBERSHIP of the UN REFUGEE CONVENTION is the BUSINESS MODEL
The "business model of the gangs" is Britain's membership of the UN Refugee Convention!
It is this Convention which legalises small boat entry via the Channel, providing it is being done to "claim asylum".
Indeed, all sorts of entry – which would normally be considered illegal (back of a lorry, for example) – are considered to be legal providing it is being done to "claim asylum"!
Our membership of the UN Refugee Convention provides a ready-made, off-the-shelf legal business model, which is ripe for "gangs" to financially exploit.
All the gangs need to say is, "Well, we're simply helping people claim their legal right to asylum under Britain's membership of the UN Refugee Convention, which allows people to enter in this manner providing they are doing so to claim asylum."
It seems ridiculous but it's true!
In this regard, it's important to understand that anyone making a claim under the UN Refugee Convention must be considered to be exercising their "legal" right to do so under the UK's membership of this Convention.
The tendency of some politicians to refer to those who, for example, cross the Channel in small boats, as "illegal immigrants" is a serious confusion of their status. Like it or not, under our membership of the UN Refugee Convention, they are to be considered "legal", despite entering in this subversive manner.
Their status of being "legal" – which is conferred upon them by our membership of the UN Refugee Convention – is the major reason why we can't effectively stop this traffic under present circumstances.
AND we CAN'T SEND THEM BACK without an INVESTIGATION which PROVES it's SAFE TO DO SO
Furthermore, under our membership of the UN Refugee Convention, we are prevented from immediately deporting such people back to the country from which they claim to be "persecuted", without an investigation which proves it is safe to do so! [Art 33(1)]
Even if we declare their claim "inadmissible" – which means we're not going to investigate it – we still have to find a "safe third country" to send them to instead. This is all but impossible because who, realistically, wants them? (The Rwanda Scheme was an attempt to send such people to Rwanda – see Appendix below.)
In other words, under the Convention, we're stuck with them – unless we painstakingly examine each person in a lengthy, expensive, legal process – in order to prove that they are not at risk of "persecution".
Our membership of the hugely out-dated 1951 UN Refugee Convention really is an onerous burden for our nation. In effect, it has opened up our borders and defeated us.
It is this "business model" which the gangs are quite naturally taking advantage of.
ARE "THE GANGS" EVEN DOING ANYTHING WRONG?
Indeed, given that this "business model" is actually a legal model under international law, then we have to wonder if "the gangs" are actually doing anything "illegal".
As we say, they can simply point out that they are facilitating the legal right of people to "claim asylum in the UK" under the UK's membership of the UN Refugee Convention. And they would have a strong case!
This fact means that one of the few ways we have to attempt to convict the gang members is to take them to court under the "Modern Slavery Act 2015". To do this, we have to prove that they are "trafficking" people across the Channel in order to "be exploited", as defined by Section 3 of that Act. We explain this further in chapter 9 of our book Protect our Country: Policies to Stop Mass Immigration.
But this is all an unnecessary palaver!
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO, INSTEAD
1. LEAVE the UN REFUGEE CONVENTION
The easy answer is to leave the UN Refugee Convention so that we can simply declare such passage across the Channel to be absolutely illegal, regardless of why you might be trying to do it.
When we do that, we will be able to accuse those who use this route as being in clear breach of our already existing laws against illegal entry.
We will then be able to declare such entry to be a criminal act, and we can send such people to prison. The rest will get the message in short order. This will stop the traffic very quickly, and the "business model" will collapse!
2. SET UP a "UK TEMPORARY ASYLUM PROGRAMME" (UK-TAP)
This would enable us to set up our own "UK Temporary Asylum Programme" which deliberately criminalises all Channel entry, as outlined in depth in "Protect our Country".
TO CONCLUDE
Britain's membership of the UN Refugee Convention is "the business model of the gangs".
It legalises any method of entry into the UK – including those which would normally be considered to be illegal – providing the person is using this method of entry to "claim asylum" under Britain's membership of the UN Refugee Convention.
It is our membership of the UN Refugee Convention which legalises and encourages their behaviour.
It provides "an off-the-shelf, ready-made business model" for the gangs. It is an easy money-spinner for them.
Therefore, we need to leave it, and replace it with a "UK Temporary Asylum Programme", as detailed further in chapters 9 and 10 of our book "Protect our Country".
APPENDIX
"BUT WHAT IF COUNTRIES WON'T TAKE BACK THEIR CITIZENS?"
Countries can be persuaded with any number of carrot or stick considerations. This is the entire purpose of diplomacy and statecraft!
Take "foreign aid". Rather than abolishing it, we could repurpose it.
For example, if we want to play softball, then countries could receive aid based on the numbers of its own citizens that it takes back again. That means countries will still be getting paid, but we're also benefiting.
We could smooth economic relations in certain areas to encourage them to cooperate.
Furthermore, these countries are also receiving thousands of their own citizens back again. Who could object to that? All the pro-immigrationists in the UK should be delighted for those countries now enjoying the influx, even if they're not delighted for ours!
Or if we have to play hardball, we could cut their foreign aid.
We could prevent remittances from their citizens in the UK being sent back to their home country, or tax such remittances very highly.
We could impose tariffs on their goods and make things economically painful for them.
We could impose restrictions or outright bans on visas for students, workers and visitors from such countries.
Once it is clear that we're serious, then the people will stop coming and they'll stop gathering in Calais and elsewhere. So we'll even be doing France a massive favour too, and so they should support our efforts!
"WHAT ABOUT the "EUROPEAN CONVENTION on HUMAN RIGHTS" (ECHR)?"
It is not the ECHR which legalises the incoming Channel traffic, it is the UN Refugee Convention.
The ECHR is relevant for those people who are facing deportation out, and who have been in the country long enough to claim an "Article 8 right to a family life". Such people can appeal to Article 8 in order to try to avoid deportation. (Sometimes Article 3 is used.)
So, yes, if we are serious about stopping the numbers coming in, then the elements of the ECHR which frustrate deportation will also need to be addressed. After all, if someone knows that they cannot realistically appeal against deportation then they are less likely to try to get into the country in the first place. We look at this matter in chapter 11 of our book "Protect our Country".
However, it is the UN Refugee Convention which is the Convention which "opens the door" to people entering into the country in ways which would normally be considered to be illegal.
That door has to be closed, and anyone who tries to break it down should be sent to prison!
"WHAT ABOUT a 'RWANDAN OPTION'?"
Rwanda as a "safe third country" for "inadmissible asylum seekers" was never going to work! The Rwandan government would quickly opt-out when they saw the huge numbers!
The simple solution is to leave the UN Refugee Convention.
Then we set up a "UK Temporary Asylum Programme" (UK-TAP) which will enable us to declare the route to be illegal, criminalise and convict those who use it, and send them to prison – to be deported after sentence.
"WHY SEND THEM to PRISON, WHEN WE HAVE to PAY FOR THEM?"
We need a deterrent. The punishment of prison is a necessary deterrent.
As for money, we are already paying considerable sums of our money to accommodate the endless asylum traffic, but with no end in sight to the money we continue to spend on them. We are advocating a solution which will seriously cut down expenditure over the long-term.
We can also arrange the sentence in such a way that the person is able to get out of prison early, providing they agree to have their bio-metric details taken, immediately deported, and prohibited from ever returning. If they are found in the country illegally again, then they will be imprisoned for 10 years with no bail.
Anyway, rest assured, we won't have to send many to prison, or for very long, until everyone else gets the message!
"BUT this is a COMPLEX PROBLEM which REQUIRES COMPLEX SOLUTIONS."
Nope. This is a simple solution to a very simple problem. It's time to see things clearly and act decisively.
We develop all these polices in comprehensive and concise depth in our book Protect our Country: Policies to Stop Mass Immigration. It is a must-read for anyone interested in this field. We launched it on Dover Beach on Saturday 19 July 2025, below.
For more articles on immigration see our Territorial Sovereignty: Article Index
SUPPORT A FORCE FOR GOOD
If you think our comprehensive and educational research and publications, and our colourful physical activism is worth supporting, then please help us to keep up this good work!
Comments