Maybe the United Kingdom is belatedly learning the lesson we colonists across the pond addressed last November: Unfettered immigration is a sure way to destroy a nation.

To hear UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer speak now is to hear echoes of Donald Trump’s three presidential campaigns. Unfortunately, Starmer’s epiphany comes in the era of long Internet memories, which paint him more as a hypocrite than a true Johnny-come-lately. “Nobody believes a word of what Sir Keir Starmer said in his speech on uncontrollable migration,” writes Kathy Gyngell, editor of the UK’s Conservative Woman. “So Labour MP Nadia Whittome and the rest of the outraged progressive left needn’t worry about his newfound populist approach to politics they so abhor.”

The crux of the issue is a long-term influx of immigrants from across the globe coming to the UK. They fail to assimilate but never fail to utilize government services. According to Conservative MP Nick Timothy, “Not every immigrant is the same and not every culture is equal. … 1 in 3 Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage adults is economically inactive, (and) 72 percent of Somalis here live in social housing.” Americans can relate to that in some respects, but it’s worth noting that the United Kingdom is more of a welfare state than we are. Like America, though, there is still the claim that immigrants do the jobs that Britons are unwilling to do.

Despite the fact that UK national elections are still some time off, American media have tended to view this more as a political horse-race issue. While UK media looks at the “left-wing” backlash — as thoroughly covered by The Telegraph, for example — the American focus has been more on demands for immigration restrictions causing the rise of the UK Reform Party and its leader, Nigel Farage, whom The Wall Street Journal calls “Trump with a pint.” Rather ironic, since Donald Trump doesn’t drink anything stronger than a Diet Coke.

That obsession extends to the Financial Times, which warned, “Some Labour MPs fear that Starmer’s shift to the right on several policy issues, in an attempt to neutralise the threat from Reform UK, has alienated many of the party’s natural supporters.” With a political system capable of handling more than two parties, it’s a legitimate concern for Labour.

Consider the words of British-born political scientist Colin Hay, according to Newsweek: “Hay told Newsweek that the election had ‘reinforced the impression in Labour’s thinking’ that a tougher stance on immigration is necessary to avoid hemorrhaging more of its voters. He added that, in any Americanized analogy of contemporary British politics, Farage would be cast in the role of Trump, and Starmer the one currently viewing the Democrats’ 2024 defeat — fueled in part by anxieties over the U.S.-Mexico border — as a cautionary tale.”

Starmer is afraid that UK Reform, which is rapidly overtaking the Conservative Party as Britain’s main opposition party at present, is also attracting centrist Labour voters who are sick of supporting a caste of immigrants who refuse to learn the language yet demand government services. (Sound familiar?) Unfortunately for the Conservatives, they were the most complicit in this influx as they never turned the immigration spigot off during their long tenure in office, which spanned most of this century. Yet neither did Labour strenuously object, meaning that it rings hollow when Starmer says, “Today, this Labour government is shutting down the lab. The experiment is over. We will deliver what you asked for time and again, and we will take back control of our borders.” The jury will be out as they wait for Sterner’s vow: “Mark my words: I will take back control of our borders. … That means cutting migration, ending the use of asylum hotels, and ramping up our efforts to stop small boat crossings.”

But there is one aspect where Starmer can extend an olive branch to create a tripartisan alliance to solve the thorny problem of immigration, and that’s freeing those dissenters who have objected to the government’s formerly freewheeling immigration stance. According to Abigail Anthony at National Review:

The hypocrisy goes deeper. Not only do Starmer’s recent criticisms of immigration contradict what he previously declared, but under his regime, people have been thrown behind bars for similarly critical (albeit more profane) comments about immigration and the failures of multiculturalism. Just weeks after Starmer became prime minister, Lucy Connolly said the following on social media: “Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”

Even though Connolly deleted her post within four hours, she was sentenced to jail for more than two years for that post. … Connolly isn’t alone; plenty of people were punished for their speech in connection to the child-rape gangs and chaotic anti-immigration riots under Starmer’s government.

We get that the United Kingdom doesn’t have a strict First Amendment right to free speech like we have here. Perhaps these protesters are viewed like many Americans see those arrested for their participation in J6. Returning J6 participants to their lives was a Trump priority, so the first, easy step in addressing the problem of immigration is to allow those views that Starmer now seems to agree with to be expressed freely, and letting those arrested and jailed return to their lives.

If Starmer wants to stave off his political challengers from both sides, he would be well-served to start here.