European leaders are increasingly divided over mass immigration amnesties, with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen leading the latest backlash against Spain’s decision to legalize hundreds of thousands of illegals.

The National Pulse brings you key research on topics that matter. To support Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

The confrontation erupted during an October 16 European Union summit in Brussels, where Frederiksen called on the European Commission to investigate the consequences of Spanish Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s illegal alien regularization program. The Danish leader accused Spain of pursuing policies fundamentally at odds with the direction of most European governments, warning that national immigration decisions could have consequences far beyond their own borders.

The dispute exposes a growing contradiction at the heart of the European project, with many asking how the free movement of people within the bloc can survive if single states can grant access to hundreds of thousands of foreigners all on their own.

Spain Versus the Rest of Europe.

Spain’s Socialist government has defended its mass regularization program as a means of bringing illegal immigrants into the legal workforce. However, the initiative has drawn sharp criticism from governments pursuing increasingly restrictive immigration policies.

Meloni’s government in Italy has prioritized reducing illegal crossings in the Mediterranean, negotiating agreements with North African countries, and developing migrant-processing facilities in Albania. Denmark, meanwhile, has emerged as one of Europe’s most restrictive countries on asylum despite being governed by Frederiksen’s center-left Social Democrats. Her government has emphasized deportations, strictly temporary protection, and discouraging asylum seekers from settling in the country permanently.

Germany has also reluctantly shifted toward tougher enforcement under Chancellor Friedrich Merz, with his government supporting stricter border controls and faster removals, largely to counteract the rise of the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD).

The political realignment was particularly evident at Friday’s summit, where 18 European governments gathered to discuss tougher migration measures, including potential restrictions on asylum procedures during emergencies.

Schengen: One Country’s Decision, Everyone’s Problem.

At the center of the controversy is the European Union’s Schengen system, which allows travel across most EU countries without internal border checks. Under Schengen’s common rules, non-EU nationals holding valid residence permits from participating countries can generally travel throughout the area for up to 90 days within a 180-day period. Migrants granted citizenship by one EU member acquire EU citizenship, with full free movement rights across the bloc.

Residence permits do not automatically authorize employment or permanent settlement in another member state. Nevertheless, critics argue that granting legal status to large numbers of previously illegal immigrants creates additional opportunities for movement throughout Europe.

The problem has become especially contentious following the migration crisis in Spain’s North African exclave of Ceuta, where tens of thousands of migrants crossed from Morocco in July. Italy subsequently suspended aspects of Schengen travel arrangements with Spain, citing security concerns. Madrid complained that the restrictions were unjustified.

Europe’s Border Crisis Began Long Before Spain’s Amnesty.

Europe has struggled to develop a common immigration policy since the 2015 migrant crisis, when more than a million migrants entered the continent, particularly through Greece and Italy, at the instigation of Germany. The crisis overwhelmed asylum systems, exposed disagreements over responsibility for arrivals, and contributed to the rise of anti-mass migration populist parties across Europe.

Migration pressures have since shifted between routes through the Mediterranean, the Balkans, and Spain. Unauthorized migration, people-smuggling networks, and difficulties returning rejected asylum applicants remain persistent.

Brussels Struggles to Find a Common Solution.

The EU attempted to address these longstanding problems through its Pact on Migration and Asylum, which entered into application in June 2026. The reforms introduced common screening procedures, strengthened identity and security checks, accelerated certain asylum decisions, and established mechanisms for sharing responsibility between member states.

Disagreements remain, however, over deportation centers in third countries, asylum restrictions, and the consequences of national regularization programs.

Denmark, Italy, and Poland have pushed for greater coordination when one government’s immigration decisions could affect its neighbors. Supporters of tougher policies argue that mass amnesties risk encouraging further illegal migration.

The European Union is now asking itself how its system can survive, so long as a single nation state can allow in hundreds of thousands of illegals, without consultation from other members, and give them a path to EU citizenship.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team inform you of the latest global developments, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image © European Union 2017 – European Parliament.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative Party chairman under Kemi Badenoch and Member of Parliament (MP) for Thirsk and Malton, presents himself as a plain-speaking Yorkshire businessman-turned-politician. Yet the liberal “Conservative,” who opposed Brexit and has described himself as “very supportive of the push to get to net zero… as soon as possible,” has displayed a pattern of poor judgment and awkward defenses of questionable behavior, from claiming living expenses from the taxpayer as a landlord with multiple properties, to receiving hospitality from asylum housing developers and taking an aggressive stance against miscarriage of justice victims while he was a government minister responsible for the scandal-hit Post Office.

Please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION to help us bring you more political deep dives. We are 100% reader-funded.

The Expenses Double-Dip: Claiming Rent While Renting Out Properties.

In April 2021, The Observer identified Hollinrake among 42 Conservative MPs who claimed their own rent on expenses while renting out other residential properties for at least £10,000 a year. Hollinrake claimed £2,925 each month from April to November 2020 for London accommodation while owning a share of five different rental properties in York.⁠

A local reader’s letter in the Gazette & Herald highlighted the contrast: Hollinrake topping expenses tables (over £88,000 in one earlier period), receiving a directorship income of around £59,000 plus rental income on top of his MP salary, while the average salary in his area was far lower. The letter noted he had voted to freeze local housing allowance for private tenants on low incomes.⁠

Hollinrake’s response was that it was not reasonable to expect him to cover his own London accommodation costs.⁠ Parliamentary registers continue to list his residential property interests in York with rental income.⁠

Shares in a Company Opposed to Renters’ Reform.

As Shadow Housing Secretary, Hollinrake faced pressure to recuse himself from debates on the Renters (Reform) Bill, later the Renters’ Rights Act. He holds shareholdings valued at more than £70,000 in the Property Franchise Group plc, an estate agency franchising group that has lobbied on regulatory reforms, including against increased renters’ rights. He also has a significant stake in Habitats Online Ltd (lettings and estate agency services) and remains a portfolio landlord with shares in multiple York properties.⁠

Hollinrake insists that his interests are properly declared. He did not recuse himself from leading opposition to the legislation.⁠

Hospitality from a Developer of HMOs for Asylum Seekers.

In 2025, as Conservative Party chairman (and previously Shadow Housing Secretary), Hollinrake accepted roughly £2,000 in hospitality—flights, hotel, and dinner for himself and a family member—from Living Redefined to attend a property conference in the south of France. The company has promoted converting family homes into houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) for the controversial asylum accommodation market, claiming close work with the Home Office and high returns, for instance, turning a two-bed house into a five-bed HMO for a claimed 32 percent return on investment.⁠

Living Redefined later said it matches landlords with social housing providers and does not hold direct Home Office contracts. Hollinrake previously opposed a large asylum reception center in his constituency.

I think we’re going to start a new theme on @TheNatPulse today.

It’s going to be called #SleazeWatch, and document all the things about politicians that the mainstream media won’t report, no longer mention, or have swept under the rug.

I think we’ll start with @kevinhollinrake! https://t.co/ze7GKDLRDb

— Raheem J. Kassam (@RaheemKassam) October 19, 2026

Defending the Donor Accused of Racist Remarks.

In March 2024, as Post Office minister, Hollinrake defended the party’s decision to retain millions from major donor Frank Hester after reports that Hester said seeing Labour lawmaker Diane Abbott on television made him “want to hate all black women” and that “she should be shot.” Hester later apologized for being “rude.”⁠

Hollinrake told broadcasters the comments were clearly racist and wrong, but he did not believe Hester himself was a racist. He said the party was content to spend the money and would take another £10 million “on the basis that we don’t believe Mr Hester is a racist.” The party later accepted further donations from Hester.⁠

APPG Resignation.

In 2016, Hollinrake resigned as vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Unconventional Oil and Gas after constituents raised concerns that it was almost entirely funded by companies with fracking interests. His constituency was the focus of Third Energy’s shale gas plans. He claimed the funding would not influence views but resigned “to make sure that my impartiality is not called into question.”⁠

Horizon Inquiry Apology.

As Post Office minister from October 2022 to July 2024, Hollinrake was responsible for government oversight of the Post Office during the fallout from the Horizon IT scandal—one of the largest miscarriages of justice in British history. Between 1999 and 2015, faulty accounting software supplied by Fujitsu (known as Horizon) made it appear that money was missing from more than 900 Post Office branches. Hundreds of sub-postmasters were prosecuted for theft, fraud, or false accounting; many were convicted, bankrupted, imprisoned, or took their own lives.

The Post Office long maintained the system was reliable and that the shortfalls were caused by the postmasters themselve, but a 2019 High Court judgment and subsequent investigations established that Horizon was defective and that the Post Office had suppressed evidence of bugs and errors.

An official statutory inquiry (the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry) was established to examine how the scandal occurred, the role of senior Post Office executives and government ministers, and the handling of compensation for victims. When Hollinrake appeared before the inquiry in November 2024, chairman Sir Wyn Williams pressed him on the government’s and Post Office’s decision to take an adversarial, lawyer-heavy approach to processing compensation claims. Hollinrake apologised, stating that claims had not been settled quickly enough and that “arming themselves with lawyers” was “one of the mistakes I made.” He claimed that if he had his time again, he would have done things differently.

Standards Investigation.

In 2026, Hollinrake, by then party chairman, was investigated under Rule 14 of the MPs’ Code of Conduct for allegedly lobbying the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards inappropriately. Hollinrake had previously referred Nigel Farage to the Commissioner over supposed paperwork filing issues, and was accused of seeking to influence the Commissioner’s decision. An interim report claims Hollinrake did not lobby the Commissioner, although a full report into his actions is currently being withheld from the public, pending the resolution of the Farage case.

The National Pulse needs your support to bring you in-depth analysis from around the world. To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

One of Britain’s largest trade unions, which is a major funder and founder of the left-wing Labour Party, is demanding that employers train British workers before importing foreign labor, in a potentially significant challenge to the country’s longstanding reliance on mass immigration.

The National Pulse brings you the latest research and analysis every week. To support Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

Gary Smith, general secretary of the GMB union, has called for restrictions on companies sponsoring overseas workers unless they can demonstrate substantial investment in training the domestic workforce. Smith singled out Britain’s shipbuilding industry, where major defense contractors, including BAE Systems and Babcock, have recruited hundreds of migrant workers from countries such as the Philippines and South Africa to do jobs as welders, electricians, and fitters.

Although Smith says he supports immigration in principle, he argues that employers should not be allowed to use foreign recruitment as an alternative to paying competitive wages and developing British talent.

Britain Imports Workers While Domestic Training Falls Behind.

According to research, nearly three million foreign workers joined the British workforce between 2014 and 2026, accounting for approximately four-fifths of the overall increase in employment during that period. Of the approximately 3.7 million additional workers, around 2.5 million were non-EU nationals, while 408,000 came from EU countries. Employment among British nationals increased by approximately 734,000.

Department for Education statistics that apprenticeship starts in England declined from approximately 509,000 in 2015/16 to around 339,000 in 2023/24, a reduction of roughly one-third. Starts did recover to approximately 353,500 in 2024/25, but remained substantially below their 2015/16 level.

This means that employers often report shortages of skilled tradesmen, as the country trains fewer apprentices than it did a decade ago. Smith’s proposed approach would require companies to demonstrate that they are investing in British workers before turning to overseas recruitment.

Studies Show Mass Immigration Depresses Workers’ Wages.

A 2015 Bank of England working paper by Stephen Nickell and Jumana Saleheen found that immigration had a small negative effect on average British wages, with the largest impact concentrated among semi-skilled and unskilled service workers. Their research estimated that a 10-percentage-point increase in the immigrant share relative to native workers in those occupations was associated with approximately a 2 percent reduction in wages.

Similarly, a 2013 study by economists Christian Dustmann, Tommaso Frattini, and Ian Preston found that immigration reduced wages among native British workers below the 20th percentile of the earnings distribution. The research identified the greatest negative effects among lower-paid workers, although it also found modest positive effects among higher-paid workers.

American research has produced comparable findings, where in a 2003 paper published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Harvard economist George Borjas estimated that a ten percent immigration-induced increase in labor supply could reduce the wages of competing workers by approximately three to four percent.

The studies demonstrate that mass immigration can impose measurable costs on particular groups of workers, especially those facing direct labor-market competition.

For employers, recruiting from a larger international labor pool can provide an alternative to increasing wages or financing expensive training programs. For workers competing in affected occupations, this means they may have to compete with people willing to work for less and many who are, on paper, already trained.

Trump’s Economic Nationalism Model for Prosperity.

The debate in Britain is one that has already been had in the United States, and nearly a decade ago, saw President Donald J. Trump enact a populist-nationalist economic policy. Trump entered the White House in January 2017, promising to revive American manufacturing, protect domestic industries, restrict certain forms of immigration, and encourage companies to invest in American workers.

His administration pursued these objectives through the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, deregulation, and restrictions on employment-based immigration.

The American economy recorded several notable improvements during the three years preceding the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate fell from 4.7 percent when Trump entered office to just 3.5 percent in February 2020, matching the lowest level since 1969.

Manufacturing employment also increased during the first two years of his presidency, with hundreds of thousands of industrial jobs added before the sector began weakening in 2019. American workers experienced real wage gains during the expansion, while unemployment among Black and Hispanic Americans reached historically low levels.

Household incomes also rose substantially. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that real median household income increased by 6.8 percent between 2018 and 2019, reaching $68,703 in its original published estimate. Meanwhile, the official poverty rate declined to 10.5 percent in 2019, the lowest recorded since the Census Bureau began publishing such statistics in 1959. Around 4.2 million fewer Americans were living in poverty in 2019 than in 2018.

The period provides a key example of what a populist-nationalist economic policy can accomplish in just a few short years.

Could Economic Nationalism Unite Britain’s Left and Right?

Trade unions historically emerged to defend domestic workers against low wages, poor conditions, and employers’ ability to weaken collective bargaining. Those objectives can overlap with economic-nationalist demands for tighter labor immigration rules, stronger apprenticeships, and greater investment in domestic industries.

Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, has made reducing immigration a central political priority. Smith’s proposals approach the issue from a different direction, focusing on employers’ responsibilities to train workers and maintain competitive wages.

GMB, a founder of the Labor Party in the 1920s, is unlikely to begin supporting Farage and Reform UK, but Smith’s comments indicate that they may force Labour itself to start adopting a more nationalist economic stance.

The resulting debate within the Labour Party could prove particularly significant in industrial communities where traditional Labor loyalties coexist with growing support for immigration restrictions, and could potentially fracture Labour.

Putting British Workers First.

It is clear that Britain needs skilled welders, electricians, engineers, construction workers, and shipbuilders. What is not clear is whether it is sustainable to keep importing workers, rather than training them at home. The evidence from wage research demonstrates that immigration can create downward pressure on earnings in particular occupations. Britain’s apprenticeship figures reveal a lack of commitment from companies and government to really invest in skilled labor, making the shortages worse.

The challenge for politicians in Britain in the coming years will be how to address these deep-seated issues. While foreign labor may boost corporations’ bottom lines, most voters are British.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team keep delivering top-quality news and analysis, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image by Alecsandra Dragoi / Home Office.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Reform UK party leader Nigel Farage wants to prosecute so-called charities and activists who facilitate illegal immigration into Britain, becoming the first major British politician to promise actions against the multimillion-dollar industry operating around them.

The National Pulse is dedicated to bringing you original reporting and analysis every week. To support Raheem J. Kassam and his team in their work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

Speaking to U.S. commentator Benny Johnson, Farage accused NGOs and taxpayer-supported organizations of “aiding and abetting criminality,” arguing that organizations assisting migrants should face criminal consequences when their activities facilitate unlawful entry. His comments follow Reform’s increasingly aggressive approach toward organizations operating around the English Channel, particularly Care4Calais, which aids asylum seekers in northern France who are looking to enter Britain illegally.

The NGO-asylum seeker complex is a booming industry, but who funds it, and how many activists have not only blurred the lines between helping asylum seekers but have been caught outright helping people-smugglers?

Calais: The Multimillion-Dollar Operation on Britain’s Doorstep.

The French port city of Calais has become a major gathering point for migrants attempting to reach Britain for well over a decade, both by stowing away in trucks and, in recent years, by boat, with numerous charities and activist organizations providing food, clothing, shelter, and legal assistance to them.

Among the most prominent is Care4Calais, which operates across Britain, France, and Belgium. According to the British Charity Commission, Care4Calais reported approximately $2.59 million in income and $2.39 million in expenditure during the financial year ending September 2024. It reported 25 employees and approximately 800 volunteers.

The organization provides legal referrals and practical assistance to asylum seekers, while campaigning for Britain to open its borders to anyone and everyone who wants to come. Reform Shadow Home Secretary Zia Yusuf has accused the charity of operating a “criminal racket” and warned that its workers could face prosecution under a future Reform government.

The party has also targeted Vodafone for providing free cell phone SIM cards through Care4Calais. The charity reported distributing 2,221 cards, prompting Yusuf to demand that the telecommunications company terminate the arrangement. However, Vodafone maintained that the cards were provided through a regulated charitable program for use within Britain.

The scale of the Care4Calais operation shows just a small section of the massive infrastructure supporting asylum seekers and illegal migrants across Europe.

Greece: NGOs Tried for Migrant Smuggling.

NGO workers and volunteers have been directly accused of helping people-smugglers in recent years. In 2018, Greek authorities arrested volunteers associated with Emergency Response Centre International (ERCI), a so-called rescue organization operating on the island of Lesbos.

Among those arrested were Syrian migrant Sarah Mardini and German volunteer Seán Binder. Prosecutors alleged that members of the organization had participated in a criminal network facilitating illegal migrant arrivals, alongside accusations involving money laundering and other offenses.

The case attracted international attention and highlighted the increasingly contentious relationship between border authorities and civilian “rescue” organizations. However, after years of legal proceedings, a Greek court acquitted all 24 defendants in January 2026.

Undercover footage in 2018 showed that another charity operating in Greece was allegedly coaching migrants to lie in their applications in order to have a better chance at a successful claim. A member of the NGO Advocates Abroad stated, “We teach them… how to keep their private trauma private because all this acting is a shield. I tell them this is acting, all of this is acting, it’s all acting as though this is theater. So for them to get through they must act their part in the theatre, and that is the refugee in trauma because these EASO officers are so f**king stupid, all they know is written on the paper.”

Italy: Migrant Taxi Ships and Allegations of Cooperation With Smugglers.

Similar controversies have emerged in the Mediterranean, where privately operated rescue vessels have repeatedly clashed with Italian authorities. In 2017, Italian investigators seized the Iuventa, a rescue ship operated by German humanitarian organization Jugend Rettet, following allegations that its crew had improperly coordinated with migrant smugglers operating from Libya.

Prosecutors investigated whether rescue operations had facilitated unauthorized crossings rather than simply responding to emergencies. The case became a flashpoint in the European immigration debate, particularly as Italian governments sought to restrict civilian rescue operations. The prosecution ultimately collapsed, with the criminal case against the crew dismissed in 2024 after prosecutors decided to drop it.

Other organizations, including Sea-Watch, Sea-Eye, and SOS Méditerranée, continue to operate migrant taxi services in the Mediterranean, supported by charitable donations, often from governments and foundations, as well as international fundraising.

Their operations have drawn criticism from politicians who argue that predictable rescue arrangements may encourage dangerous crossings. Fabrice Leggeri, former head of the European Union border agency Frontex, has criticized the NGOs, saying migrants treated them like taxis.

In at least one case, a people-smuggler claimed to an undercover Italian journalist that he worked with the NGOs and was in contact with them.

Soros, Tides, and Caritas: Who Finances the Network?

Beyond the individual organizations lies a much larger international funding infrastructure supporting refugee assistance, migration advocacy, and humanitarian operations. The Open Society Foundations (OSF), established by billionaire George Soros, finances “civil society” and human-rights initiatives internationally, including projects concerning migrants and refugees. From 2016 to 2023, Open Society spent about $90 million on NGOs headquartered in Brussels, including groups that push for open borders and aid for asylum seekers.

The American Tides Foundation likewise distributes substantial charitable funding across advocacy and humanitarian causes. These institutions have attracted scrutiny from conservative politicians concerned about the influence of wealthy private foundations over immigration policy. In 2024 alone, Tides distributed over $442 million in grants to various charities, mostly in the United States. In Europe, Tides has contributed to migrant NGOs in Britain and elsewhere.

Another major institution is Caritas, the international Catholic humanitarian network. According to its 2024 annual report, Caritas International Belgium recorded approximately $55.8 million in annual income and expenditure, including $44.9 million in government funding. Its expenditure included approximately $19.3 million for asylum-seeker reception and $8 million for voluntary-return activities.

These figures demonstrate the substantial financial scale of organized migrant assistance in Europe, an industry worth possibly hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Question Farage Wants Answered.

While providing food, clothing, medical treatment, or legal representation is not inherently criminal, knowingly arranging unlawful transport, coordinating with smugglers, or providing operational assistance to criminal trafficking networks raises fundamentally different legal questions.

Farage wants the British government to investigate and prosecute organizations that cross that boundary, as past governments have not even bothered to investigate their activities. Effective border enforcement requires scrutiny of the entire ecosystem surrounding illegal migration, including well-funded charities and activist organizations.

If Farage can establish that NGOs are knowingly assisting people-smuggling operations, prosecutions could become a significant new weapon in Britain’s border-control strategy. Dismantling the migrant-NGO complex would be a major blow to open borders advocates and a major step toward Britain regaining actual control of its borders.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team keep delivering you RADICALLY INDEPENDENT news and analysis, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.