I make a prediction that it will be the same members who take the ant-immigrant stance as take the anti-covid/anti-climate change stance.
Putting aside any rights or wrongs of what is done, the way the UK/Britain/England views itself as the centre of the universe is interesting (and historically somewhat predictable). Essentially we only really have the Calais/Dover route as the UK's visible problem area for uncontrolled immigration.
The rest of Europe has tens of thousands of kms of borders across which immigrants can potentially and do pass. The other European countries are dealing with many times the number which eventually arrive at the UK. France specifically has many more immigrants entering the country, Germany also. The UK media talk as though France has only the coast at Calais to deal with and are failing miserably. I think they are dealing with a lot more, particularly at the south and east.
Ever since I've travelled across Europe, over 45yrs or so, it has been evident that in most other European countries the UK rarely features on the table of discussion, we simply aren't the big topic that our domestic media chatterers would like us to believe. It was true with Brexit and it is true with the business of migrants. They have enough of their own issues to deal with without bothering about the UK.
The headlines such as "French minister cancels meeting with Priti Patel in light of migrant crisis criticism" (Telegraph)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...igrant-crisis/
would have us believe it was just the 2 countries involved and a direct slight by France towards the UK, whereas in reality it was a joint meeting with Germany, France, Netherlands, and Belgium to discuss the issues in their mutual region. The apparent duplicitous activity of Johnson in his private discussion with Macron and then the subsequent letter and social media post was enough to prompt the withdrawal of the invitation to the UK to attend. The others will still proceed with their discussions I imagine, the absence of the UK will no doubt be regrettable but not decisive.
Having decided to take back control and sovereignty, separating us from the EU, the UK has basically chosen to be on its own in dealing with arrivals, unless of course we can actually behave in a respectful manner and agree with other countries some mutually acceptable programme to address some of the concerns and events. No other country is duty bound to bow and scrape and obey the UK's demands, and the more belligerently we behave the less likely we will be in gaining agreement. Of course this actually is desirable for the UK government because it provides someone else to blame for their own failures.
I'm not sure what Bibio's point is regarding EU working visas etc is. The fundamental principle within the EU is freedom of movement of people, jobs, capital. I worked in EU countries and didn't need any sort of permission, I would not be able to do that now. The UK can do what it wants pretty much, including rewriting the rules regarding rights and freedoms of the individual.
There is also the usual conflation of "illegal immigrants" with "refugees" and "asylum seekers". We seem to want to deal with the issue by the "Catch22" clause, you can't apply for asylum if you enter by unregulated ("illegal"?) means, and you can't enter by regulated "legal" means unless you have been granted asylum. Sorted.
I don't think the rules say anyone is obliged to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter, I'm sure others can clarify this chapter and verse, but that's another issue.
There is bound to be a full spectrum of opinions, from bring them all in to hang them all high. It would be nice if people could respect others views without reverting to vitriol, but I doubt that will happen based on social media practice.