The Irony of “Re-Migration”: A Look at the Viewpoint of Ashlea Simon of Britain First

Recently, Ashlea Simon of Britain First delivered a speech that, at first glance, appeared to condemn legal migration while subtly positioning illegal migration as the movement’s emotional anchor. The rhetoric is both divisive and revealing—it highlights the contradictions at the core of Britain First’s ideology and sheds light on how extremist narratives manipulate the migration debate for political gain.

⚠️ REMIGRATION NOW ⚠️

Legal immigration is replacing us at a far faster pace than illegal immigration is… pic.twitter.com/CwiKgWTVfk

— Ashlea Simon (@AshleaSimonBF) October 16, 2025

Twisting the Narrative of “Britishness”

Simon’s address leaned heavily on nationalist symbolism, evoking a sense of 'real' British identity under threat. Yet beneath that veneer lies a startling irony. While she lambasted legal migrants—people who have followed the established and often arduous processes to settle in the UK—her messaging indirectly valorised illegal migration. The party’s political machinery seems to thrive on the attention that illegal migration generates, using it as a rallying point to cultivate outrage and, ultimately, to recruit.

By portraying illegal migrants as both a danger and a necessity for their cause, Britain First manipulates public emotion. The group relies on these tensions to project itself as the defender of national identity, even while it exploits the very issues it claims to oppose.


Who Are the “True Britons”?

The speech inadvertently raises a question that many Britons can answer with ease but that extremist groups continually distort: Who truly belongs? The truth is that those who have come to the UK legally—through work, study, or asylum—are fulfilling the same process that generations of migrants before them have followed. Britain’s strength has always come from its lawful diversity and its capacity to integrate people who contribute meaningfully to society.

To dismiss legal migrants while elevating an idea of re-migration founded on illegal or selective exclusion is not only hypocritical—it’s also dangerous. It undermines the rule of law and the very principles of fairness and order that sustain any democratic nation.

The Re-Migration Paradox

Simon’s call for 're-migration' paradoxically reinforces her movement’s dependence on migration itself. If illegal migration were to stop entirely, the outrage that fuels movements like Britain First would lose its main source of momentum. Their activism, as it stands, relies more on fear narratives than on practical solutions.

The suggestion that re-migration should somehow mirror illegal migration underscores a deeper ideological confusion. It’s not a plan—it’s a projection of insecurity. Rather than offering constructive dialogue about integration, it weaponises the concept of belonging to sustain political relevance.


Moving Toward Honest Conversation

Britain deserves a mature, factual debate about migration—one that acknowledges both its challenges and its benefits. What it doesn’t need is the kind of cynical rhetoric that Ashlea Simon delivered, designed to divide communities and distort the truth.

The future of Britain lies not in exclusion or manipulation but in upholding fairness, legality, and empathy. True patriotism is not about rejecting those who come here to contribute—it’s about ensuring that everyone, born or naturalised, plays their part in building a stronger, united society.