Fallen to what?

The narrative

I think if his stance is seen as someone fallen then we're screwed. He was wrong/OTT about the iPads and the NHS in the hotel reception but the rest of what he said is perfectly valid imho.

There has to be a place for people who are pro-immigration while being against boat crossings and the policy of housing them in hotels. He was right about them getting phones (albeit through charities) and 3 meals a day, and that being a bad look when we have British citizens getting less than that

If statements like his constantly lead to backlash and shunning then Reform will be delighted.

The second paragraph is an example of the divisive nature of the discourse. It’s us vs them. It’s a narrative of othering.

What I found problematic was that he was the presenter rather than a commentator. In my view the presenter should at least be factually accurate AND be able to challenge others when they aren’t or ask questions rather than assert the untruths of others.

Yes, exactly.

So you’ve proven my point with your examples. He’s regurgitating the hyperbole, legitimising the bullshit.

Would you have been fine with it had he not said the iPad and NHS in reception line?

He did say it. What’s the use in hypothetical posturing here? Truth is I’m fairly indifferent to Rylan or what he has to say about anything. It’s just emblematic of how the discourse is being framed. Fear mongering and othering are just mainstream talking points now.

I feel like anyone who has a stance other than open borders is getting backlash and that can't be the only acceptable option.

Is it possible to express an anti-open border stance without resorting to hyperbole, demonisation, othering, and lying? I imagine it probably must be, but I’ve yet to see it. There must be people who oppose open borders yet can speak about asylum seekers with humanity and love. Where are they?

I think one could get close to that by expressing of small boats, “That looks frighteningly dangerous. We should stop that” (which I think some right wingers initially claimed was their standpoint) rather than of migrants on small boats, “They look frightening and dangerous. We should stop them.”

Exactly this. There is no concern for the people on the boats, and no genuine concern actually for the people of Great Britain. There’s something else behind it all.

No, because asylum seekers are not here illegally. That’s literally international law. And last time I looked, you are innocent until proven guilty* in the UK, and so “illegals” are not costing us anything since immigrants are not illegal until their case is rejected at which point they’re returned.

* although I do realise Farage would like to overrule that particular epithet.