For all the flaws of UK democracy, the majority who votes for parties supportive of current immigration levels is vast. So even if you were right nobody explicitly voted for this, opposition to it is weak enough that the vast majority does not see it as a sufficient priority to change their voting patterns.

The English deserve to get what they voted for -- and will get it good and hard.

We get what our political system allows. Without first-past-the-post our politics (and our relationship to the EU over the last four decades) would have been very different.

And what you imply we get would be fine if we had voted for it. With the low turnouts and the aforementioned first-past-the-post, in reality far less than a majority actually did.

The problem with this argument is that completely ignores the die-off rate of the population or the demographics. On average, our population is dieing off at about 600k per year - 500k immigrants does not even break even. We have a negative birth rate. We need new blood - ONS projection for population growth between 2020 and 2045 is under 6%. To compare - mid-1995 and mid-2020 it was just over 15%. We are old-age-heavy which is really bad for the economy and taxation. The mindset should align with data.

So your defense has changed from "it's not happening" to "it's happening and it's a good thing"?

It's not a defence. The "new city" per year is a scare mongering tactic that presents only a partial data picture as its basis.

It's a new city every year of only small boat arrivals. As others have pointed out the the wider picture is even more absurd. Largely of people not fleeing war or real conflict or difficulty either. But people who cannot support themselves.

Can you please define how an objective simple piece of data is somehow biased?

And, for avoidance of doubt, I do think immigration is both a good thing and a necessary thing. Of course, being an immigrant, I am somewhat biased.