“They’ve got to know that if they come here, they won’t stay here.” Nigel Farage? Robert Jenrick? Suella Braverman? Not on this occasion. These hostile words about refugees coming by irregular means to Britain were uttered on the BBC by a King’s Counsel, chum of Tony Blair, the former lord chancellor and impeccable social democrat Lord Falconer.
A pillar of the liberal establishment and still a senior and respected figure in Labour circles, Charlie Falconer is perhaps indicative of a shifting mood at the top of his party about how to deal with the migrant crisis – both in practical policy terms, and as it is currently translating into some pretty raw party politics.
As Falconer says, immigration, and specifically irregular so-called “illegal” migration, is fast becoming a “defining political issue”. As he did not say, but heavily implied, it may also kill the first Labour government for 14 years long before its time.
Falconer sees one part of the solution as deterrence. His logic seems impeccable. If you are going to make the arduous journey across continents, pay all that money to the people traffickers and risk your life in the English Channel, then that only makes sense if it seems likely you’ll make a successful claim for asylum and, hopefully, at some point be able to bring your family over to start a new life: job, home, happiness. If you think you’re not going to secure any of this, then, so Falconer thinks, you won’t bother.
To be fair, this is a point of view that has been increasingly seen in European countries by centrist parties that would never consider themselves racist or callous. They do so simply because of the weight of public opinion.
Ever since Angela Merkel made that huge act of statesmanship and humanity by welcoming a million Syrian refugees into Germany a decade ago, the tide of compassion has been going out. The sheer numbers are the issue, as well as a welter of propaganda, misinformation and downright lies circulating across the continent, especially on social media. Public opinion has hardened, and democratic politicians have had to adapt.
Hence the change of stance in countries traditionally open to immigration. In Germany, Merkel’s successor as leader of the Christian Democrats and chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has abandoned the old Willkommenskultur, introduced border checks and granted the police the power to reject asylum seekers at the border, albeit if they have good reason to. Apparently, they’re interested in taking up the Rwanda scheme scrapped by Keir Starmer as soon as Labour came to power last year.
Other countries are following suit. Poland, Slovenia, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and France have also imposed temporary border controls and suspended the EU Schengen free-movement regime. So has Italy, where Giorgia Meloni has instituted the first working system of third-country asylum processing through a treaty with Albania.
Denmark’s centrist coalition has introduced a series of policies that have made it less attractive for migrants – not least a law allowing asylum claims to be processed and refugees to be resettled in partner countries, including Rwanda. Once a renowned welfare state paradise, Denmark has also cut benefits for asylum seekers, made leave to remain strictly temporary and conditional, and a few years ago even made refugees surrender their jewellery to pay for their keep.
Some Syrians and Somalis – and their Danish-born children – have reportedly been asked to “return” to what are now deemed safe countries. Since coming to power in 2019, prime minister Mette Frederiksen has introduced “Nul flygtninge”, the “zero refugee” policy that has successfully reduced asylum applications to record lows, and which enjoys a more than 80 per cent public approval rating.
None of this is pleasant, and much of it would seem to be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, under which the right to claim protection is absolute and unaffected by opinion polls.
The pressing question now, though, is would a “deterrent” involving deportation to some other place than Britain even work? Can there be such a thing as a deterrent for desperate people already risking death by drowning or hypothermia?
I suspect not. As things stand, and unsatisfactory as the system is, the asylum seekers generally surrender themselves once in British waters, where Border Force, sometimes with the help of the RNLI, take them ashore and, eventually, the authorities process their claims while they wait in emergency accommodation such as requisitioned hotels.
It is orderly. But if the would-be immigrants thought they’d be immediately detained and sent back to France (a small chance under the new returns agreement with Paris), or sent to, say, Albania, or Serbia, or even Rwanda for that matter, what would happen? Would the flow stop?
I have my doubts. Some would probably judge it not worth the effort. But, as so often in the past, the people-smugglers would adjust their “business model” and they and the immigrants would seek to evade the new regime. Thus, instead of declaring themselves as they neared the British coast, they’d press on, perhaps now under cover of darkness, and make a surreptitious landing on some remote beach and then melt into the countryside. They’d soon be in the grey economy, working for cash, living in slum accommodation, unable legally to access healthcare or education for their children, and far more prey to criminality.
Something of this has been the case in America, with “undocumented” long-term migrants, for many years. The Border Force and the Royal Navy don’t have the resources to catch all of the rogue boats. The only way of dealing with such a new phenomenon of irregular migration would be through a system of checks and compulsory ID cards. But the British remain resistant to a “Papers, please” society, which is actually essential if any progress is to be made on limiting irregular migration, and especially if the asylum system is effectively abolished.
The weakness in Falconer’s argument is that the deterrent of being sent to some awful country will only work to the extent that they will be caught, either in transit or later on, when they’re far away from the south coast of England. A “deterrent” may prove to be part of the answer, but that’s all.
As has been apparent for a very long time, and in very many other countries, if there was an easy way to deter irregular migration and “stop the boats”, it would have long since been discovered by hard-pressed governments anxious to stay in power and terrified by angry voters. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a charlatan.
