Let’s be honest, we need to stop the boats if we want positive immigration in Britain
Home Secretary Suella Braverman provoked ire this week for labelling Channel boat arrivals an “invasion”. These remarks came after a firebombing attack on a migrant processing centre in Dover and concerns about overcrowding and disease at the Manston immigration centre.
Refugee advocates point out that most applications for asylum – around 85 per cent – are successful. We also have a humanitarian duty, and legal commitments under international law, to accommodate refugees no matter their mode of arrival.
But with a backlog of 100,000 cases and 96 per cent still awaiting a decision, it is difficult to know whether the latest boat arrivals are legitimate. The recent surge in migration from Albania – not a country facing a refugee crisis from war – has raised eyebrows.
There is also a humanitarian danger in boat arrivals, whether or not they are filled with refugees. The small boats put lives at risk and encourage exploitation by people smugglers, who are associated with the criminal underworld.
Most agree this is far from ideal without a silver bullet solution. The Rwanda plan is not only costly and legally challenging but also not likely to be large enough in number to be a disincentive. Meanwhile, providing more legal pathways and faster processing, as proposed by refugee advocates, is also unlikely to discourage the tens of thousands who would still want to make the journey.
Australia’s successful approach to curbing boat arrivals is often highlighted – but in practice hard to replicate. It would require not only offshore processing and boat turnarounds but also a commitment that arrivals by boat would never be able to settle in the UK. In practice, however, France is unlikely to agree to take back and settle all of the UK’s boat arrivals.
This does not, however, mean that the government should ignore the current situation. This has broader implications for our public debate. In “The Authoritarian Dynamic”, political psychologist Karen Stenner argues that an illiberal instinct is triggered when people feel that their family, community, or nation is under threat. If the public perceives the UK has lost control of its borders, they are likely to trigger demands for more closed border policies.
A benefit of Brexit has been declining concern about migration. The proportion of people who say immigration is one of their most important issues has dived, from nearly half to less than 10 per cent. This has not come from a decline in migrant numbers. The UK is accepting similar if not higher numbers, just more from a diverse array of non-EU countries. The UK has also accepted, with little controversy, refugees from Hong Kong, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.
Brexit allowed the UK to “take back control” of migration, thus diminishing its importance in political debate and concern among the public. There’s little controversy in skilled immigrants and temporary migrants filling gaps in agriculture or in the NHS. By boosting the UK’s productivity and through the taxes they pay, these migrants are net contributors to public services. If anything, we need more migrants, with tens of millions worth of produce left to rot in recent months due to a lack of pickers.
The danger is that boat arrivals drive a new toxicity in public debate, not only about asylum seekers but also immigration more generally. If we want to maintain a generous immigration and humanitarian refugee programme, it is necessary and righteous to stop those dangerous, irregular routes.