Here we go again. Just 20 months ago, the then home secretary stood up in parliament and declared new legislation that would crack down on Channel crossings. “Anyone who arrives illegally will be deemed inadmissible and either returned to the country they arrived from or a safe country” said Priti Patel.
Announcing yet another piece of legislation – the illegal migration bill – the home secretary, Suella Braverman, said today in parliament: “If you enter Britain illegally, you will be detained and swiftly removed.”
Who are these “illegals” the government keeps referring to? They are the woman from Syria who saw her brother killed by a bomb in front of her. The Eritreans fleeing a cruel one-party state. Iranians facing persecution. Sudanese people escaping violence. And Afghans, who make up the biggest group by nationality coming across the Channel in recent months, who were unable to leave the country through the complex and failing British government schemes set up when Kabul fell to the Taliban. Half of those who came across the Channel last year were from these five countries. Applications from all those countries are granted in at least 80% of cases; and for three – Afghanistan Eritrea and Syria – it is 98%.
It’s true that in 2022, nearly 30% of boat crossings were by Albanians, for whom asylum claims are much less likely to be approved. But with issues around trafficking, blood feuds and sexual exploitation, and more than 90% of asylum claims by Albanian women and girls being approved, the situation is complex.
The reality is that of all those who came across the Channel last year, we know from our analysis that two-thirds will be granted asylum because they are refugees who need safety in the UK. They are not illegal.
But the government isn’t interested in providing protection to people who have escaped war, violence and torture by taking dangerous journeys. Desperate to be seen to be tough, it wants to treat all people seeking asylum as suspected terrorists and criminals, lock them up, and then deport them with no meaningful right of appeal.
Will it work? We know it won’t, because desperate people will take desperate measures. There are many practical difficulties, too. It’s not going to be possible to deport people back to their own country The UK government isn’t about to start returning Afghans to Afghanistan under Taliban rule, for example, or Syrians to their wartorn country or Iranians to their tyrannical rulers – so where will they go?
The Rwanda scheme is currently being challenged in the courts. But even if it does start, it’s only expected that around 200 people will be able to be transferred. And since we left the European Union there are no return deals with France or the EU.
Tens of thousands of people will be stuck in limbo – unable to be removed, their asylum claims not being processed in the UK, unable to work or access support. What’s going to happen to all them? If they aren’t in detention will they have no choice but to go underground?
The end result will be a system that is chaotic and costly – we estimate that detaining everybody for a minimum 28 days as the legislation allows will cost more than £200m, and for up to six months would cost well over £1bn, causing immense human misery. The chief inspector of prisons has pointed out that the UK has only 2,500 immigration detention places. It’s not possible to conjure up a 10- or 20-fold increase within a year or two.
The Home Office is trying its best, though, and is expected to purchase two former military bases as new detention centres. So, in effect, the British state will be warehousing many thousands of refugees in vast detention camps, trampling on their rights as fellow human beings deserving of a fair hearing and the right to asylum.
Senior Conservatives privately know it won’t work and are uncomfortable. Former leader Michael Howard was reported in the Sun at the weekend to have told a Tory party awayday that the boats crisis won’t be solved without a deal with France. Priti Patel, rather ironically, was reported in the Times to have called it “window dressing”. Don’t forget that just four years ago, when he was home secretary, Sajid Javid announced plans to end indefinite immigration detention following a damning independent report.
There is, of course, another way. A sensible and humane plan that focuses on compassion and competence, creating safe and orderly routes to reach the UK such as refugee visas, a fair asylum system with timely decision making, and a workable agreement with our European partners to share responsibility for all those seeking sanctuary in the region.
It’s not feasible to use harsh laws to tackle what is a complex problem. Like addressing climate change, the global refugee challenge requires considered, intelligent, multilateral responses, not aggressive unilateralism that seeks to pull up the drawbridge on those less fortunate than us.
The public want action to reduce dangerous Channel crossings. It also wants Britain to demonstrate competence, compassion and fairness in its response. Instead, the government has chosen a draconian form of performative cruelty that will lead only to yet more chaos, cost and human misery.
Enver Solomon is chief executive of the Refugee Council
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
