Surely only those with a heart of stone would argue that Britain should deny entry to Channel migrants attempting the perilous journey to our shores via the English Channel? After all, the UK has a longstanding tradition of welcoming those fleeing oppression, and remains one of the most tolerant, least racist nations on earth. Although the case could arguably be made that with over a quarter of a million people homeless (6% of whom are war veterans), and with UK national debt approaching £3 Trillion, Britain has bigger fish to fry; this is clearly not an argument made by the majority. Three-quarters of Brits (76%) for instance, are in favour of taking in Ukrainian refugees during their hour of need, as opposed to the mere 11% who are not.
Having said that, even if one assumes (foolishly) that 100% of asylum applicants are genuine refugees, presumably there is a limit to the numbers a small island can absorb? According to government figures, while asylum seekers historically constitute a very small number of the overall immigration to Britain, that number has rocketed in recent years. In 2019 asylum seekers made up just 6% of total immigration. In 2020 it was 12%, and by 2022 the number had reached 18%. A large contributory factor to this increase is the exponential rise in small boat crossings via the English Channel. From a mere 299 arrivals back in 2018, this has swollen to last year’s tally of over 45,000, with 2023 expected to see almost double that figure.
The question of limitations and more importantly, whom precisely these Channel migrants are is fraught from the get-go, because to the Left, any scrutiny of those approaching our shores in dinghies is met with the same argument – people arriving here are victims by default, and it’s racist to cloud the waters with facts.
Nonetheless, however stilted it may be we have been having a debate of sorts, and it’s not going particularly well for those in favour of open-door immigration. The first wave of argument is usually that the majority of ‘refugees’ are women and children, a claim made by Unicef back in 2016. But this is arrant nonsense, despite the best efforts of the media to demonstrate it: (transgender confusion aside) 90% of Channel migrants are unquestionably male.
The next proposed argument is that the asylum seekers are fleeing war and persecution. In other words, the ravages they flee are so heinous, only women and children can tolerate them. Not to diminish the obvious tensions in Macron’s France right now, when last I checked there was no war. The more prosaic reason migrants access Britain via France, is that the British government is three times more likely to grant their asylum claim, and furnish them with a wealth of social security benefits.
The line of attack then shifts to the assertion that a high percentage of the Channel migrants are children, but this turns out not to be true either. In fact, two-thirds of unaccompanied ‘minors’ questioned about their age, turn out to be adults. Still, anyone claiming refugee status is in need of protection first, questions later, right? Not so says the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who found that 70% of those crossing the sea to Europe do not require protection, and should not qualify for refugee status whatsoever.
When the charade of who precisely is flocking to Britain breaks down, the narrative switches to a denial of reality. Home Secretary Suella Braverman was famously lambasted for correctly naming the migrant crisis an ‘invasion’ – as this might embolden the ‘far-right’ – but what precisely should she call it? Edi Rama, the Albanian PM blustered furiously about Suella Braverman’s comments on the ‘Albanian criminals’ crossing the Channel, and well might he object – but that does nothing to alter the facts. Albanian drug gangs are known to be using the camps of northern France as ad hoc job centres, with Albanians accounting for approximately a third of UK arrivals in 2022. The UK is in fact so desirable a location for Albanian criminals, that we will soon boast a higher Albanian prison population than Albania itself.
With the ‘refugee’ argument so hopelessly exposed, the narrative then switches to an exercise in damage limitation – i.e. that those crossing the Channel pose no threat to the citizenry; again, an utter lie. Well might the Left baulk at the suggestion that some migrants are here posing as children, attempting to rape schoolgirls in broad daylight – but every now and then, even the inveterately incompetent UK constabulary manages to catch them doing precisely that. Not to worry, at least we can deport them without fear of return, well, apart from the ones who do. But, surely we can agree they are not actual terrorists? Sadly not – Interpol’s ‘most wanted’ criminals are among the Channel migrants arriving on Britain’s beaches. For goodness sake, at least they’re not linked to ISIS? Alas, with 82% of terrorist prisoners in Europe being jihadis, 90% of MI5’s terror watchlist jihadis, and ISIS well-known for ‘riding the wave of western sympathy’ by smuggling bombers to Europe via the migrant boats, apparently they are.
The absolute best-case scenario we can hope for it seems, it that the majority of the small boats contain economic migrants, merely attempting to game the system. The worst case scenario, hardly bares thinking about. But it requires thinking about, after last month’s dire warning from terror expert Dr Alan Mendoza, who argues that terrorists are likely recruiting within hotels and stately homes across Britain as we speak. Which means that Britain is bribing the French to chaperone these criminals into our waters, paying to house them to the tune of £7 Million per day, and subsidising terrorist apprenticeships upon our shores – now we know what Tony Blair meant by ‘Education, education, education’.
Despite all this information being available within the public domain, the Left still vehemently oppose extradition in any circumstance. They even manage to ground deportation flights of murderers and rapists – the result of which is that such criminals go on to commit further atrocities. The only plausible corollary of which, is that it’s ok for innocent Brits to die, as long as the human rights of murderers aren’t violated, and their voting hands uninjured. Clearly this is an unsustainable emergency, and needs to be treated as such.
The British government’s response to the migrant crisis thus far has been shilly-shallying of the first order: promises to end the crossings backtracked on, kicking the can down the road with yet more unnecessary legislation, a ‘non-amnesty’ amnesty to clear the enormous backlog, a five-year plan to hide ‘asylum seekers’ in Rwanda, barges which can hold 500 migrants at a time (a typical day’s quota of migrants, incidentally), and ‘asylum claims’ accepted at almost 100%.
There is however, an alternative. Among the less-patient of those waiting to be murdered, there is the sense that Britain should simply break the law itself. While naturally, leaving the ECHR seems an obvious manoeuvre – why should a sovereign nation uphold the niceties of international law, when no one else appears concerned by them? This is certainly a conclusion Italian Premier Georgia Meloni appears to have reached. To deal with the sudden influx of 3,000 migrants, Meloni has declared a state of emergency – why hasn’t anyone in the cabinet come up with that?
The small boat crossings are a desperate sign for Britain. Not just the enormous threat posed by the substantial criminal element they contain, but perhaps more dangerous for the impotence and negligence so willingly displayed by our leaders. There is one bright spot on the horizon – Marine Le Pen has pledged to help Britain ‘fly illegal migrants home’ when she becomes president in 2027, although anyone mugged, stabbed, raped or murdered in the interim may conclude that Britain simply cannot wait that long. Judging by the pathetic Tory showing at last week’s local elections, it’s also a timeframe the British public have no truck with. As a former UK Admiral has warned, migrants are set to overwhelm Britain this summer. The time for half measures has long since passed.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
Pingback: The State We’re In: MPs Answer Ten Important Questions - The New Conservative