Sunak Signs Tory Death Warrant With Illegal Amnesty

I have long been asking myself: even if the Conservative Party were not actively seeking self-destruction, what exactly would they be doing differently if they were? Thanks to some of the most cataclysmic decisions in political history (three Prime Ministers in two months, crippling Covid lockdowns, and a blunt refusal to bring illegal immigration under control), they are currently 30% points behind Labour in the polls. Having transformed 2019’s healthy 80-seat majority into the genuine prospect of a 60-seat wipe-out , is it any wonder thousands are defecting to the Reform Party?

Assuming self-destruction is not the government’s intention, a consultation of Conservative voters might be a good place to begin some recovery. Back in 2016, ‘the chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders’ was the second most popular reason for voting Leave. Fast forward to the present, and immigration is now jostling for primary concern among Conservative voters, along with the lamentable state of the economy. A staggering 97% of Conservatives  while 80% of Brits overall believe that ‘the government is doing a bad job.’

Tory HQ is aware of the situation. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak attempted to calm the waters by promising an end to the small boat crossings in his 5-point-plan, while Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, has admitted that it would be “Unforgivable to not halt small boats, it’s last-chance saloon.” With Braverman promising this week that “nothing was being ruled out,” we’re left asking: what exactly are their plans? Towing the boats back to France, immediate deportations, or gunboats in the Channel? Not quite. Instead, Sunak’s masterstroke is to rebrand illegals as citizens in his ‘non-amnesty’ amnesty. Why didn’t we think of that?

Faced with a colossal backlog of 166,000 ‘asylum seekers’ which he promised to erase by the end of the year (90% of whom are male), Sunak has clearly decided desperate measures are called for. To that end, some 12,000 migrants are to be fast-tracked for citizenship, without even undergoing a face-to-face interview—something the Home Office recently considered crucial in terms of security.

Who are these 12,000 you may ask? Migrants from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, Syria, and Yemen who applied before last July—the justification being that asylum applications from these countries are already accepted at the rate of 95%, so why bother with due diligence? True to form, Sunak has managed to find a proposal fiercely unpopular with the electorate—especially Tory voters, who are 3:1 against the policy.

So, what exactly does the new process involve? Applicants are to be given 20 working days to complete a 10-page questionnaire consisting of up to 40 questions. Legal assistance is already on-hand, as are the charities queuing up to complain that difficulties in English could lead to documents not being completed in time.

Executive Director of the British Red Cross, Christina Marriott, has argued:

These men, women and children may not speak English and are likely traumatised from fleeing persecution and war. They need our support and compassion, not rushed and complicated bureaucracy that will only increase suffering. We know from experience that government communications with people seeking asylum often falls short—translations are rarely provided and forms are lost in transit. This time limit could have devastating impacts on people who need protection.

Sentiments echoed by Sile Reynolds of Freedom from Torture:

Plans for an ‘asylum claim questionnaire’—requiring people to complete a complex form, often without any legal advice, in a language they don’t understand and to a 20-day deadline—could see many asylum claims wrongly withdrawn, leaving those individuals at risk of return to torture or persecution.

The questionnaire includes leading questions such as: “If you do fear officials in your country, is it possible to email or telephone family members or friends in your country of origin to request [identity documents] without placing yourself or them at risk?” and “Were you subject to human trafficking (the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of people through force, fraud or deception, with the aim of exploiting them for profit) or modern slavery (severe exploitation of other people for personal or commercial gain) during your journey to or after you arrived in the UK?”

In the face of criticism, the Home Office has stressed all individuals involved will still be checked against criminal databases, and subject to security vetting—a fat lot of good that will do, seeing as those who need to will simply lie. Two-thirds of ‘child migrants’ for instance, turn out to be adults—a problem which those in authority do their best to ignore, but one which is being felt in schools across the country. It’s just as well ISIS confirmed they are sending their best fighters to Europe posing as refugees, because on the basis of what we currently know, Shamima Begum would almost certainly make it through the screening process.

If you think I’m being overly-critical, consider the Home Office’s track record on these matters. Only last year, the Afghani, Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai, fatally stabbed Tom Roberts in an argument over an e-scooter. Not only that, but Abdulrahimzai (estimated to be 21) had falsely entered the UK claiming to be just 14 years of age—a smart move, considering he was wanted for the murder of two men in Serbia just a year previously.

The reality is that, far from solving the migrant crisis, this latest Tory strategy is likely to open the floodgates even more. The allure of Britain for illegal immigrants has a two-fold explanation: first, the benefits package is second to none. Second, the success of asylum applicants is by far the highest in Europe—insanely high in fact. Back in 2016, Britain was more or less in-step with the rest of the continent, approving just a third of asylum applications. Since then, the Home Office has deemed fit to raise that 40% points, which leaves us at an eye-watering 72% compared to France’s 25%. A record 45,756 illegals arrived last year in small boats. If anything, Sunak’s amnesty is likely to bring an even higher tally for 2023.

The worst part of this Tory ineptitude, is that it willingly hands to Keir Starmer the keys to Number 10 Downing Street: a man who doesn’t know what a woman is, has failed victims of Muslim grooming, and believes Shamima Begum should be brought home, ‘for the sake of her child.’ This is a man too dangerous to ever wield such power. And yet, what is the alternative? Like the U.S., Britain’s two-Party stranglehold over the political sphere in tandem with the first-past-the-post system makes it almost impossible for fledgling parties to gain a foothold. The one exception is Nigel Farage in his first incarnation as the leader of UKIP, and later as the head of Reform. While Farage has recently flirted with the notion of another political comeback, there are certain issues standing against him: first, the main Parties have consistently pulled every trick in the book to prevent him becoming an MP; and second, at 58, Farage has admitted he is “quite happy with life as it is.” If any Party is going to replace the Conservatives, however, they will never get a better chance. It’s now or never.

This piece first appeared in The European Conservative, and is reproduced by kind permission.