Few people are impressed by the government’s flagship deterrent policy of deporting illegal migrants to Rwanda. Even those who support it acknowledge that the ensuing fight in the Lords, the inevitable court appeals, and the waiting spectre of the ECHR, with its likely imposition of legally disgraceful Section 39 rulings, reduce the chances of it working, let alone acting as a deterrent to the people smugglers who infest Europe like bindweed. Privately, they will admit to doubts. It has the smell of electioneering rather than a credible immigration policy.
Liberal Tories, joined by metropolitan media, charities, churchmen, and of course, opposition parties, would all prefer to see the effectively open border policy that is now a stark reality continue. Whether this is for genuine ideological reasons, and they really believe the risible fiction that the majority are fleeing danger and persecution, or it is simple political opportunism is anyone’s guess. They take every opportunity to point out that the complex web of international treaties to which the country belongs has human rights baked into them and that attempting to ignore them would somehow relegate the United Kingdom to international pariah status. While they all sing this chorus, no one is prepared to consider which set of negotiating fools allowed the UK to paint itself into such a ridiculous corner where trade agreements are interdependent with human rights, obsolescent treaties seven decades old, meant for different times and hijacked by the developing world still hold such force and forfeited the ability of the government to control the nation’s borders.
The mood of the majority of the general public is far less benign. It is their town centres that are plagued by large groups of counter-culture males, pestering schoolgirls, spreading crime and disorder while occupying smart hotels where they were placed by Rishi Sunak, because it was a cheaper option than purpose-built detention facilities. The anger they hold as they watch these uninvited males receiving generous benefits, apparently limitless legal aid, and then, for the most part, being absorbed into a dark world as the authorities lose track of them is palpable. They want it stopped, and they want it stopped firmly.
So, what to do?
At the top of the tree is the proper reform of legislation that is being widely abused by canny lawyers who use the immigration and human rights business as a meal ticket. The Human Rights Act 1998 was a piece of Blairite utopian legislation that, in every election since 2001, the Tories have promised to reform and have failed to do so. While they try to wriggle past it and its connection to the ECHR that it’s drawn from, the lawyers know that the Government is effectively skewered by it. While we’re at it, let’s tackle the Equality Act 2010. Everyone knows it’s not fit for purpose and has effectively become a charter for minority privilege. More importantly, the young male hordes turning up on rubber dinghies know it too.
A proper detention process not based on 4* hotels could see a triaged response to handling the two hundred plus daily arrivals. Those who presented ID and gave checkable vetting information might be eligible to be housed in the community while their case is processed. Those that prefer to sling their personal information into the Channel as they leave France would find themselves in a detention centre with the prospects of their asylum claims being accepted remote.
The Government could reduce the authority for the determination of asylum claims from the courts and the Home Office to a specialist agency and a tribunal along the U.S model with an enforcement agency that has real teeth like the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) organization. The power of the courts to intervene in ICE decisions while not removed is far more limited in scope than exists in the UK immigration system.
Of course, a simpler solution may be to simply prevent illegal migrants from entering British jurisdiction. This has some operational hazards, but no politician has provided a convincing argument as to why it could not be done. Some capability building in providing the appropriate vessels and equipment to safely deny egress into UK waters is necessary, and unfortunately, the task would have to fall to the Royal Navy as the politically controlled Border Force and other agencies would balk at the task. But why not? If the occupants then put themselves in a position where they need rescuing, then the most natural action is to rescue them back to France, which could hardly refuse to take them and is, in fact, legally obliged to do so.
What of the alternatives to these measures? We hear a lot from Labour about how they will smash the criminal gangs responsible for the people smuggling. They talk as if the NCA and other agencies weren’t already straining every sinew to disrupt this trade. They may as well try to boil the ocean. For every arrest, there are ten waiting to fill their shoes. A processing center in France? Well, perhaps for a few. If a genuine refugee has traipsed across safe Europe to fulfill some ambition to reach the UK. But most will walk past in their new Nikes, making TikTok videos of their journey. Labour also thinks that it will be possible to negotiate returns without giving away anything in return. This is pure gaslighting. The price of any EU agreement with a Brussels deeply wounded by Brexit will be a punitive and disproportionate participation in some EU-wide holy hell of a distribution agreement.
Rishi Sunak promised to do whatever it takes to ‘stop the boats,’ yet the reality of the political promise is quite different. We have not changed the system to disincentivize illegal migration, the ultimate power of the courts to frustrate the Executive remains; we remain beholden to a politicized ECHR enforcing a transnational jurisprudence that other first world countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the U.S. do not need to practice a high standard of human rights. All of which leads the public to conclude the Government is about as serious about stopping the boats as the Opposition. They are in for a shock. The steady rise in the popularity of Reform Party (UK) should show both major parties in the smug political duopoly they try to protect that if they won’t deliver the change required, there is a party that can.
Frederick Chedham is a retired military officer with command and operational experience across the globe. He is the Defence spokesperson for Reform Party UK.
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!
