The naivety of the left on the topic of illegal immigration

Why do the left insist that the way to stop illegal small boat crossings in the channel is to open more “safe and legal routes” into the UK? Could they be more naïve?

Individuals from all countries are able to take advantage of the same safe and legal route… it involves applying for a work or travel visa, taking your passport to the airport, getting on a plane and flying to one of the many international airports that we have in the UK.

For those who are unable to do that because they are legitimately coming from countries ravaged by war, or are under the control of oppressive authoritarian governments, for example Ukraine or Afghanistan, there already exist safe routes for genuine refugees to apply for asylum in this country.

The majority of migrants paying the people smugglers to ferry them across the channel and into this country are doing so because they know (or have been convinced by the people smuggling gangs) that any claim for asylum in the UK that they lodge will be rejected. They may have already tried and failed in such a process. This will be because they are not genuine refugees, but economic migrants.

Often they don’t speak English, do not have a job offer waiting for them, and don’t bring with them any skills or qualifications that would be deemed to benefit British society. As a result, claims for asylum are quite rightly rejected.

Let’s remind ourselves of the conditions for being granted asylum in the UK, which are published on the government website here:

https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility#:~:text=To%20stay%20in%20the%20UK,your%20race

The rules state the following:

• To stay in the UK as a refugee you must be unable to live safely in any part of your own country because you fear persecution there.

• You must have failed to get protection from authorities in your own country.

• Your claim might not be considered if you travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’.

• You’ll need documents for yourself and your dependents, for example a passport or birth certificate.

  
  

Most of the people entering the UK illegally on small boats are not escaping persecution.

Most of the people entering the UK illegally on small boats do not lack security from their own authorities.

Most of the people entering the UK illegally on small boats have travelled through numerous safe countries to get here.

Most of the people entering the UK illegally on small boats do not bring any documents with them.

In such instances, and I hazard a guess that the above scenario would apply to 90%+ of people who attempt the small boat channel crossings, no number of safe or legal routes would make a difference. These individuals would still be turning to the people smugglers.

Opening up more safe and legal routes categorically will not remove the demand for illegal small boat crossings.

It may provide a safe alternative for some, and there is a valid argument that even just one life being saved by presenting an alternative is worth the effort. But there will always be those who do not qualify for asylum in this country and will turn to illegal routes to get here. Consider also, that many of these people don’t speak English, may not have access to the internet, and are not familiar with our asylum processes. They rely on the information given to them by the people smugglers. Again, for these people, it will be very difficult to raise awareness of new legal routes, so they will still turn to the smugglers believing that this is their only option.

And in addition, passage into the UK via the smuggling gangs also often comes with promises of employment on the other side. This will invariably be nefarious, black market employment, and in some cases will turn out to be little more than slavery, but it is a promise of hope that is sold to those turning to the gangs.

So, for those who wish to come to the UK, they face a choice: (i). They could attempt to come here legally, probably have their claim rejected, and even if they are accepted arrive on these shores with no employment prospects or means of earning a living, or (ii). they can go with the smuggling gangs, offering guaranteed “safe” and unchecked passage, with the promise of employment when they arrive.

The staggering naivety shown by the left when proposing that opening up more safe and legal routes would address the problem of illegal immigration is predicated on the following entirely incorrect premises:

1. That all of those crossing the channel are legitimate refugees fleeing war or persecution. We know they think this, because they refuse to use the term “illegal immigrant” and instead insist on using the term “refugee” or “asylum seeker”;

2. That all of those crossing the channel bring with them skills and qualifications that would benefit British society… apparently the small boats are loaded with doctors, lawyers and entrepreneurs; and

3. That all of those crossing the channel are law-abiding citizens, who bring with them no intention to commit crimes or terrorist atrocities.

   
   

It is admirable in some ways that the left want to assume the best in people. And they could rightly argue that to assume that all illegal migrants are potential criminals or terrorists with no value to add to UK society is equally disingenuous. However, they completely ignore the reality of the situation, and the risks posed by granting the benefit of the doubt to thousands of undocumented young men often coming here from countries that we would not consider our allies or aligned to our way of life, and with strong links to fundamentalist terror groups.

Fundamentally, the issue of national security must always take priority over all else. Without proper documentation, we have no way of knowing who these people are, what their background is, or whether they have links to terrorist organisations. As a result, we have no way of guaranteeing the safety of the British people should we allow them to stay.

There is a reason that we have a proper and rigorous process for granting asylum in this country. Those who choose to circumvent it do so for one of two reasons: (i). They know they will have their asylum claim rejected, because they are not genuine refugees and do not meet the eligibility criteria, or (ii). They have an intention to do harm to the British public.

This Labour government must immediately reinstate the Illegal Migration Act put in place by the previous Tory administration, which dictated that no individual arriving here illegally would be permitted to apply for asylum. It is laws such as this that will help to drive down the numbers of small boat crossings.

Opening more safe and legal routes is definitively NOT the answer.