The tragic death of a boat full of desperate people trying to reach the UK has focused attention on the growing numbers of people crossing the channel in small boats. This has been a problem for months now, and the Governments response has centred on implausible get tough schemes that grab the headlines but which achieve nothing; floating walls, wave machines and imaginary camps in Albania.
Any solution to the problem starts with working out who these illegal immigrants are, and why they are coming to the UK at great risk. I am going to work with relatively crude numbers, mostly because precise numbers are almost impossible to calculate. I am also dealing with historic date going back pre-Covid.
There are roughly 450,000 illegal immigrants in the UK. This doesn’t include children born in the UK to people here illegally.
The majority of these illegal immigrants – roughly 300,000 at any one time – entered the UK legally. They came over on time limited tourist visas and either overstayed their welcome or took work without the correct papers. Some came over legally but become illegal due to changes in the law.
The most common countries of origin for these illegal immigrants are Australia, Canada, the US, New Zealand and South Africa. India and China aren’t far behind. At the same time there are similar numbers Brits in those countries illegally; for every Aussie on a tourist visa doing a bar job in Earls Court there is a Brit doing the same in Sydney; for every American who came over to visit family in the old country, fell in love with a local and overstayed, there is a Brit in New York with a dodgy green card; for every Punjabi auntie overstaying her Visa to attend a cousin’s wedding there is an equivalent Brit doing the same in India.
They are almost impossible to track down because they are living with family and aren’t claiming benefits or interacting with officialdom. Typically these illegal immigrants self -deport faster than officials can track them down.
The second largest group, approximately 120,000, are here as refugees and asylum seekers, who will ultimately be granted leave to remain in the UK. They enter the country illegally because for the last 10 years to UK Government has closed all legal ways for them to enter. There is a surge of arrivals among this group at the moment driven by political instability such as the return of the Taliban to Afghanistan. Benefits are unlikely to be a main factor driving this group to the UK; benefits are very low in the UK, and are much higher in France; no-one is going to risk crossing the channel for less money. They are desperate to come to the UK because they have family here who can help support them. They are parents desperate to be re-united with children, children looking for their last living relative. Making the benefit system more miserly or brutal will do nothing to deter them.
The final group, and the most concerning are the smallest, approximately 30,000. These are trafficked into the sex trade, cannabis farms or slave labour in factories and restaurants. None of these are claiming benefits of any kind for obvious reasons. The UK is an attractive destination for slavers and traffickers because enforcement is lax, and because the UK is the only country in Europe without an ID card. David Cameron’s opportunistic decision to scrap the ID card scheme gave a huge boost to modern slavers and traffickers.
So what can we do about them?
For the first and largest group not a lot. The paradox of getting tough in immigration is that every time you tighten the rules you catch more people out who entered the UK legally, and the number of illegal immigrants goes up not down. The only way to reduce this group is by making visa rules less stringent, and making it easier for people to work while over here, ideally with a reciprocal agreement with other countries.
For the second group the only option is to create a legal route to the UK for genuine refugees and asylum seekers. We could establish an immigration centre in France staffed by UK staff so that they can come to the UK without risking the crossing and paying people traffickers. This is common sense and easily done, but politically unpopular with politicians who have benefited from the current migrant panic.
The final group are the hardest to deal with. If you can create a legal route into the UK for genuine refugees and asylum seekers you free up resources to deal with criminal gangs. Introducing ID cards will have an impact too, as will increased resources for the police.
What is clear is that the kind of fist waving and posturing the Government are currently indulging in will achieve absolutely nothing.
Despite what the media would have us believe, they are certainly not here for the benefits. The UK is arguably the worst in western Europe for asylum benefits, if memory servers they get about 7 quid a day, but they must use part of this for food, compare that to a country like German where they get €400-450 pm + food vouchers, and high asylum acceptance rate.
So why do the people who come here take a longer and riskier route (boats in the Channel)? In my opinion its because once granted asylum they can send for their family (wife and kids only). This is why the majority of them are male, or men of military age as fearmongering tabloids and Farage like to describe them. Its an expensive trip, only one can go… and which man would send his wife on a potentially life threatening journey?
The Illegal Migration Act (2023), revoked this rule for people arriving by ‘irregular means’. So they make the journey, and even if granted asylum they cannot send for their family. Of course they don’t know this, and the people smugglers don’t tell them.
I think there is some truth in that. We assume that people coming here via people smugglers are assessing a wide range of options and picking Britain, when in reality they are desperate and we are the only place they can get to
I think there’s a few reasons they choose the UK. The main one being that once they are granted asylum, they are also granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). Once they have ILR then they are then able to sponsor their spouse and children to come to the UK, as far as I’m aware this is unique, other countries have longer waiting times, and countries like France do not allow it all.
Essentially, if you are looking to get your family out of a country and settled in a safe one, the UK is probably the best bet, despite the other ‘benefits’ arguably being the worst in western Europe.
That said, the Illegal Immigration Act put a stop to that, although I’m not sure how enforceable it is, as it contradicts International Law.
How can it contradict international law in the UK, but be lawful in France?
I can’t comment on France, I don’t know enough about it.
There is no international law that states a asylum must seek asylum in the first safe country they enter. The Illegal Immigration Act, says anyone who has entered the country by illegal means such as boats or lorries are deemed illegal. Since the UK does not provide channels for asylum seekers (other than say Ukraine or Hong Kong), then every asylum seeker entering the UK is effectively deemed illegal, as it is almost geographically impossible to go from say Syria to the UK without going through a safe country first, or crossing via boat or on the back of a lorry.
You’ll have noticed a lot has been said in media and public forums about immigrants should be returned to the first safe country within the EU they entered. In the European Union, the Dublin III Regulation does require that asylum seekers apply for asylum in the first EU country they enter. This is EU law, not international law. Besides that, Brexit happened so it doesn’t apply to use anyway.
As to how these these laws are implemented, or if they even are, I have no idea. To be frank, I think a lot of it is just political theatre.
The last point is certainly true for the last few years of Conservative government. A new immigration act every year, designed to appeal to a section of the press, with powers that could never be enacted.
The problem is that for immigration policy to work we need to co-ordinate with other countries. Which means having similar laws on immigration to those other countries. Going it alone to get tough makes the situation worse, not better.
Its a wicked problem for sure.
I agree, there does need to be better co-ordination with other countries. I’m just not sure how well it would go since other EU nations take in more than us, and if we are talking per-capita, the UK is near the bottom of the list.
The UK also needs to have an honest conversation with its own people, based on truths and compassion, not deceit , dehumanising language and political point scoring.
I don’t think the UK is ready for that debate. I joined a few local Facebook groups to track how much far right material was being shared there (masses!). One of the bans posts who use the phrase “asylum seeker” and only allows “illegals” to be used
Those local Facebook groups are right wing echo chambers, they are mostly used by older generations, who still buy papers like the Sun and Mail. Not all platforms are like this, Reddit for example is mostly left wing, but is more international.
Facebook in particularly is bad, the algorithm feeds the user what it perceives their interests to be. You don’t even need to click on anything, just stopping at something whilst scrolling will register. Looking at memes of immigrants, posts by reform, maybe Tommy Robinson – the algorithm will feed the user more of the same content, not because its bad, but because that’s how it makes money from advertising.
Agreed. Non digital natives easily manipulated by on-line content
This is the problem for the Government – they have to live in reality, whereas parties like Reform can offer seductive fantasies
Absolutely.
Its frustrating people can not see through people Farage. You can tell a Reform supporter that Farage would abandon the NHS, even show them evidence, they will not budge. Sadly some people value ego over truth, and would rather to ‘stick to their guns’ than change their mind, confusing rigidity for strength, and flexibility for weakness.