If there’s one notable Tory whom the anti-Tories love to hate more than Boris, it’s Matt Hancock, Michael Gove, Nadine Dorris, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Priti Patel.
Her ‘problem’ is that she’s a female ethnic-Asian from an immigrant family who doesn’t think like she’s supposed to. She’s not only a Tory but a right-wing Tory, which is not what a female ethnic Asian from an immigrant family should be. The easiest way to defeat the Tory party, ya see, is to portray them as offensive, racist misogynists – I’ve got two of those three T-shirts so I should know. Then along comes Pretty Priti (something else they don’t like about her – she looks good) who cannot, by definition, be a racist misogynist, which drives the Guardian fan club to distraction.
This week, she announced a cunning plan to ship some illegal immigrants - single male economic migrants to be exact - to Rwanda where they can apply to settle. The usual suspects are frothing at the mouth – just on one side, you understand, to match their habitual one-sided approach to most things. It’s Priti’s Plan so it’s bound to be Pitiful, they chant, Zen-like.
Time to roll up my sleeves and flex my biceps, for self-defense if nothing else because, as usual, I’m going to knock the wind out of their sails.
The issue that Priti has been trying to tackle for a while now is the increasing volume of illegal immigration across the Channel in small boats. Theoretically there shouldn’t be any need for such crossings because the UK already has a fair policy for asylum seekers. Per the Government website:
• your race
• your religion
• your nationality
• your political opinion
• anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation
• You must have failed to get protection from authorities in your own country.
“Your claim might not be considered if you:
• are from an EU country
• travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’
• have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylum …”
I looked at how many people sought asylum in the UK and how many were successful, based on information published by The Migration Observatory at Oxford University. It is estimated that around 8,500 people crossed the Channel in 2020, over 28,000 in 2021 and, so far this year, there have been more than 6,000. Some forecasts claim that this will rise to 60,000 by the end of the year. Assuming that most of the 2020 Channel-migrants claimed asylum, they would make up just under a quarter of all people seeking asylum that year. Note that in the year ending September 2019 (i.e. pre-Covid), 62% of asylum claims were made by those who entered the UK without authorisation, including those who entered by small boat, lorry, or without visas.
In total, an estimated 388,000 foreigners living in the UK in 2019 originally came to the UK to seek asylum. This made up 5% of the UK’s foreign-born population of 9.48 million and 0.6% of the UK’s total 2019 resident population of around 67 million.
Taking into account appeals, 54% of asylum applications from 2016 to 2018 are estimated to have received a grant of asylum-related protection by May 2020. The share of asylum applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 87% in Q2 2014 to 22% in Q2 2020, i.e. at the height of the pandemic.
One reason for the jump in Channel crossings is that security at the Port of Calais in France - where UK border controls are - has been tightened. This means more attempts are being made to send people by boat, according to Tony Smith, former director general of UK Border Force as told to the BBC. He says Covid has also played a role; fewer lorries have been travelling to the UK so people-smugglers have changed their methods.
The problem of illegal immigration only looks as if it’s getting worse, we are told, because boat crossings are more visible. What is getting much worse is the cost of processing the illegal migrants, and of course the risk to their lives from the ever more daring boat crossings.
Despite the myths, many migrants do choose to make an asylum claim in the first country they arrive in – such as Greece, Turkey or Italy – with others preferring Germany, France and Spain. Only a minority choose to travel on to the UK. According to a survey by the International Health Journal, more than half of these said they already had a family member here.
We’re not talking huge numbers, so why can’t we just welcome everyone with open arms and be compassionate? Why do we need to ship some to Rwanda, a supposedly unfit country, at an unquantified cost that took over two years to negotiate, attracting the expected vitriol and legal challenges?
One reason, expressed succinctly by The National Crime Agency, is, “Entering the UK illegally prevents law enforcement from conducting criminal record or security checks, meaning we don't know who they are or what risk they pose to the UK.”
Data from The Migration Observatory is inconclusive as to whether illegal immigration definitively fuels a rise in crime. Being the cynic but realist that I am, I could and I do argue that the numbers are so small compared to the total population, establishing a causal statistical relationship is not possible. But you only need one terrorist or criminal gang member per boatload of genuine migrants to cause carnage.
Still, does that justify Priti’s Plan? Is there no alternative? (Well, Priti is a self-confessed Thatcherite, God bless her.)
The answer, my friends, has been stated very clearly by Priti herself and on the Government website – the “migration and economic development” deal with Rwanda (the "economic development" part is what makes it look expensive) has been struck to try and stop criminal gangs of people-smugglers profiting from illegal migration, risking vulnerable lives on the open water, and using their ill-gotten gains to ratchet up their evil deeds through terrorism, slave-trafficking, drug smuggling etc. To the chagrin of Priti’s detractors, her intentions are honourable!
But has she cocked up by choosing to do this with Rwanda? According to the Foreign Office, the borders with Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo are unstable. However, levels of crime in Rwanda remain relatively low, but there are cases of burglary, theft, bag snatching and mugging in Kigali (the capital). Last December an official from the United Nations refugee agency said Rwanda had done an “excellent job integrating refugees”. Their website crows, “A new approach to refugee integration bears fruit in Rwanda. Two years after the Global Refugee Forum, Rwanda shows how inclusive policies in education and livelihoods are unlocking the potential of refugees and their hosts.” But when Priti announced her plans this week the same body said it would “undermine the practice of asylum globally”. Why the change of tune? Political expediency? Anti-Priti sentiment spread to the UN?
Assuming that the truth lies somewhere between Rwanda’s cheer leaders and critics, the conclusion is that President Paul Kagame tolerates no opposition, but he has turned Rwanda from a genocidal centre to “Africa’s Switzerland” by pushing the West’s buttons and trading on our guilt for not intervening in said genocide. He’s certainly pushed Priti’s buttons. But if the illegal immigrants we send there decide they want to stay or if they decide they don’t and return to their homelands or try again for asylum in Britain, legally this time, then it’s a job Prittily done.
I’m sure there are safeguards in the agreement to make sure the asylum seekers are treated properly. Priti must know that anything else would see her embroiled in a scandal almost as bad as Party Gate.
Priti has been criticised for going against the advice of her civil servants. Nah. The recent advice from Matthew Rycroft, Home Office Permanent Secretary, included the assurance that, “I have satisfied myself that it is regular, proper and feasible for this policy to proceed … Value for money of the policy is dependent on it being effective as a deterrent. Evidence of a deterrent effect is highly uncertain and cannot be quantified with sufficient certainty to provide me with the necessary level of assurance over value for money… This does not mean that the [policy] cannot have the appropriate deterrent effect; just that … there is not sufficient evidence for me to conclude that it will … I consider it is entirely appropriate for you to make a judgement to proceed in the light of the illegal migration challenge the country is facing.”
I will concede that a less radical plan might have achieved the same objective more efficiently. The people-smugglers operate along the coast of France – curtailing their operations at source is the obvious solution, but that would require the French authorities to up their game and co-operate with Blighty. It was telling that Priti commented that other European countries agreed that maintaining the status quo was not an option, adding, “I’ve spoken to a lot of counterparts – Italy, Greece, Poland, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium. The Council of Europe are interested in working with us.”
Wot, not France? What do you think! Ironically (tragically), “The role of France in the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has been a source of controversy and debate both within and beyond France and Rwanda,” (per Wiki).
The deal with Rwanda might work as intended, or it might not. If it doesn’t then I hope Priti has the good sense to call a halt and try something else. One thing for sure is, it’s too dangerous for the immigrants for Priti to do nothing; and it’s too dangerous for Blighty to allow a free-for-all.
Exactly right, Rachael.
ReplyDelete