Surely the author doesn’t believe that this sort of thing will make the British public change its mind about the need to deport all illegal immigrants.
His “solutions” amount to doing things already being done or the old canard of new ‘legal routes’ which would just increase the flow of migrants.
Also the author’s ungrateful attitude to the nation that rescued his family when his own country descended into gang warfare betrays a serious lack of character that further undermines his argument.
Kevin Casey
1 year ago
Australia had a problem with illegal refugees for a number of years with boat smugglers. Our solution was to not let them set foot onshore where the leftie lawyers were waiting to advance there cause. Now we stop them at sea and send them to offshore facilities. The result has been successful as evidenced by no boat arrivals. Good luck to the Brit’s with there Rwanda plan
I bet the aboriginal people whish they had done the same when the colonials had arrived.
JP Martin
1 year ago
Whenever I start feeling increased sympathy for migrants, I stumble upon something like this and snap out of it. Compassion and public finances are in limited supply and I prefer to save both for fellow citizens suffering from the consequences of uncontrolled immigration.
Matt M
1 year ago
The author’s ungratefulness betrays a lack of character which undermines his argument. Not that there is much to undermine – his argument is basically to legalise illegal immigration – as if that will reduce numbers.
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Why on earth should the UK or any other country accept an endless stream of migrants? The UK has a far smaller landmass than Africa. African nations have to get their act together to rid themselves of corruption & wars. To expect Western countries to address or remedy their situation is unreasonable.
T Gambit
1 year ago
Again, the same deflection, worrying about others and not attending to ourselves. I’ll give it to you straigth; British society IS traumatised to a terrible degree, the people are suffering in droves in England, it’s bad. Some statistics; almost 50% of white English children will be subscribed anti-depressants or anti-psychotics by the time they reach 20 years old, another 25% apparently don’t even visit a healthcare professional, upto 10% suffer eating disorders and get this; 9.8% of English and Welsh population are recorded to suffer from psychosis, that’s the worst psychological malady a human can suffer and incls. pschizophrenia and personality disorders. Seriously, I couldn’t care less what happens outside these borders, until everyone here accepts whats happening to the indigenous families, children and adults of England, scotland and Wales, and deals with it. There is no future for a society with such high levels of despair in it’s people. None.
Last edited 1 year ago by T Gambit
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
It is good that the author makes suggestions about how to stem the flow, but none of them seem very realistic.
A Europe-led presence along the coastline. I assume you mean some kind of maritime patrol. Wouldn’t this require some kind of agreement with the coastal states? How likely are they to agree to European presence in their sovereign territory? For its part, I don’t think Europeans will be that anxious to do this: without the right to return the people they encounter to where they came (which might be counter to international law – non refoulement?) their point of view is likely to be that it is more in their interest to make themselves scarce. If they are obliged to bring all the people they allow onto their boat back to Europe, then it will go down like a sack of bricks with their voters and they could even face the accusation of aiding the traffickers who continue to laugh all the way to the bank or wherever it is they put their ill gotten gains.
A European quota system. Sorry, it is time we moved away from this idea. The EU has been talking about this since at least 2016 and so far nothing notable has happened, as – apart from Germany and perhaps Luxembourg – no one is really up for it. Warming up the idea again and again in the hope it might fly this time is to flog a dead horse.
Establishing bilateral agreements. Mentioned as if this is the easiest thing in the world and like efforts aren’t being made. Most countries to which immigrants would be returned probably won’t be in a hurry to negotiate and you can’t forced them to. What motivation do they have to play ball? Plus, how difficult is it to establish where people are even from if they arrive in Europe without passports or papers?
I can’t believe you would take this autor seriously enough to reply. You get an A+ on respectful dialogue. Not only are these suggestions unrealistic they are downright laughable.
Frankly, there may be a reason to leave your home country to seek refuge from genuine persecution but there is NEVER a reason to enter the country you hope will give you that refuge illegally & certainly not without declaring to the relevant authorities that you are here at the earliest possible moment, so that a proper investigation into your case can be undertaken. AND, if you can pay people smugglers to get you here illegally you are, prima facie, NOT a genuine asylum seeker fleeing persecution.
Under Joe Biden two million illegal immigrants have entered the US. The government has a policy now of busing or flying them into the interior of the country so everyone can share the wealth. It goes without saying the vast majority of Americans are opposed to this stealthy plot. Despite all his claims, Donald Trump did nothing to resist the flood of mostly illiterate (in any language) illegals.It is a conspiracy againt the native population by the wealthy and political elites of both parties.
Clara B
1 year ago
It’s all very well suggesting that safe routes are established and European nations share the burden of migrants but will there be an upper limit to this? The populations of sending nations have more than quadrupled in the last 50 or so years (the Nigerian population was 45 million in 1960, it’s now 206 million. The Somalian population has increased eightfold since 1960). Add climate change-related migration into the mix and the numbers are only going to go up. Plus, we are an overcrowded country, have to import 30-40% of the food we eat and there are water shortages in the south. Given this, surely citizens – if they were to accept such a scheme – have a right to the numbers first? This is the detail that’s usually lacking.
There is a problem with setting an upper limit. What do you do when your annual limit has been reached and more migrants keep coming?
Even if you allowed in a million a year you’d still have to deter or deport the arrivals above that figure. There’s nothing in this article to acknowledge that fact, or suggest how it might be done.
The simple fact is we don’t need more persons incapable or unwilling to work. We have a vast duty to our own elderly who not only paid their way throughout their lives but also fought for us to exist as a free nation. We also have a duty to care & assist those citizens who are, through no fault of their own, unable to manage. They now see illegal immigrants, on higher benefits than their own pensions, getting free housing, education & healthcare without having put a single penny into the system & with no intention of doing so. Even when they bother to get a job it is, due their education & inability to speak English, unlikely to be on more than minimum wage (if they are paid ‘on the books’ most insist on cash in hand) leaving then still open to getting all the aforementioned benefits.
William Cameron
1 year ago
“Step up and meet our obligations “you say. The uk has increased its population by ten million 20% in the last 35 years predominately through immigration. England has the densest population in Europe . Call us when other EU countries match the uk numbers
R Wright
1 year ago
Thank you for informing me as to how the Israelis do things. We could definitely learn a thing or two from them about ending mass-migration.
The most effective thing Israel did was to erect a fence on the southern border. Israel is the first free country that you get to with a rule of law and an above-average attitude to human rights, when you start walking north from Eritrea or Sudan. So after being robbed, beaten and otherwise abused in the various countries on their journey, the Eritrean and Sudanese migrants made Israel their destination. The attempts to try to intern and/or deport the illegal migrants came to nothing as the courts thwarted any of the government plans. The government then went back to the well tried and tested strategy of hiding its head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away. Which of course it doesn’t. Surprise.
Albireo Double
1 year ago
“That so many yearn to come here is the highest compliment to pay a nation…”
That’s the best you’ve got?
Well sorry, but it doesn’t cut it. There are 3 billion people in Africa, Asia etc. who are likely to want to come here. Our collapsing social systems, and our culture cannot even deal with the 0.1% of that number who have arrived so far. That tiny percentage alone, has ruined our culture, ruined our NHS, ruined our education system, and left us with a country that many of us can barely recognise as the one we were born in.
And you think that the fact that the remaining 99.9% “yearn to come” should flatter us? That, and a guilt trip is the best you can do? No thanks! We’ve had enough. The fault lies with the fact that no politician has ever been honest with us over this, But it doesn’t matter where the fault lies.
NO MORE.
Last edited 1 year ago by Albireo Double
D Goo
1 year ago
People who are suffering and want a better life nevertheless don’t have a right to find it in my apartment. As for the Israeli experiment, why would they have to be in prison? Illegal entry? Generous of them and I’m not speaking ironically. Why should the Israeli public pay to house them, even in a prison, and feed them?
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Britain has the military intelligence and police and military ( Special Forces, ideal for the mission) ability, and experience to seek out the source of the people traffickers, expose them, and stop them- no different to ops in Northern Ireland passim., or police ops against drug smugglers, arms smugglers and terrorists?
So why has this option never been aired, or suggested by our government?
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
So, trim away the emotional rhetoric and what we have is someone waving everybody in despite the overpowering evidence that citizens of the country involved, the ones who pay the bills, don’t want to be flooded with illegal or even legal immigration. Don’t they count?
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
We can all see the flood coming as the pandemic response, and Ukrainian war, devastate third world economies.
It is apparent our government should be doing something to prepare for it and the suggestions given here have much more of a grown up feel to them than the Rwanda scheme.
What is still missing is a sensible debate on “how many.” Alas that is now almost impossible.
The suggestions given here are not “grown up” however they may feel to you.
More patrols in the Med. The problem isn’t catching boats but what to do with their passengers. We currently intercept 100% of the dinghies in the channel and i’m sure the Italians are capable of doing the same.
More legal routes for migrants into European countries. This will obviously increase the number of migrants. Also people not getting onto one of these legal routes will just take the illegal routes so it is a net negative.
Bilateral return deals. These are already done and with some countries they work well. Unfortunately many other countries have no interest. The Nationality and Borders bill contains clauses to limit visa access to the UK of citizens from those uncooperative countries. It is yet to be seen if it will make a difference.
Spend more money. Sure directionless public spending never fails.
In fact the Rwanda plan is the first sensible solution that has been proposed. The Australians were very successful with a similar scheme. A fact that the authors conveniently fails to mention.
On your “how many?” question. The public’s answer is already known – as close to zero as possible. Asylum should take place in the countries closest to the problem and distant countries should support that effort with funds. No person should be allowed to travel round the world to claim asylum in Britain. Once you allow that, and if you have no way of deporting them once they arrive, there is no limit on the number of people that will take that opportunity.
My problem with pieces like this is always the selective use of language and tone and facts, in persuit of agendas underlying. That is not a political point, both the right and left do this, although in my observation the progressive left are particularly prone.
It will undoubtedly be the case that this author, as other authors, will be aware of a whole host of complexities and countervailing arguments of which they will remain deliberately silent about, because it undermines the case they are attempting to make. This is in essence a lawyerly stance, which has little to do with presenting a full and honest picture of what is actually happening. It is easy enough to pick holes in the stories the author presents. Just one very simple example (and I could give multiple) – it is absolutely the case that for any grouping of migrants, a certain level of money and resources are needed to actually engage in the process of coming illegally to the West – you need to pay/bribe a whole chain of people for transport across countries, not least the various sets of traffickers. The poorest and most victimised in war torn countries more often than not don’t have anywhere near the means to persue migration – in effect a class system exists within the migration industry, which the author is implicitly asking us to endorse. So more often than not the migrants in question are people who have significant resources, which they are expending to get themselves and their loved ones out into Western prosperity – totally understandable, as you or I would do the same in the same situation. But just as a single simple counter, I look at Ukraine, and although there has been unavoidable huge migration out of the country, there is also, a very obvious and equal willingness to stand and fight, from Zelensky who refused an escape hatch, downwards – to try and improve the situation of the hell they find themselves in.
My question is, why would not the author and others, put forward the full complex picture of migration of this type, rather than leave out facts they know to be true, but deem inconvenient?
Last edited 1 year ago by Prashant Kotak
Mike K
1 year ago
Israel no longer has a problem. Britain does. And this stupid article offers no suggestion other than to capitulate and surrender the country. You know, Israel is just about always right. It really is.
Alex D
1 year ago
An excellent argument that resonates with anyone who has direct knowledge of the issues of distress migration. An honest recognition that there are no easy answers. Well done to Unherd for publishing an opinion that won’t be popular.
Yes thanks for publishing this piece. It shows just how impossible it is to save migrants from themselves. The opinion is not only “unpopular” … it is ridiculous. Migrants should stay in their own countries and clean up the mess they’ve made. Not Europe’s responsibility.
Surely the author doesn’t believe that this sort of thing will make the British public change its mind about the need to deport all illegal immigrants.
His “solutions” amount to doing things already being done or the old canard of new ‘legal routes’ which would just increase the flow of migrants.
Also the author’s ungrateful attitude to the nation that rescued his family when his own country descended into gang warfare betrays a serious lack of character that further undermines his argument.
Australia had a problem with illegal refugees for a number of years with boat smugglers. Our solution was to not let them set foot onshore where the leftie lawyers were waiting to advance there cause. Now we stop them at sea and send them to offshore facilities. The result has been successful as evidenced by no boat arrivals. Good luck to the Brit’s with there Rwanda plan
Exactly right Kevin.
I bet the aboriginal people whish they had done the same when the colonials had arrived.
Whenever I start feeling increased sympathy for migrants, I stumble upon something like this and snap out of it. Compassion and public finances are in limited supply and I prefer to save both for fellow citizens suffering from the consequences of uncontrolled immigration.
The author’s ungratefulness betrays a lack of character which undermines his argument. Not that there is much to undermine – his argument is basically to legalise illegal immigration – as if that will reduce numbers.
Why on earth should the UK or any other country accept an endless stream of migrants? The UK has a far smaller landmass than Africa. African nations have to get their act together to rid themselves of corruption & wars. To expect Western countries to address or remedy their situation is unreasonable.
Again, the same deflection, worrying about others and not attending to ourselves. I’ll give it to you straigth; British society IS traumatised to a terrible degree, the people are suffering in droves in England, it’s bad. Some statistics; almost 50% of white English children will be subscribed anti-depressants or anti-psychotics by the time they reach 20 years old, another 25% apparently don’t even visit a healthcare professional, upto 10% suffer eating disorders and get this; 9.8% of English and Welsh population are recorded to suffer from psychosis, that’s the worst psychological malady a human can suffer and incls. pschizophrenia and personality disorders. Seriously, I couldn’t care less what happens outside these borders, until everyone here accepts whats happening to the indigenous families, children and adults of England, scotland and Wales, and deals with it. There is no future for a society with such high levels of despair in it’s people. None.
It is good that the author makes suggestions about how to stem the flow, but none of them seem very realistic.
I can’t believe you would take this autor seriously enough to reply. You get an A+ on respectful dialogue. Not only are these suggestions unrealistic they are downright laughable.
Frankly, there may be a reason to leave your home country to seek refuge from genuine persecution but there is NEVER a reason to enter the country you hope will give you that refuge illegally & certainly not without declaring to the relevant authorities that you are here at the earliest possible moment, so that a proper investigation into your case can be undertaken. AND, if you can pay people smugglers to get you here illegally you are, prima facie, NOT a genuine asylum seeker fleeing persecution.
Under Joe Biden two million illegal immigrants have entered the US. The government has a policy now of busing or flying them into the interior of the country so everyone can share the wealth. It goes without saying the vast majority of Americans are opposed to this stealthy plot. Despite all his claims, Donald Trump did nothing to resist the flood of mostly illiterate (in any language) illegals.It is a conspiracy againt the native population by the wealthy and political elites of both parties.
It’s all very well suggesting that safe routes are established and European nations share the burden of migrants but will there be an upper limit to this? The populations of sending nations have more than quadrupled in the last 50 or so years (the Nigerian population was 45 million in 1960, it’s now 206 million. The Somalian population has increased eightfold since 1960). Add climate change-related migration into the mix and the numbers are only going to go up. Plus, we are an overcrowded country, have to import 30-40% of the food we eat and there are water shortages in the south. Given this, surely citizens – if they were to accept such a scheme – have a right to the numbers first? This is the detail that’s usually lacking.
There is a problem with setting an upper limit. What do you do when your annual limit has been reached and more migrants keep coming?
Even if you allowed in a million a year you’d still have to deter or deport the arrivals above that figure. There’s nothing in this article to acknowledge that fact, or suggest how it might be done.
Yes, I agree, it’s wildly impractical for the reasons you cite – the numbers will keep growing and there will be no upper limit.
The simple fact is we don’t need more persons incapable or unwilling to work. We have a vast duty to our own elderly who not only paid their way throughout their lives but also fought for us to exist as a free nation. We also have a duty to care & assist those citizens who are, through no fault of their own, unable to manage. They now see illegal immigrants, on higher benefits than their own pensions, getting free housing, education & healthcare without having put a single penny into the system & with no intention of doing so. Even when they bother to get a job it is, due their education & inability to speak English, unlikely to be on more than minimum wage (if they are paid ‘on the books’ most insist on cash in hand) leaving then still open to getting all the aforementioned benefits.
“Step up and meet our obligations “you say. The uk has increased its population by ten million 20% in the last 35 years predominately through immigration. England has the densest population in Europe . Call us when other EU countries match the uk numbers
Thank you for informing me as to how the Israelis do things. We could definitely learn a thing or two from them about ending mass-migration.
And, in his rush to decry Israel, he forgets to mention that they are OUT of Israel now, which was the sole purpose of Israel’s actions.
The most effective thing Israel did was to erect a fence on the southern border. Israel is the first free country that you get to with a rule of law and an above-average attitude to human rights, when you start walking north from Eritrea or Sudan. So after being robbed, beaten and otherwise abused in the various countries on their journey, the Eritrean and Sudanese migrants made Israel their destination. The attempts to try to intern and/or deport the illegal migrants came to nothing as the courts thwarted any of the government plans. The government then went back to the well tried and tested strategy of hiding its head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away. Which of course it doesn’t. Surprise.
“That so many yearn to come here is the highest compliment to pay a nation…”
That’s the best you’ve got?
Well sorry, but it doesn’t cut it. There are 3 billion people in Africa, Asia etc. who are likely to want to come here. Our collapsing social systems, and our culture cannot even deal with the 0.1% of that number who have arrived so far. That tiny percentage alone, has ruined our culture, ruined our NHS, ruined our education system, and left us with a country that many of us can barely recognise as the one we were born in.
And you think that the fact that the remaining 99.9% “yearn to come” should flatter us? That, and a guilt trip is the best you can do? No thanks! We’ve had enough. The fault lies with the fact that no politician has ever been honest with us over this, But it doesn’t matter where the fault lies.
NO MORE.
People who are suffering and want a better life nevertheless don’t have a right to find it in my apartment. As for the Israeli experiment, why would they have to be in prison? Illegal entry? Generous of them and I’m not speaking ironically. Why should the Israeli public pay to house them, even in a prison, and feed them?
Britain has the military intelligence and police and military ( Special Forces, ideal for the mission) ability, and experience to seek out the source of the people traffickers, expose them, and stop them- no different to ops in Northern Ireland passim., or police ops against drug smugglers, arms smugglers and terrorists?
So why has this option never been aired, or suggested by our government?
So, trim away the emotional rhetoric and what we have is someone waving everybody in despite the overpowering evidence that citizens of the country involved, the ones who pay the bills, don’t want to be flooded with illegal or even legal immigration. Don’t they count?
We can all see the flood coming as the pandemic response, and Ukrainian war, devastate third world economies.
It is apparent our government should be doing something to prepare for it and the suggestions given here have much more of a grown up feel to them than the Rwanda scheme.
What is still missing is a sensible debate on “how many.” Alas that is now almost impossible.
The suggestions given here are not “grown up” however they may feel to you.
In fact the Rwanda plan is the first sensible solution that has been proposed. The Australians were very successful with a similar scheme. A fact that the authors conveniently fails to mention.
On your “how many?” question. The public’s answer is already known – as close to zero as possible. Asylum should take place in the countries closest to the problem and distant countries should support that effort with funds. No person should be allowed to travel round the world to claim asylum in Britain. Once you allow that, and if you have no way of deporting them once they arrive, there is no limit on the number of people that will take that opportunity.
My problem with pieces like this is always the selective use of language and tone and facts, in persuit of agendas underlying. That is not a political point, both the right and left do this, although in my observation the progressive left are particularly prone.
It will undoubtedly be the case that this author, as other authors, will be aware of a whole host of complexities and countervailing arguments of which they will remain deliberately silent about, because it undermines the case they are attempting to make. This is in essence a lawyerly stance, which has little to do with presenting a full and honest picture of what is actually happening. It is easy enough to pick holes in the stories the author presents. Just one very simple example (and I could give multiple) – it is absolutely the case that for any grouping of migrants, a certain level of money and resources are needed to actually engage in the process of coming illegally to the West – you need to pay/bribe a whole chain of people for transport across countries, not least the various sets of traffickers. The poorest and most victimised in war torn countries more often than not don’t have anywhere near the means to persue migration – in effect a class system exists within the migration industry, which the author is implicitly asking us to endorse. So more often than not the migrants in question are people who have significant resources, which they are expending to get themselves and their loved ones out into Western prosperity – totally understandable, as you or I would do the same in the same situation. But just as a single simple counter, I look at Ukraine, and although there has been unavoidable huge migration out of the country, there is also, a very obvious and equal willingness to stand and fight, from Zelensky who refused an escape hatch, downwards – to try and improve the situation of the hell they find themselves in.
My question is, why would not the author and others, put forward the full complex picture of migration of this type, rather than leave out facts they know to be true, but deem inconvenient?
Israel no longer has a problem. Britain does. And this stupid article offers no suggestion other than to capitulate and surrender the country. You know, Israel is just about always right. It really is.
An excellent argument that resonates with anyone who has direct knowledge of the issues of distress migration. An honest recognition that there are no easy answers. Well done to Unherd for publishing an opinion that won’t be popular.
Yes thanks for publishing this piece. It shows just how impossible it is to save migrants from themselves. The opinion is not only “unpopular” … it is ridiculous. Migrants should stay in their own countries and clean up the mess they’ve made. Not Europe’s responsibility.