How long will she last? (Leon Neal/Getty Images)
I almost feel sorry for Suella Braverman. One minute, the Home Secretary was living her best life, happily raging against “the tofu-eating wokerati”; the next, she was being blamed for a firebomb attack on a migrant centre in Dover, the latest chapter in Britain’s sorry immigration story. But amid the chaos, the combination of these flashpoints perfectly encapsulated everything wrong with the current immigration system: here we had yet another politician trying to appear tough on immigration while flailing incompetently, only to be followed by an outburst of hateful violence in response to their incompetence. And so the cycle continues.
Ever since Britain voted to leave the EU, countless politicians have tried to place immigration at the heart of public debate. Perhaps they think that tackling the issue is a guaranteed way to make their name and advance their career. What few realise, however, is that it is a career-killer.
What are we to make of this? Are we simply to conclude that immigration is an unsolvable problem, fated to forever curse Britain’s unfortunate Home Secretaries, from Jack Straw through to Braverman? It often seems that way. But such fatalism is not helpful. Immigration is a political problem like any other, and can be solved like any other, even if it happens to be a particularly tough one.
Perhaps the real challenge isn’t actually immigration itself, but a lack of political willpower. After all, the immigration issue is not going away any time soon. If anything, it is likely to get worse. Africa and the Middle East contain more than 1.5 billion people, many of whom live in areas rife with political instability and will be the hardest hit by the looming global economic recession related to the war in Ukraine. Nearly all these regions are on Europe’s periphery.
To put it simply, many, many more will likely make their way to Europe in the very near future. This will mean more political polarisation and extremism in Europe, as those frustrated by politicians’ failure to control their nation’s borders seek radical, even violent, solutions. If there has ever been a time to reverse decades of incompetence on immigration, it is surely now.
What, then, can be done? For a start, instead of hollow tough-talking and tinkering around the edges with frivolous, impractical plans like the Rwanda scheme, politicians need to address the underlying issues that have allowed this crisis to flourish. And the most obvious place to start would be completely replacing the underlying, outdated legislation that is at the root of so many of the UK and Europe’s immigration woes.
The UK, for instance, remains a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which, along with its 1967 Protocol, the UN’s refugee agency calls “the key legal documents that form the basis of our work”. What the UN fails to mention, however, is that its legislation dates from the Cold War, and was originally devised as a short-term Eurocentric solution to a post-war problem: to help those fleeing from the wrong side of the Iron Curtain. Its architects never envisioned a world of mass, global migration from poorer, less stable countries whose people follow very different cultural norms, many of which clash with modern Western values (women’s rights, for one). The 1951 Convention is, in other words, decades out-of-date. Its authors could never have conceived the scale of today’s migrant crisis.
Yet the 1951 Convention is just one example of international legislation hampering British attempts to control its borders. There are many others. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights found last year when examining a proposed bill to give the UK government more power to criminalise and turn back migrants crossing the Channel:
“As a signatory to international treaties governing maritime law, including the SOLAS and SAR conventions and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea… the Joint Committee finds that Government proposals to ‘pushback’ migrants attempting to cross the Channel in small boats is likely to see the UK act in contravention of its international obligations.”
The bill passed, but as the above shows, it is unlikely to be effectively implemented. At present, then, it is impossible for the immigration crisis to be solved, for the simple reason that any effective new laws will clash with other legal obligations. Indeed, it is because of the UK’s membership in the European Convention on Human Rights that the Rwanda scheme failed: at the last minute, the ECHR ruled that the UK could not deport migrants to Rwanda. This is not to say that the Rwanda plan was a suitable solution, but rather that if progress is to be made, a fundamental conflict has to be resolved — and the only way to achieve this is for the UK to revisit its legal obligations and amend or even abandon them completely.
In today’s climate, of course, this will prove tricky, if not impossible. Braverman’s position is increasingly unstable: as last week’s attack in Dover demonstrated, she has lost control of her brief and shows little sign of regaining it. In the short term, at least, it is unlikely that she will have the parliamentary support to push through a complete overhaul of the UK’s legislative commitments. All of which means that Rishi Sunak has little choice but to step in. This is no longer a battle he can afford to delegate. For immigration is a career-killer — and if it’s not warded off soon, Braverman is unlikely to be its only victim.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an UnHerd columnist. She is also a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Founder of the AHA Foundation, and host of The Ayaan Hirsi Ali Podcast. Her new book is Prey: Immigration, Islam, and the Erosion of Women’s Rights.
Ayaan 
I see no chance of her being able to do anything even if she wanted to.
I’m more and more convinced that the people ‘in charge’ are or represent little more than masks and empty words over a state apparatus that operates in which ever way it pleases; or rather an apparatus that has become – through various mechanisms and pressures that are concealed – analogous to a ten thousand tonne train chugging along a track with no option to change course.
The recent U-turn of Sunak’s in ‘his decision’ to go ahead and attend COP27 afterall – despite being in the midst of a domestic crisis of likes not seen in my lifetime – adds further weight to this thesis. ‘Extraordinary pressure’ was heaped on the PM to attend reported the BBC – pressure from whom I ask? I certainly don’t know a single person in real life who would see his attendance at a conference (a conference from which recommendations had been made that have enabled this crisis, might I add) as more important than him staying put and working – however ineffectually – to put out the domestic blaze that threatens to crash our economy and plunge hundreds of thousands into destitution.
And so will be a similar story with the issue of immigration. Whenever effective measures are proposed we will in short order be told of the apparently ubiquitous ‘extraordinary pressure’ and opposition to the proposals. And, suprise suprise, the opposition will be from the exact same people and organisations that push for ‘net zero’, that pushed for lockdowns, that insisted on mandatory vaccine jabs and demonised anybody even remotely skeptical of their views, all while telling us that the public is in firm agreement with them.
And then the government will bow and change course, hoping that nobody will notice that the outcome was the plan all along. Either this or they will implement the plans in such a deliberately incompetent and ineffectual way the result is the same.
If you want to know how this country will be governed in the future you need only ask how the UN, WHO and the WEF would have it run.
You are correct, Sunak’s volte-face was absolutely deplorable, and what sort of message is that meant to send?
Good grief the man has only been in Office a few days, and at the first “whiff of grapeshot “ he runs away!
Simply incredible and obviously not the sort of chap you would want in the ‘trench’ with you.
I still call it LMF don’t you?
Yes a clear case of Lack of Moral Fibre.
He MUST do better!
It seems to me that the only way this country can survive is to elect a right wing party with backbone. The current lot of Tories simply connive with the tax and spend communists. At the next general election the public must not vote lib, lab or con.
it is about having the guts and backbone to press that neo nuclear button that will actually open the floodgate of voters… And tell the truth about what those mainstream voters want to hear.. that LGBT is of no interest to the vast majority, that the government is not only not interested in any eco zero policies, it is against them, and that so called ” racism” is a seditious tool of the left, and that immigration, especially from Islamic countries must be stopped pronto…..
Like the American President, Sunak is a tool of the establishment, but at least your establishment tool can find his own way off the speaking platform and doesn’t have to led around by his wife like a trained poodle.
Indeed, Sunak is caught between a rock and a hard place. Does he dance to his masters’ tune or lose the next election.
“ through various mechanisms and pressures that are concealed –“
Claire Fox raised an important issue in the HOL last week about Charities & NGO’s. How can we make them more accountable to the general public and how better could they be overseen. The fact that “over a hundred asylum charities” raged against the Home Secretary for trying to do her job says it all. Many activist charities are affecting social policy in the U.K. on a monumental scale and are out of control. The democratic deficit is palpable.
Perhaps a pertinent question is:
Where do those charities get their funding from?
It seems that many, maybe most, of them get money from the taxpayer, ie from the very people who object most to their activities. Often this is done indirectly, so it is not obvious.
Sunak desperately needs to cut government spending. This is one of the few areas where cuts will be popular.
They are no longer charities in the understood meaning of the term but pressure groups damaging the country. Why is the Charity Commission doing nothing about it? Another useless quango?!
Quite so. But the biggest challenge is overcoming the Civil Service who are determined to fight anything that upsets their cosy principles. Since Suella Braverman now has direct personal knowledge of their shenanigans perhaps her greatest task is restoring the Civil Service to its previous competence.
Perhaps she will succeed where the wretched Cummings so dismally failed? Good luck to her.
Does anyone remember the Joint or Common Enterprise laws? It established that just being part of a crowd or gang involved in a knife chase say was a criminal act. It did not matter if you were 100 yards behind the boys with knifes who did the stabbling, you were with them in a joint or common enterprise. And to jail they went. Would someone please explain why illegal migrants who conspire and work in cahoots with the people traffickers – burning papers as they request, paying them 15k, following their orders, avoiding police etc – cannot be tried under this law?? Genuine asylum seekers would be exempt. But there are perhaps 1000 true asylum seekers amongst the 40,000. They are actively funding and protecting dangerous sex and people traffickers!!!! The many kids banged up on huge long sentences for just being part of a herd that turned murderous must look on in utter horror at the way our justice system works. If these gang led crossings are not joint or common criminal enterprise, what is??
I seem to recall that sometime ago we hanged a Mr Bentley on those grounds, but you are obviously correct and this whole affair is an outrage.
Mistake. I was thinking of 10 Rillington Place.
Cummings’s nemesis was Carrie Antoinette.
If only Boris had been able to keep his trousers zipped Cummings might well have succeeded – and Boris would still be Prime Minister.
I suspect that’s the place to start… heads to roll… higher up the better.
Correct. When you compare the numbers of Albanians given asylum here in UK and in the EU (they restrict to single figure percentage, UK well over 50%), it is plain that both our hapless liberal progressive adminstration AND the entire migration legal system are both complicit in an open border conspiracy- it is overt wilful subversion.
…in a lets-prove-brexit-was-a-bad-democratic-decision kind of way, I suspect.
If I were Sunak I should simply call a referendum. The question would be something like “Suella Braverman is the person most likely to get illegal immigration under control – but she needs your support: does she have it? Yes/No.
My guess is that Yes would win at least 75/25. It would be supported by working-class Labour voters, the Red Wall and mainstream Tories.
Any objections at PMQs could then be dealt with by the unanswerable rhetorical question
” So you think you know better than the British people? “.
Well, everybody in this rather comic-opera UnHerd thread seems to think that they know better than the common herd, so no problem answering that ‘unanswerable’ poser, surely?
As always, Ayaan Hirsi Ali hits the nail on the head. There are decades-worth of inter-locking treaties, protocols, conventions and laws all designed to facilitate the passage of genuine refugees, and all now anachronistic. Collectively, they form a Gordian Knot for any Home Secretary trying to control irregular migration because they are phrased so as to trump any piece of tinkering legislation that a Home Secretary might introduce, as in the ECHR example.
Aided and abetted by recent UK legislation on modern slavery, so we are told by the press.
We do need to start reversing some of these ‘treaties, protocols, conventions and laws’ or at least some elements of them.
Aayan Hirsi suffers from the same failing as most “international commentators” – they don’t know this country at all.
The Conservative Party has ALWAYS wanted mass immigration of cheap labour, for their own reasons. In 1945-51 the British, and especially English electorate did something unique – voted for a Socialist government to achieve social reform and having achieved it, voted them out again
It was the Conservatives who admitted the Windrush migrants, not Labour. This was bitterly unpopular and resulted in an unworkable small majority for Labour in 1964. One Conservative campaigner campaigned against immigration and overthrew a strong Labour majority in that seat (Smethwick). Labour drew the obvious conclusion, introduced strong controls and achieved a landslide in 1966.
Those controls stood for thirty years, until the Conservatives so antagonised and divided the nation over another issue entirely that a right-wing government (representing mass unemployment as policy, in the popular view) became unelectable in any foreseeable future.
David Cameron reorganised the Conservative Party along Blairite lines, for the purpose of achieving election at any cost. In doing so, he embraced mass immigration and continued the Blairite policy of politicisation of the civil service, and the construction of a Gordian knot of legislation surrounding immigration. Unlike Labour he did this whilst specifically denying doing any of it.
Brexit was the culmination of a Conservative policy of deceit going back to the 1960s. John Major achieved the considerable Parliamentary feat of smuggling the Maastrcht Treaty through the HoC as a “confidence measure” without ever admitting its nature and implications. Above all, there was to be NO Referendum (which would certainly have failed).
The Conservatives ate just doing what they have done for years; talking tough and doing nothing, pursuing actual policies which are diametrically opposed.
I agree with everything you say but what about British Nationality Act 1948, and the fact that the Windrush docked at Tilbury on the 21st June 1948?
The fact is both Labour and Tories are, to lapse into the Irish vernacular ‘gobshites’ of the first order. Neither can be trusted on this issue, hence the current catastrophe.
Absolutely right, conservatives swapped cheap labour in the colonies for cheap labour from the former colonies.
Workers get no benefit from importing workers from other countries. This is something that Corbyn did not understand.
The solution is to make it clear that entering the UK illegally is a criminal offence and can never lead to you being granted asylum.
The way to do this is as follows:
The problem with implementing these steps is international law and the willingness of our politicians to override it.
The solution to that is to table the necessary legislation to achieve the steps above, including resiling from parts of international agreements and fund the infrastructure and recruitment needed to fulfill them (requisition of old cruise liners, building of refugee camps on West Falkland etc).
Then one of two things will happen.
An excellent idea but sadly it will fail because it is predicated on the fact that are still substantial numbers of proper Tories within the Tory Party.
Sadly as recents events have shown there really aren’t.
That is up to Rishi Sunak.
If he goes for it, he can push the changes through, though he might need a general election to do so. The Wets in the party that cannot go along with it will leave or get pushed out.
If he does it, he will cement himself and the party as the only one that delivers on the priorities of the people. He will establish (as per Brexit) that Labour, Libs etc only look out for the interests of the upper classes: those with houses in the Dordogne and au-pairs from Vietnam etc.
It is simply the only way the Tories can maintain power. To paraphrase James Carville: It’s mass immigration, stupid!
Yes, this is a good point, anyone who has the courage to actually implement such measures will be in power for a long time.
If the Tory’s don’t rise to the occasion on this, they will be finished forever in my view, losing to labour in the next election (which will be a feat in itself given the incompetence and deluded-out-of-touch insanity of labour) and, thereafter, trust will be so broken that a new party will have to fill the vacuum.
They are sleep walking towards this but, sadly, don’t have the courage to take the plunge to do what’s necessary to save their own bacon.
Hear hear. Sounds like a good start.
I agree, especially about British Overseas Territories.
And the ideal overseas territory is the island of South Georgia. It is EIGHT times the size of the Isle of Wight , and is situated several hundred miles south-east of the Falklands.
Because it is sovereign British territory, the usual Wokey lawyers will be unable to claim that it is a place with a recent history of genocide (like Rwanda).
[For what possible reason did Priti Useless pick on a shithole like Rwanda??]
The asylum seekers could be accommodated in barracks created rapidly from shipping containers, and fed on MREs – British Army Combat Rations. It would be a brave Wokey who would claim that the food eaten by our fighting men is “not good enough” for asylum seekers!!
They should be offered the option to withdraw their application for asylum at any time, and would then be fingerprinted, have a DNA sample taken, and be repatriated to their homeland by the first available transport.
No further applications would be countenanced – hence the fingerprinting and DNA.
I think people misunderstand the role of Rwanda is meant to play in solving this problem. It is only the destination for illegal immigrants with a genuine asylum claim – persecuted minorities, people from a warzone etc, not for all illegal arrivals (the vast majority are just economic migrants).
We cannot possibly grant asylum to genuine refugees who arrive illegally without creating an incentive for many more people to attempt illegal entry. The message must be: if you enter the UK illegally, you will never get asylum here.
So what we need to do is put all illegals in secure camps until we have established the veracity of their asylum claim. Those that are not genuine (Albanians, Vietnamese etc) will be deported once their home government has agreed to take them (this in itself can takes years). But those with genuine claims will be taken to Rwanda (and other countries) where they can claim asylum.
The UK’s position will be this. We give asylum to refugees through established schemes – the Hong Kong scheme, the Afghan interpreters scheme, the Ukraine scheme etc. We do not give asylum to people who try to enter the country illegally. The best you can expect is arrest, detention in a camp on South Georgia, followed by a trip to Rwanda where you can try to claim asylum. If you are genuinely in fear of your life, then surely Rwanda is a reasonable safe haven.
PS – re: South Georgia. Is it actually hospitable? I always though it was in a polar region. Wouldn’t the inmates freeze to death? I would have thought one of the islands off the west coast of the Falklands would be more suitable as it is grey and rainy but not sub-zero. But I don’t know the region at all.
You’re right about the weather in South Georgia, though it’s not polar, but on roughly the same latitude as Cape Horn. That’s why it is presently uninhabited, though it does boast a long-abandoned whaling station.
Perhaps those “asylum seekers” , invariably from hot countries, would appreciate some cooler weather. Perhaps not. Either way, you appear to be confusing me with somebody who does give a damn.
I favour South Georgia for 3 reasons:
1. It is surrounded by the world’s coldest and roughest sea, which makes it well -nigh escape proof. Any rescue attempt would require sophisticated and expensive equipment.
2. The inclement weather will help separate the sheep from the goats. A mild form of “trial by ordeal” if you like. (People GENUINELY in fear for their lives will tolerate a little snow and wind.)
3. A small point admittedly, but why should the long-suffering British taxpayer have to pay a fee to Rwanda when we have vacant land of our own?
Well, that could bring a lot of rats to a bird sanctuary, and it is too far away. The Shetlands, or even Saint Helena, are closer.
The Shetlands and St. Helena are both inhabited. South Georgia is not.
A great idea, only let down by the lack of infrastructure to “imprison off the mainland”.
I’m not sure that we’ve got any old prison ships lying about anymore.
I don’t think it is impossible for HMG to lease a few old cruise ships. I believe illegal immigrants in the Netherlands are currently housed like this.
Americans sent freed slaves to create a new country in Africa: Liberia. Not exactly a thriving country.
There is a point in the international treaty for asylum seekers that could be exploited: immigrants should arrived directly from their home countries. Most of them do not.
The other issue is who pays for the costs of the asylum seekers: the host country or the country allegedly persecuting its own citizens.
Thirdly, being persecuted by an allegedly undemocratic government does not mean the asylum seeker is a good fellow. Undemocratic countries not only fight civil rights activists but all sort of criminals, terrorists and violent religious supremacists, very often defended by the same charities and NGOs that deny the same rights to their victims.
Fourthly, former colonies cannot claim independence as grown-up nations while concurrently asking the ex coloniser to clean the mess of the post-colonial governments. Furthermore, why some European countries with practically no colonial past such as Sweden should have to deal with FGM problems or tribal crimes imported from Somali or Iraqi asylum seekers?
International justice only works in countries with a developed justice system. Such countries bear all the costs of providing justice while authoritarian countries act as global free-riders. The only way to make this work is to send the bill to the authoritarian countries. Again, this should not work unless we reconsider the harsh conditions of the international debt according to an arbitrary concept such as the country risk drawn by a bunch of international credit rating agencies.
the failure of Liberia highlights and encompasses the problem of Africa and Africans that it is now criminal to discuss!
“For immigration is a career-killer”: Indeed and why do you think that?
This ‘problem’ has been with us since shortly after the War.
A top-down conspiracy imposed by BOTH parties without any popular mandate whatsoever. Perhaps the most appalling dereliction of national duty since August 1914, and one likely to have even more serious consequences.
As the latest ( massaged ?) census figures reveal, large swathes of this once “green and pleasant land” are now lost forever to an unwanted ‘ folk migration’, perhaps similar to that of the 5th/6th centuries. So much for Parliamentary Democracy and Electoral accountability, the ‘inheritance’ of our grandchildren is being destroyed before our very eyes.
Not just the politicians. Virtually the entire media acts as an immigration advocacy organisation, captured by far left ideology. The massaging of the whole issue is scandalous. We know that its virtually all young men arriving but they always show that rare confused child out woman with baby
Agree except it is not only far left ideology. Creating cheap labour through immigration is a policy against the working class, therefore it is also from the conservative right.
Out of interest, how do you ‘massage’ a census figure? And how do you know one has been ‘massaged’? Or is that just wishful (or perhaps malign) thinking?
I have LOST my faith in our once vaunted civil service, perhaps you are still a believer?
Why is it inevitable that many of the 1.5 billion people in Africa and the Middle East make their way to Europe? Wouldn’t the solution be that their respective countries apply what Europe gets right to their own? These are huge, resource-rich lands with financial aid and investment pouring in from all over the world. It’s long past time the infantile, dysfunctional, corrupt governments of these places clean up their act and offer their citizens a reason to stay, prosper, and grow.
I can tell you have never lived in Africa!
Some years ago I was working in an African country – which had better remain nameless. I employed a local man, aged about 50, as a gardener. He came to work wearing an expensive suit and carrying an expensive briefcase which contained his overalls.
I couldn’t understand why this obviously well-to-do fellow would want to work in my garden for a pittance. So I asked him.
Patiently he explained that he was sick of his wife, and so was saving up to buy a new one ….
We should first find out why dysfunctional and corrupt governments last that long.
The excellent 2018 book by Paul Kenyon, “Dictatorland: The Men who stole Africa” presents a harrowing analysis of selected post-independence African nations which makes for depressing, though instructive, reading.
Our cross- party liberal political class runs completely open borders, not because it cannot be stopped, but out of simple “progressive” ideology. There is nothing about this problem that could not readily be solved.
For 25 years they have lied and lied to us about the fact that they have no intention whatsoever of stopping the tsunami of entirely unsuitable migrants wrecking our society and ruining our infrastructure.
Now, having driven the country and its poorer occupants Into bankruptcy through an insane, doomed ideological response to to a flu bug, these same loathsome “progressives” continue to allow our society to be swamped by migrants who have absolutely no intention whatsoever of integrating, or contributing anything to our culture.
The lid will blow off. And when it does, who will they blame?
That certainly appears to be the case, but what do they expect to gain by wrecking the country, it’s economy and infrastructure?
Well, in regards to Labour they hope to get into power partly on the back of this and previous Conservative Government’s general uselessness on immigration. Labour of course will be just as if not more useless but the delight on the faces of the Labour front bench as they harangued Braverman says that they think they can benefit from the current fiasco.
To progressives, their ideology is all that matters. They care not one bit about the social ruination that they wreak on the country. They’re perfectly happy to see the “nasty far-right” and the “little people” being taught a damn good lesson.
Although they wouldn’t see it, they are best likened to the pith hatted colonialists of old, “giving Johnny Foreigner a damn good thrashing”. We are “Johnny Foreigner”, in our own country – which they think they own.
The Tories want cheap labour for their businesses, and to force down wages for indigenous workers.
Labour reckon that these migrants can be fast-tracked to British citizenship, and that they will then vote Labour.
(And the LibDems and Greens are just plain barmy; fortunately there are not many of them.)
I see no progress in open borders. Only a nuts would claim an open border policy with Somalia or Mali. Those countries do not accept our justice system, why should we accept theirs?
I note the comments for this somewhat controversial topic are to be the subject of ‘Special Measures.’
Let us hope that the censorship is nothing like as severe as it was with yesterday’s COVID essay.
If it is, it’s time for ELON MUSK to takeover UnHerd.
Indeed they have been severe. My short note pointing out the actual figures for daily cross-channel attempts has been deleted by the censor three times so far. Let’s see if this one gets through – but shhh, don’t shout it out. It’s about 250 a day at the moment, not the thousands that people on this thread are claiming.
Your claim of only 250 a day is contradicted by all the news media. Even the BBC.
A former Boarder Force chief suggested in the Telegraph positioning a liner in international waters in the channel and diverting all the inflatable boats to it where the occupants would be rapidly processed and then returned to their country of origin or other destination willing to accept them. The problems arise once the migrants have arrived in the UK and it proves expensive and legally problematic to deport them.
Of course the proposal will not be pursued as politicians are only interested in tinkering with a dysfunctional system and will take fright at any sustained criticism of a workable solution.
Apparently, thanks to the ‘COVID DIVIDEND’ there are hundreds of redundant former Cruise Liners just waiting to be used.
Incidentally wasn’t that the ruse that Radio Caroline used in the late 60’s?
You are going to need a bigger boat (as they say!)
With over 1,000 a day arriving we are going to fill several Cruise Liners quite quickly
The plan would involve taking quick decisions unmolested by endless legal challenges and moving the migrants quickly back to whence they came or elsewhere. Once migrants knew their payments to the people smugglers would be wasted the flow of new migrants would likely dry up.
250 a day last week. Worst day was 996. No day when 1000 arrived. Stats are easy to find.
Around 250 a day last week. No single day when >1000. Stats easy to find on Home Office website.Glad to be of assistance.
If you believe the Home Office website, I have a lovely bridge in Brooklyn which you may be interested in buying. Special cheap price for you!
Border Force? what a crass, asinine and comic name? Aside from Northern Ireland Britain does NOT have any borders.. it is an island!!
Wouldn’t it be simpler and cheaper to buy thousands of inflatable boats thereby forcing up the price and making these crossings unaffordable.
Why not a DUNKIRK in reverse?
A call for any boat owner with a craft of over 30 feet to rendezvous off Dover and prepare to “repel boarders”.
Given what the Royal Navy are up to with ‘hanky panky’ in their submarines, they are obvious NOT up to the job.
Funny. But rather brilliant! It would work!!!!! And note – we know the manufacturers…so why we not also making them part of the joint enterprise conspiracy …or at least following money trail?. But as many have said, we live under a leftist human rights corrupted political regime in which a weak Tory Executive makes spluttering promises it knows the vast hostile leftist Blob and justice system will sabotage. Note too – are the media linking the horror of Manchester Arena story to the migration debate and the sickening costs of excess mass migration??? Do not hold your breath.
Because China would supply plenty of them at a cheaper price.
Offshoring worked for Australia and it can work for us. We just need politicians with the balls to put it in place; Suella may be just the “man”.
It worked in Australia because the convicts were educated according to our system of justice, many of them being convicted for petty crimes.
Send a bunch of Somalians to a new territory and you would probably get another Somalia.
” probably”? … like today is ” probably” Sunday?!
Lots of criticism and finger pointing, but what about some constructive solutions to the problem. Surely the objective is to only accept immigrants who benefit the country.
Can’t we annul all EU laws that clearly don’t serve us?
Arrest illegal immigrants arriving in these small boats and fly them straight back to their countries of origin, immediately. and charge their countries for associated costs including accommodation, health etc
Also, if old laws are no longer relevant, annul them too.
Surely there are some intelligent legal people in the UK who can resolve this impasse.
SB needs urgent help.
Too many lawyers who are desperate to find jobs, that’s the problem.
Or as Shakespeare so beautifully put it “Lets kill all the Lawyers “.
(Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV)
To address this issue The Home Secretary needs legislation passed by parliament that works.
The Home Office officials will never draft that correctly. It needs outsourcing to a decent serious firm of lawyers skilled in the field.
I’m reminded of how much more difficult a position Europe is in than America. Yes, we have a migrant crisis. Yes, immigration is a contentious issue. Still, most of the problems we have relate to a drain on resources and the perceived political advantage that immigration seems to give one of the parties, at least temporarily. Further, most of our migrants are from an identifiably Christian culture with largely compatible western values and speak mostly the same language, not religious fanatics who believe women shouldn’t be taught to read, that a medieval law code laid down by a conqueror before the time of Charlemagne should be imposed upon all, speak a dozen different languages, and blow up buildings to express their general dissatisfaction with western values. Most of my anti-immigration Trump supporting neighbors don’t realize that, yes, it could be worse.
Interesting. But it would help the debate if Ms Ali could say something more about what laws she thinks would be appropriate to deal with the problem.
My theory is that this is being allowed to happen, to then justify everyone having a Digital ID… thus CBDCs etc…
No idea who to vote for next GE. A vote for Reform feels right but will lead to Labour advantage. FPTP is a terrible system – perhaps PR would be better – now if we could only get a party to vote for that. Turkeys & Christmas.
There won’t be any Turkeys this Christmas thanks to Chinese Bird Flu.
Thank God! ghastly Victorian German introduction.. Goose is the correct dish for what in nu britn will soon be called ” Yule winterval leave ‘olidi” rather than Christmas, which of course is racially ‘ herfensyffe’ to those of the islamic persuasion…
Another moaning article on immigration & government policy that offers no fixes, no solutions and no particular insight on the problem.
300k+ work visa’s issued last year. Who issues those? Err…the Home Office. Who runs the Home Office? And one reason why – they have many other Depts and Industries crying out for more labour force.
So huge increase in non-european immigration outweighing the net drop in EU migration. That what intended when folks voted for Brexit? If so well done all of you.
The asylum seekers crossing the channel are a v small proportion of the total net immigration. They are just more visible. And of course its happening because minimal other route to apply for asylum and trafficking gangs are making a fortune on the back of that. The reaction of some displays the worst characteristics of us as a people. In the meantime whilst some foam at the mouth about vulnerable people in rubber dinghies getting off the plane behind them at Heathrow are 10 times the numbers! And of course had we not withdrawn from the Dublin Agreement we could have more easily and quickly sent many back to the country through which they entered the EU. Another brainless decision by the Brexit lot. Anyway we should let these poor people work. I bet they work harder than many of us too.
2004 – we sent 21k back home. Last year we sent c2000. And this is a right wing Govt!
At some point folks have to recognise simple competency counts for more than indignation. The problem we have is not solved with crass simple slogans or seeking magic bullets such as scrapping the ECHR. It’s addressed by solid good government and telling the truth. ‘Take Back Control’? World is a bit more complicated.
ooh no not ” immigrants”! NOOO… Orwellian nu britn says that they are ‘ migrants’….
Basically, it is a new wave of colonization, making the inhabitants labor to keep you in luxury, even if you mean to reside there.yourself. Maybe like the Roman Empire, finally tired of keeping the German Barbarians out, a new population comes. Their descendants will hopefully like the civilization they will be born into, because they are alive. They could build a civilization full of riches, too. Yet now we will experience overcrowding, and a fall in the standard of living as we work for them, perhaps violence. Yet our leaders have basically said, we will not protect our borders. Come make your life here. So our civilization dies out. Whoever survives won’t worry about the mincemeat and fallout of history. Europe need not be full of Europeans. Like Etruscans, they had their moment.
Basically, it is a new wave of colonization, making the inhabitants labor to keep you in luxury, even if you mean to reside there.yourself. Maybe like the Roman Empire, finally tired of keeping the German Barbarians out, a new population comes. Their descendants will hopefully like the civilization they will be born into, because they are alive. They could build a civilization full of riches, too. Yet now we will experience overcrowding, and a fall in the standard of living as we work for them, perhaps violence. Yet our leaders have basically said, we will not protect our borders. Come make your life here. So our civilization dies out. Whoever survives won’t worry about the mincemeat and fallout of history. Europe need not be full of Europeans. Like Etruscans, they had their moment.
excellent article. Very insightful
Not clear what Hirsi Ali is suggesting as regards specific legal amendments. Is not simply promulgating that the ECHR outdated, without details on suggested replacement, ducking it a bit? Furthermore the ECHR covers much more than asylum issues. To withdraw entirely would put the UK in a club of two, with guess who? Yep Putin’s Russia. The UK played a major role in drafting the ECHR, so what a turnaround it would be were we to leave.
Furthermore the ECHR is embedded in a number of international agreements e.g: Good Friday Agreement, a number of Trade agreements. Happy days working through those.
Hirsi Ali is I’m sure correct though that the migration challenge is only likely to increase. Is not the solution 3-fold? i) run an efficient, properly resourced asylum system that processes applications quickly and humanely, albeit with many being returned to their country of origin. ii) drive more international coordinated action to address the causes of asylum related migration iii) seek to change specific protocols within the ECHR in conjunction with European partners.
The problem with (ii) and (iii) is Brexit, and how we have behaved since, has woefully weakened our ability to influence such opportunities. Having a SoS out of her depth using incendiary language is not the way to gain influence either where we really need it. And how stupid were we to withdraw from the Dublin agreement. (Slightly separate – understand Braverman previously when practising defended HRA and asylum related cases? Does this demonstrate a good professional/politics separation, or acute hypocrisy as she saw the anti-immigration ticket as the way to be champion for the ERG?)
I’m afraid you have the wrong end of the stick. If we were still in the EU we would have uncontrolled immigration from Albania and Romania!
Brexit was a necessary pre-condition for returning control of who can enter and live in our country back to the British people. As long as you had an open border to the EU, you could never do so.
But it is not sufficient. We will have to leave the ECHR and scrap the Human Rights Act. Only then will the power to strictly control who enters and stays in our country be returned to the people.
I suspect this will be the cornerstone offer from the Tories at the next general election and one that will see a repeat of the 2019 landslide.
Albania isn’t in the EU. Did you quickly check? It might be at some point but it isn’t yet. And of course had we stayed in we could have veto’d if so minded.
The ‘free movement’ articles always allowed us to exert certain conditions – all jobs advertised locally first; minimum capital requirements, no job after 3mths you go back & benefits paid for first year at value from home country. But for various reasons we never fully implemented these elements.
However ceasing EU free movement hasn’t stopped the increase in non-EU, which has accelerated, and also has removed the ability to return asylum seekers to their point of EU entry. And given we’ve been such an arse with France and EU countries why wouldn’t they just allow free passage to those who want to head our way? We’ve shown virtually zero intelligence whilst getting indignant. Indignation as a Policy response rarely productive.
Nonetheless there is an appetite for a revised approach, not just in the UK but in the EU. The moderate parties do also recognise the issue resonates with many of the public. Starting with some basic competency not just in processing but in maintaining effective relationships with European neighbours would be a good start for us.
As I flagged it’s not as easy to just withdraw from the ECHR as the emotional reactions might hope. It has other repercussions. However protocol changes within are possible, but as noted we’ve stupidly clobbered our own influence on the matter.
It’s a separate issue, but the labour shortage in the UK, now and in projections, will need a solution. The role and proportion from managed immigration needs an adult conversation.
Not entirely clear what Hirsi Ali is suggesting as regards specific change in the law. Full withdrawal from the ECHR is alluded but feels over simplistic – it covers so much else other than potential immigration/asylum issues. To withdraw would put us in a club of two with, guess who? Yep Putin’s Russia. And it’s original drafting was led by the UK at a time when we led on human rights. Furthermore just to add to the ironies and intricacies it’s embedded in the Good Friday Agreement and some international trade agreements. Happy days.
Hirsi Ali is correct though that the world is different now than when the ECHR was originally framed and the rate of desperate people attempting the long dangerous journey to somewhere like the UK is more likely to increase. But is not the proper solution three-fold: i) run an efficient, properly resourced asylum system that processes applications quickly, and humanely but does send back a good number who do not meet the criteria ii) seek urgent international action on the causes of the migration iii) seek some adaptations within the ECHR protocols that all members could agree to.
The problem with (ii) and (iii) is Brexit and the way we have behaved since has woefully weakened our ability to influence. Incendiary language from a SoS out her depth is not going to have other nations looking to help us either. And of course, how stupid we were to withdraw from the Dublin Agreement. (Slight aside – understand that Braverman defended Human Rights cases under the HRA incl asylum cases when practising. Now is that just a case of professionalism separating from politics, or that the anti-immigrant ticket was what she saw as her avenue to lead the ERG? Hypocrisy?)