May 5, 2023 - 10:00am
Who could not be in favour of humanitarian visas for asylum-seekers who would not have to cross the Channel in a dinghy? Humanitarian visas are the refugee lobby alternative to the Government’s plan to disincentivise such irregular entry by sending people to Rwanda.
But it doesn’t solve the underlying selection problem faced by all rich countries when it comes to refugees and asylum-seekers. How should recipients of humanitarian visas be chosen? Refugee organisations surely do not think that anyone who applies should get one. For there is a lot of misery in the world, and it is not that hard to get to the English Channel.
Rich countries’ governments pay lip service to the idea of asylum. But thanks to the greater ease of movement since the original refugee rules were established in the 1950s, and the more liberal human rights regimes that prevent most people from being deported, tens of millions of people could legitimately claim the right to stay in the UK. So UK Governments, of all colours, as well as those of other rich countries, spend millions of pounds each year doing their hardest to stop people coming by normal and irregular routes.
Asylum-seeking thus becomes a game of cat and mouse between the border authorities and would-be asylum seekers, and a survival of the fittest free-for-all, mainly undertaken by young men from families wealthy enough to pay the smugglers. When the numbers are low and the method of entry, via visa over-staying or coming on lorries, is invisible, the issue excites little attention. But when a highly visible new route opens up, like the Channel crossings, and numbers escalate, the Government invents new ways, such as deportation to Rwanda, to try to close it down.
So wouldn’t it be nice if there were such a thing as safe and legal routes that the most needy refugees could use but with Government control on selection and numbers? In the last few weeks, and notably in a Policy Exchange speech by Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick, the Government has talked more about such routes, aware that a hard line in the Channel, maybe including a suspension of some human rights legislation, needs moral legitimacy.
The first point the Government makes is that there are safe and legal routes: indeed, around 500,000 people have come through them since 2015. Most recently the Syria programme (20,000), various Afghan programmes (21,000), the Ukraine scheme (over 150,000) and Hong Kongers (90,000).
Refugee lobby critics complain, reasonably enough, that there is no generic safe route for people in dire circumstances in, say, Iran or Iraq. The answer to this is to create a more general safe route, modelled on the successful Syria programme, in which the UK authorities would select people, usually women and children, from UNHCR camps in Asia, Africa or the Middle East, possibly with help from refugee organisations.
Numbers would be capped at, say, 15,000 a year, or more if the high inflows on current country-specific programmes fall. If someone from Iran or Iraq or Eritrea can get to France, they can get to a UNHCR camp and apply to join the queue for the UK. And, learning from the Ukraine scheme, those who have arrived in the UK should where possible be placed with family or community sponsors, as housing remains one of the biggest blockages and costs (around £2bn a year at the last count) to bringing people here.
A third, and much smaller, safe and legal route — call it the red route — would be reserved for the people for whom the 1951 Refugee Convention was originally designed: those facing acute persecution and whose lives may be threatened. Think of the gay son of a Taliban leader who has managed to escape to a camp in Pakistan but knows that his father wants him dead, or an opposition activist in an African state who fears an accidental death is being arranged for him. In order to get onto this danger list you would need to convince a standing committee of Home Office representatives, responsible NGOs (such as Amnesty), security services and the local UK ambassador.
Such a three-tier safe and legal system would not stop all irregular entry, but it would justify taking a hard line against it and enable Britain to do its bit for the refugee problem in a way that is fair on would-be asylum seekers and on British citizens, especially those in the poorest parts of the country which house the most refugees.
David Goodhart is the author of Head, Hand, Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century.
David Goodhart is the author of Head, Hand, Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century. He is head of the Demography unit at the think tank Policy Exchange.
David_Goodhart
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeDumb as brics is what I think of the leaders of the global south, particularly South Africa which has squandered its inheritance of natural resources, large beautiful country and rule of law.
Dumb as brics is what I think of the leaders of the global south, particularly South Africa which has squandered its inheritance of natural resources, large beautiful country and rule of law.
As Douglas Murray says; yes, the West has lots of problems but where would you rather live ? Are people smuggling themselves into these countries ? Of course not. India is becoming a one-party state and China’s economic model is now tottering with another round of property development defaults. It’ll be a miracle if SA can keep the lights on.
It’s surprising how small South Africa’s GDP is. But I think the article’s claim that it is only 1.62% of BRICS total GDP is misleading – China is 75% of BRICS GDP, so everyone else is a minnow in comparison.
Given the comparative starting points, SA has not done very well:
India : $3738bn ; $2.5K/head
Canada : $1731bn ; $45K/head
Australia : $1376bn ; $56K/head
Singapore : $324bn ; $58K/head
South Africa : $349bn ; $6.2K/head
New Zealand : $201bn ; $42K/head
2017 GDP data, in US$.
Singapore’s done that from nothing with no natural resources or agriculture (quite possibly because it doesn’t and that really focuses the mind).
Why is Canada on the list?
Why is Canada on the list?
The West has lots of problems “BUT”. Er.,.exactly.
Sigh…the usual names in this thread, with the usual low-resolution analysis and sprinkled with the usual inductively reasoned sanctimony. A combination that is ubiquitous throughout the strata in the West and NATO, and which goes a long way towards explaining why the predictive powers of the much-vaunted Epistocracies of the “democratic” West have been so poor of late in economics, socio-politics, geo-politics – I could go on… That “the great unwashed” (personal membership confirmed) don’t do any better is hardly the point. It is not “we” who claim to be all-knowing and/or are destined to rule over the rest of humanity because, well, History, you dummies!.
Pottinger repeats the same old mistake in his framing of an emerging, complexity-driven and tectonic trend in human affairs – i.e. the slow but now irreversible end of Western hegemony over the globe – in binary terms. I paraphrase: “The BRICS can’t replace Washington/NATO (read: Anglo Saxon) rule, therefore Anglo Saxon rule will (must!) continue”. It is a category error. The BRICS group is just one part of a nascent and still loosely formulated IDEA – the idea that 70% of the world’s population has a) seen and had enough of what the “moral West” has to offer (of late, in its decline) and b) would like to try something else, thank you very much. To focus on BRICS is to fall for the Availability Heuristic; the ambitions and interests of BRICS, SCO, EAEU etc all overlap strongly on a Venn-diagram basis. It is the West, which produces only 20% of what it consumes, that is the outlier here.
Will “we” succeed? The short to medium term will be messy and, sure, there will be many moments for the armchair cognoscenti of the West to snigger and preen; to fiddle as the smoke bellows ever thicker. That We – and here I mean humanity as a whole – will ultimately ALL be losers because of how the global system was mismanaged since the end of WW2 is something only toxically parochial fools would harrumph about.
So, rather than wringing his hands about “Russians under the African bed!”, the selectively ahistorical Mr. Pottinger should reflect on who it was that effectively “owned and ran” Africa (and the rest) for the past 300 years (and mostly still do), and what exactly they did with their “Darwin-ordained” opportunity. Maybe it’s time to try another model. What’s to lose?
Hmm, the ‘likes’ suggest that Mr. Buchan’s piece has not gone down well. Still and all, he has a point.
America/Europe bad, therefore throw your lot in with Russia and China? Good luck with that.
Hmm, the ‘likes’ suggest that Mr. Buchan’s piece has not gone down well. Still and all, he has a point.
America/Europe bad, therefore throw your lot in with Russia and China? Good luck with that.
It’s surprising how small South Africa’s GDP is. But I think the article’s claim that it is only 1.62% of BRICS total GDP is misleading – China is 75% of BRICS GDP, so everyone else is a minnow in comparison.
Given the comparative starting points, SA has not done very well:
India : $3738bn ; $2.5K/head
Canada : $1731bn ; $45K/head
Australia : $1376bn ; $56K/head
Singapore : $324bn ; $58K/head
South Africa : $349bn ; $6.2K/head
New Zealand : $201bn ; $42K/head
2017 GDP data, in US$.
Singapore’s done that from nothing with no natural resources or agriculture (quite possibly because it doesn’t and that really focuses the mind).
The West has lots of problems “BUT”. Er.,.exactly.
Sigh…the usual names in this thread, with the usual low-resolution analysis and sprinkled with the usual inductively reasoned sanctimony. A combination that is ubiquitous throughout the strata in the West and NATO, and which goes a long way towards explaining why the predictive powers of the much-vaunted Epistocracies of the “democratic” West have been so poor of late in economics, socio-politics, geo-politics – I could go on… That “the great unwashed” (personal membership confirmed) don’t do any better is hardly the point. It is not “we” who claim to be all-knowing and/or are destined to rule over the rest of humanity because, well, History, you dummies!.
Pottinger repeats the same old mistake in his framing of an emerging, complexity-driven and tectonic trend in human affairs – i.e. the slow but now irreversible end of Western hegemony over the globe – in binary terms. I paraphrase: “The BRICS can’t replace Washington/NATO (read: Anglo Saxon) rule, therefore Anglo Saxon rule will (must!) continue”. It is a category error. The BRICS group is just one part of a nascent and still loosely formulated IDEA – the idea that 70% of the world’s population has a) seen and had enough of what the “moral West” has to offer (of late, in its decline) and b) would like to try something else, thank you very much. To focus on BRICS is to fall for the Availability Heuristic; the ambitions and interests of BRICS, SCO, EAEU etc all overlap strongly on a Venn-diagram basis. It is the West, which produces only 20% of what it consumes, that is the outlier here.
Will “we” succeed? The short to medium term will be messy and, sure, there will be many moments for the armchair cognoscenti of the West to snigger and preen; to fiddle as the smoke bellows ever thicker. That We – and here I mean humanity as a whole – will ultimately ALL be losers because of how the global system was mismanaged since the end of WW2 is something only toxically parochial fools would harrumph about.
So, rather than wringing his hands about “Russians under the African bed!”, the selectively ahistorical Mr. Pottinger should reflect on who it was that effectively “owned and ran” Africa (and the rest) for the past 300 years (and mostly still do), and what exactly they did with their “Darwin-ordained” opportunity. Maybe it’s time to try another model. What’s to lose?
As Douglas Murray says; yes, the West has lots of problems but where would you rather live ? Are people smuggling themselves into these countries ? Of course not. India is becoming a one-party state and China’s economic model is now tottering with another round of property development defaults. It’ll be a miracle if SA can keep the lights on.
I keep saying this: If you add Kazakhstan to the BRICS, you get BRICKS! It’s sure to be a winner!
Enforced with mortars?
Mexico, Oman, Rumania, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Rwanda and Saudi Arabia?
Mexico, Oman, Rumania, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Rwanda and Saudi Arabia?
Enforced with mortars?
I keep saying this: If you add Kazakhstan to the BRICS, you get BRICKS! It’s sure to be a winner!
The only thing that ties the BRICS together is their mutual corruption and greed–and the fact that the first letters in each nation’s name just happen to misspell “bricks.”
That Putin and Xi dream of somehow making it a counterweight to democratic countries in NATO, the EU, etc. is laughable.
A herd of cats has more unity.
The only thing that ties the BRICS together is their mutual corruption and greed–and the fact that the first letters in each nation’s name just happen to misspell “bricks.”
That Putin and Xi dream of somehow making it a counterweight to democratic countries in NATO, the EU, etc. is laughable.
A herd of cats has more unity.
The reality is that the three most powerful members of BRICS, Russia, China, and India, have diverging interests that will almost certainly keep the group from having much real influence or impact, assuming the divergence doesn’t split them entirely. China and Russia clearly have designs on turning BRICS into an anti-American economic alliance, which is not something India is likely to support, given their growing rivalry with China and involvement in the QUAD alliance. That combined with the anti-american slant of the governments of two of the other members is likely to leave India the odd man out as the only member still pursuing true neutrality. The deeper the Russo-Chinese axis goes and the more they succeed in bringing in other members (such as Iran), the harder it will be for India to remain neutral. Ultimately, geopolitical forces are pushing us all towards a Russo-Chinese axis opposed by an India/Australia/US/Japan alliance in the Asian sphere. Given India’s participation in the QUAD and their shifting military expenditures toward American rather than Russian weapons, I expect they already know which way the wind is blowing and which side will further their national interests, but they will hang on to neutrality as long as possible for economic reasons.
The reality is that the three most powerful members of BRICS, Russia, China, and India, have diverging interests that will almost certainly keep the group from having much real influence or impact, assuming the divergence doesn’t split them entirely. China and Russia clearly have designs on turning BRICS into an anti-American economic alliance, which is not something India is likely to support, given their growing rivalry with China and involvement in the QUAD alliance. That combined with the anti-american slant of the governments of two of the other members is likely to leave India the odd man out as the only member still pursuing true neutrality. The deeper the Russo-Chinese axis goes and the more they succeed in bringing in other members (such as Iran), the harder it will be for India to remain neutral. Ultimately, geopolitical forces are pushing us all towards a Russo-Chinese axis opposed by an India/Australia/US/Japan alliance in the Asian sphere. Given India’s participation in the QUAD and their shifting military expenditures toward American rather than Russian weapons, I expect they already know which way the wind is blowing and which side will further their national interests, but they will hang on to neutrality as long as possible for economic reasons.
South Africa hosting the BRICS conference? It’s going to be a fun week looking at news footage of delegates getting mugged and carjacked.
South Africa hosting the BRICS conference? It’s going to be a fun week looking at news footage of delegates getting mugged and carjacked.
I hope the writer of this article as well as some post -modern iterations of racist ignoramuses in ” comments” are eating their hearts out with foolish analysis/ assumptions after the BRICS summit ended on a successful note.