This thread demonstrates that it is almost impossible to have an honest discussion in this country about immigration. Rather than confront the issue directly, people prefer to make highminded observations from the sidelines: 'you can claim asylum wherever you choose' (Yes, but there is no obligation under international law for the UK to consider asylum claims from people who have already reached a safe country). 'Many who have been stuck in Calais would not consider France to be safe' (Really? Is the UK now the only safe country in Europe? When did this happen?) 'When we were part of the Dublin Agreement we could more easily send people back to France but we lost that right when we left the EU.' (There is an obvious contradiction in lamenting our inability to send migrants back to France, an apparently unsafe country. But apart from that, the French government have never agreed to take migrants back, either before or after Brexit. And you can understand why. Once the migrants have left French territorial waters, they are no longer France's problem. That is why Labour's stated policy of getting an agreement with France is bound to fail). 'Oh dear, what a mess this government has created' (Well, in a sense every unsolved problem can be blamed on the government, either for failing to prevent it or failing to solve it. But unless you can say what the government should have done to prevent boat crossings or what they should do with the thousands who cross each year, the comment is unhelpful). 'Agreed, the incompetence of the civil servants in the Home Office is revealed again' (Same response. What are the Home Office with finite resources to do when faced with thousands of asylum claims, some from people who deliberately destroy their documents?).'But on the other side of the coin it wasn't exactly legal to invade their countries either, was it?' (Considering just the top five countries from which most asylum seekers originate, the UK has never invaded Albania. The UK has never invaded Syria either. It is true that the RAF bombed Daesh bases in Syria, Daesh being a murderous terrorist organisation responsible for genocidal crimes against Christians and Yazidis, but David Cameron failed to obtain backing to intervene against President Assad. The UK has never invaded Iran but it is true that in 1953 Churchill's government conspired with The CIA to overthrow the elected Prime Minister, Mossadegh, and restored the Shah to power. But it seems a little tenuous to attribute the flow of refugees from Iran, escaping the repressive regime of the clerics, to a reprehensible act of imperialism 70 years ago. That just leaves Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe that the refugees from Afghanistan are actually fleeing the Taliban, whom the invasion was designed to remove from power. Yes, in hindsight the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, but it should be remembered that Saddam's oppression of the Kurds also created a refugee problem).'Surely hitting the criminal gangs directly rather than trying to demonise victims, even if they're unwise, must be a better approach'. (I don't think anyone wishes to demonise or punish the migrants. But those who cross the Channel in that way are attempting to enter the country illegally. If, after flying to a foreign destination, you attempted to climb over the airport fence instead of passing through immigration, you would expect to be arrested for illegal entry and deported, no? I agree that the criminal gangs should be targeted but this is more easily said than done. These gangs mainly operate in Belgium and France where the British police have no jurisdiction. And, as I have suggested, I am not sure that the authorities in those countries are particularly anxious to stem the flow of their migrants to the UK). It seems to me that the following principles should dictate our approach to immigration:1) The UK, like every other sovereign country, has a right to control immigration across its borders. In particular the government has an obligation to deter illegal crossings and to remove people who enter the country in that way.2) There is a distinction to be made between economic migrants and those who are genuinely in need of asylum (a distinction sometimes confused by refugee advocacy groups who see poverty and oppression as the same thing). The country needs a certain level of immigration but this should be decided on the basis of the skills the immigrants can offer and the areas of need.3) The UK should continue to offer asylum, within the bounds of possibility. to people for whom it has a special responsibility, such as the Hong Kong Chinese and Afghan interpreters, and to the most needy, such as disabled people in the Syrian refugee camps and so on. But the idea that people who have suffered persecution anywhere in the world and who have reached a safe country have an automatic right to claim asylum in the UK is simply insane. (Labour's position, as expressed by Stephen Kinnock on television the other night, that illegal crossings could be avoided if there were safe and legal routes for migrants, would simply invite thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of claims for asylum from all over the world. It is a piece of ill-considered virtue signalling which I have no doubt will be quietly dropped by Keir Starmer once Labour wins power).There is no easy solution. Many of the contributors to this Forum are understandably upset at the thought that a lot of poor and possibly desperate refugees in Calais are not being permitted to enter the UK and are likely to be removed if they attempt an illegal crossing, but it is simply not possible for the UK to offer asylum to everyone who would like to come.
Steven Rose ● 904d