There is widespread public exasperation over the failure of the Labour Government and its Conservative predecessor to deal effectively with illegal immigration. Such feelings are entirely justified. It’s almost a tautology to say that if you think it’s right that something should be illegal then it’s also right that it should be prevented from happening. So it makes no sense – even for those who take a ‘liberal’ view on immigration or the number of refugees we should accept – to argue that those entering our country illegally should be allowed to stay. Let alone be put up in hotels and allowed to tootle about the place as they please. The most generous host expects to maintain some control of who he allows into his home.
So the latest proposals from Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, to at least attempt to get a grip of the situation are eminently justified. Her intervention is also politically astute. A poll last week, from JL Partners, found that 66% of voters would support the deportation of all illegal immigrants in the UK. Only 14% opposed this. So this isn’t just a matter of ‘chasing after Reform voters’ or ‘trying to out-Reform Reform’. Labour voters back deportation of all illegal immigrants by 63% to 14%. Lib Dem voters by 64% to 14%. Even among Green Party voters, more back the policy (42%) than oppose it (30%).
This does not mean that a tougher approach will be easy for the Government to adopt. Despite a huge overall majority in the House of Commons, it has proven most anxious to avoid Parliamentary rebellion. We have already seen this in the way that the most modest welfare reforms were cravenly abandoned after some backchat from the backbenchers in the tea rooms. Far from being ‘savage cuts’, the changes would have merely meant the welfare bill rising a bit more slowly than it otherwise would have done. We would still have been heading for insolvency in the public finances. But even such tinkering was too much for Labour MPs to accept. So we continue to hurtle towards bankruptcy at full speed – with the National Debt piling up by billions more each month.
Christian Calgie, the Political Correspondent of the Daily Express, has spent his morning keeping tally on Twitter on Labour MPs who have gone public to denounce what Mahmood proposes. At the time of writing, he has got to 16.
Simon Opher, the Labour MP for Stroud, says:
We should stop the scapegoating of immigrants because it’s wrong and cruel.
Brian Leishman, the Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, says:
Speaking with other Labour MPs I know that there’s a real degree of disgust at some of these proposals.
Others expressed themselves with similar indignation. Stella Creasy called the proposals ‘performatively cruel’.
Tony Vaughan, who represents Folkestone and Hythe, declared:
The rhetoric around these reforms encourages the same culture of divisiveness that sees racism and abuse growing in our communities.
Such allegations are outrageous. It is the dismay that the country’s borders are not secure that has prompted anger at the resulting insecurity. That is nothing ‘racist’ about saying that those who enter illegally, whatever the colour of their skin, should not be able to stay.
What of the opposition outside the Labour Party? Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, tends to be anxious to suck up to Keir Starmer. Many of his MPs relied on tactical votes from Labour supporters to oust Tory incumbents in the General Election last year. But he still expresses ‘concern’ about the ‘dangers’ of the plans. Naturally, the Green Party are more outspoken. Ellie Chowns MP calls the proposals ‘sheer cruelty on display’.
By contrast, the Conservatives and Reform UK object that the proposals are ‘gimmicks’ that will not be strong enough to really solve the problem.
So will the Government retreat? Who knows. Perhaps a compromise where the plans are watered down. I suspect they could win the Parliamentary votes. What is a landslide majority for, if not to make tough decisions you believe to be necessary? But then Starmer also has the small matter of averting a leadership challenge to worry about.
Even if the Government showed some resolve – hitherto a missing attribute over the past year – that would probably not be enough to deal with the problem.
Mahmood wants to restrict the rights of those allowed to stay here. Refugee status will become temporary and face a review every 30 months. Those wishing to settle permanently will have to wait for 20 years. Refugees will lose the automatic right to bring their spouses and children to join them in the UK. Visas from Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo will not be granted if their governments do not increase cooperation with the UK’s attempts to deport their nationals.
It sounds as though it’s fiddling around the edges. Many people who have no right to be in this country will still be roaming around the place. Some will continue to get involved in violence – prompting an outcry in the media and from the public.
And even if Mahmood’s changes are introduced, will they prove effective in the courts? She has compared them to what has been implemented in Denmark. That is a shrewd example for her to highlight. It has a social democrat Government and has been a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) since 1953. Neither has stopped robust measures to tighten the border from being implemented.
But perhaps Danish judges tend to interpret human rights laws in a more sensible way than our judges? We also have Tony Blair’s Human Rights Act which incorporated the Convention into British law.
Mahmood will tell judges not to let illegal migrants and foreign criminals avoid deportation by using Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to a family life. But Lord Sumption, a former UK Supreme Court judge, told Radio 4’s Today programme this morning that ‘if the Government wants to stay in the convention, it has very limited freedom of action’.
So Mahmood deserves points for effort. She is right to make the moral case against illegal immigration and the people smugglers. They have made it much harder for us to be welcoming to genuine refugees who seek sanctuary here legally. The proposals she offers are reasonable enough, given the political and legal constraints she operates in. But the risk is that she will antagonise many within her own Party, the public are left more disillusioned than ever and the boats keep coming.
Just as there is a battle on the Right in Britain, so too is there a battle inside the Conservative Party for what the party should focus on. There are those who are concerned about the threat of political Islam, the damage to the social fabric of the Boriswave and other elements of mass immigration, […]
Whenever I think about Boris Johnson, the old French proverb ‘après moi le déluge’ comes to mind. It means a blithe, even nihilistic disregard for whatever ruination ensues after one’s own time. For many years, it was thought to have originated with Louis XV or his mistress Madame de Pompadour in the 1750s. It thus […]
Zia Yusuf has announced his proposal for a ‘Deliveroo law’ which would make it a criminal offence for CEOs and company directors to use or employ illegal immigrants, i.e., they’d face jail for non-compliance. And if that were not enough to discourage them, 10% of their global turnover could be seized for repeated breaches. Irrespective […]
