Tokenistic measures fall short in tackling immigration crisis!

Nowadays, the mere mention of the word triggers some of the most visceral conversations around. Whether it be exchanges in the Houses of Parliament, in living rooms and in pubs, or smeared across every social media platform imaginable, this is one of the most fiercely contested issues of our age.

And why shouldn’t it be, given the vast numbers involved?

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), 745,000 more people arrived in our country than left in 2022. That is an increase of more than 1% of our population in just 12 months.

Whilst most are here legally, many are not. Just over 52,000 were detected illegally entering the UK in the 12 months to June 2023, although this is likely to be a significant undercount, by the very nature of the matter. At least 40,000 of these claimed to be asylum seekers.

Research from the Migration Observatory during 2023 shows that whilst the UK is almost evenly split as to whether immigration is a good thing (31%) or a bad thing (33%), well over half are looking for a reduction in the numbers arriving here.

This is a debate which I intend to address, if not with both feet, then across my next two columns for this newspaper.

In this article, I want to set out a number of general principles and observations. In February, I hope to offer some solutions. All from a libertarian perspective.

As a philosophy, libertarianism is suspicious of too much power being controlled by the state over the rights of individuals, families and communities. Most of us have grown up at times when the ever-encroaching interference from the state is almost taken for granted. ‘The state must do this, and the state must do that’, we say – heedless that the state, with its millions of employees and vested interests, operates to justify its own power and influence.

However, one of the few legitimate roles of the state is to protect its citizens from external harm, whether that be from military, economic, or migratory threats.

I accept that not all libertarians would agree with this. Some theorists, rather like the ultra left-wing demonstrators one sometimes sees or hears on demonstrations, advocate for completely open borders.

Most of us, though, whilst we would never advocate restrictions on people leaving this country, do feel that there must be a rationale for inward migration that is underpinned by our own economic and social self-interest.

Whether it be short-term to fill essential vacancies that the millions of our current citizens of working age choose not to fill (more on that conundrum in February), or in the longer-term to take advantage of overseas expertise to reap the benefits from new technologies, there needs to be a clearly articulated agreement between the governed and the governing as to this rationale. Unlike at present.

Tony Blair turned on the taps of mass migration in the early years of this century without any electoral mandate. Now, the present Conservative administration has facilitated another shift - again without any strategic approach or national consent.

As a libertarian, I have absolutely no time for anti-migration arguments based, explicitly or implicitly, on racial or cultural hatred. I abhor the dog whistling politics that seems to have even reached Suffolk in recent years. We need to have an objective system that evaluates what this country needs and ensures that we can access the right people irrespective of their origins.

But equally, we shouldn’t let the usual shrill leftie types get away with branding efforts to reduce overall immigration and refine precisely who comes here as particularly draconian.

For migration is an international phenomenon, propelling millions of people from the mainly global south towards ostensibly richer nations in the northern hemisphere.

A few examples will suffice. Last month, the French National Assembly passed legislation to make it more difficult for migrants to bring family members to France and delay their access to welfare benefits.

The Greek government has opted to simply deport undocumented migrants arriving across its archipelagos.

And famously, ex- and quite possibly future-US president Trump continues to focus on staunching the flows of illegal migrants across the Mexican border.

An international situation demands more of a joined up international response where appropriate, adapted to suit particular national situations.

This means taking a whole system approach, as opposed to Rishi Sunak's panic-stricken and tokenistic measures. The Rwanda scheme is a case in point. Rather than expending both taxpayers' money and political capital on an expensive scheme that even if it goes ahead will have a marginal deterrent effect at most, efforts should be focussed on speeding up the process whereby illegals without valid asylum claims are identified and deported.

The costs of this particular policy failure are eye-watering at every level. Since, 2022 the UK has handed over - or has pledged to so do - well over £320m for a scheme that may never happen or, if it does, is likely to account for a few hundred illegal migrants.

To properly 'take control' of our borders, we need both public consent and a long-term plan. More on what that could look like in February.

First published www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk on Thursday, January 4, 2024.