Immigration: A Simple Solution
A basic framework for taking back control of UK immigration
As none of the major parties have managed to propose a total, effective, feasible and long term solution to the United Kingdom's immigration issues, here is a template that any are free to use as a starting point. It tackles legal and illegal migration, undocumented migrants, deterrence, processing, and quotas. It is humane, to the extent that it can be, allows for controlled immigration based on needs of both the UK and genuine asylum seekers, prevents economic migration, and protects UK people, values and services.
Firstly, let us tackle the current major issue, illegal immigration to the UK largely via small boats crossing the English channel. The main point that has to be made is that by definition these people are entering the country illegally and therefore as criminals, regardless of motive, the moment they enter our waters. This may not sit comfortably with many, especially as a good proportion of the arrivals will have a legitimate asylum claim, however many will not. For this reason they must all be detained as potential enemies of the state until processed, therefore the key to this being a humane system is to process them as fast as possible, which is dealt with below.
As potential enemies of the state, the military should be responsible for bringing the boats to shore and detaining them until processed. Currently they are put up in hotels at tax-payer expense, yet during Covid the army were able to build three temporary hospitals in one week. Those same capabilities could be utilised to build Nightingale-style barracks accommodation along South coast, with plenty of space around and a humane perimeter manned by unarmed soldiers (armed response never more than sixty seconds away). Home Office processing centres could be easily installed within the accommodation to speed up the asylum application decision making process.
At this point there will be three groups of illegal immigrants. Those still being processed, those whose application succeeded, and those whose application failed. Those still being processed remain detained until the who, where and why established. Those with successful asylum application can begin applications for housing, jobs etc. Those whose application is denied are returned to their country of origin, or a third country if it is not possible to establish this information. Hence the need for a Rwanda Bill, whatever the cost, to set a precedent so that future deals with other countries can be struck at a fraction of the cost. The fact that other states are already seeking to emulate the Rwanda Bill is informative in itself.
Secondly, legal immigrants who have either arrived via approved safe routes or who have been granted asylum prior to arriving, should be treated largely in the way they always have been… as legitimate refugees with valid claims for need of asylum. The UK has an unmatched track record of welcoming those in need, providing for them and successfully integrating them into communities around the country. As in most areas of our society standards have slipped somewhat in recent years but there is no reason that cannot be quickly remedied and people with genuine need continue to be welcomed with open arms. The aspect that does need complete change is the process and criteria for asylum applications.
Recent months have seen the current government clamp down on foreign student entitlement to bring multiple family members with them, raise the income threshold for those coming to the UK for work, and increase the number of immigration enforcement officers and raids, all of which are belatedly but gladly received. However, the numbers of illegal migrants are dwarfed by the legal net migration figures. We need a far more robust and effective points based system similar to Australia, led by business to reflect industry needs, which is much more effective than a salary based approach. This must obviously be alongside a complete overhaul of our education system to improve the standards and relevance of skills of the existing UK workforce, and much better incentives for businesses to hire domestically before looking abroad to plug gaps with foreign labour.
The immigration issue is also a two-way street. As well as tighter controls over who can claim asylum here, we need to acknowledge that large numbers of UK citizens leave every year. Many of these will be immigrants returning home, but a considerable share are not, and it is important to establish the (probably) myriad reasons on top of immigration concerns as to why they are leaving and what might make them reconsider. The reversal of decades of declining standards across the board – of living, of working, that we demand of ourselves and those around us, of our institutions, of the goods and services we receive – should be our primary goal for the next decade, not just to attract the best and most talented from around the world, but to give our young and old alike a country to be proud of and no reason to believe a better life awaits elsewhere.
Thirdly, and most contentiously, is the issue of what to do with those already living in the UK who we do not want here – terrorists and their supporters, war criminals, economic migrants on welfare, rapists and murderers, haters of Western values, etc.. Many were born here and are British citizens, many who were not have been granted British passports, many who have not have been granted asylum, and many who have not have simply disappeared or we are unable to deport them. Deportation is called for regularly on social media, and with a Rwanda style scheme there are many who should be deported immediately – anyone not a British citizen who commits a serious crime, repeat offences, or has any reason to be considered a security threat – instead of paying them welfare and costing millions in surveillance, court and detention costs, not to mention the social and personal costs.
The EU has had a repatriation scheme of paying countries to accept their own nationals back since 2003 (https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-pledges-eur-250m-aid-towards-repatriation-scheme/). Here in the UK we already offer to pay for travel tickets and offer up to £3,000 assistance. But in both cases (and many more) this is only for those refused asylum, as an attempt to avoid forcible removal.
This offer needs increasing and extending out to all non-natives and those with a strong genetic connection to some other ancestral homeland. We cannot in good conscience maintain the standards the UK should always strive for in our civic duty by forcibly removing those with a legitimate claim to stay. But many of those who fear a crackdown on illegal immigration, benefit fraud, increased power to revoke asylum statuses, etc. would surely accept the offer of a lump sum, free travel, and whatever else we can throw in to sweeten the deal. As a one off expense to make our people and places safer and more prosperous, that would be money well spent.
Which leaves the final aspect of immigration to deal with, namely how to stop migrants repeatedly applying once rejected and removed. There are hundreds of known cases of individuals returning here more than once after deportation or voluntary repatriation. The simple solution for this is to introduce biometric ID for all asylum applicants, successful or not. It would deter multiple applications by one person under different identities, as well as those with ignoble intentions. A process for deleting the biometric data record after so many years of non-offending could be offered to those granted permission to stay.
Why does all this matter? For more reasons than can be listed here. We need to stop illegal migration completely, to save lives and money. We need to get control of legal migration so that it is both humane towards genuine need and skills based for economic and social migration. We have many significant problems in the UK which all need tackling simultaneously, and that work is severely impeded by the additional pressures uncontrolled immigration has on our creaking infrastructure and public services already stretched beyond sustainability. Successful integration cannot happen at the pace required for the current rate of demographic change, that is assuming all the new arrivals wish to integrate in the first place. Plenty of evidence suggests not.
A whole blog post is required to complete the conclusion, which will follow soon. In the meantime, the proposals above are worthy of critique, if not serious debate.
Until then…
Raise the #BritishStandard
