The drownings in the Channel last week were the tragic, but entirely predictable, outcome of our longstanding inability to secure our borders. People have been dying in the Channel for years, though not on the same awful scale. Twenty-seven are dead, including a pregnant woman and three children. Our first thought must be one of sympathy, but we should also consider why this keeps happening. The migrants – that is the right word – believe that the quickest way to a new life in Britain is to take to a small boat. They are right. Our asylum policy gives perverse incentives for people to risk everything in an illegal crossing. It must change.
Boris Johnson and Priti Patel realise, correctly, that their initial focus should be on the gangs who overload these non-seaworthy boats. They are, as the French interior minister said, “assassins”. But they also rely on the fact that a UK vessel will intercept the boat, and the migrants make the same calculation. The Immigration Services Union says it is a common tactic for migrants to threaten to throw someone overboard if a French — rather than a British — vessel comes too close. According to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders, migrants have even dangled children. Once aboard a British vessel, everyone knows asylum is almost guaranteed.
We are now hearing calls for “legal and safe routes” to all migrants willing to attempt this dangerous journey. One suggestion would allow anyone who wishes to make an asylum claim to arrive by ferry or plane – an open door policy which would attract millions. Another would allow migrants to lodge claims from third countries. Though sensible and more equitable, it is only half the answer. The other half is making it very clear that asylum will never be granted to anyone entering the UK illegally. Only then will the traffickers’ profits dry up and the pull of Britain’s failed immigration policy weaken for millions in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Australia has proved that this can be done.
It is important to recognise that those crossing the Channel are in a different cohort to the hundreds of millions of others they leave behind. They are relatively wealthy, able to pay large sums to smugglers to cross multiple safe countries to reach Britain. Two migrants told the Home Affairs Committee that they had paid the equivalent of more than £7,000 each. A friend in northern Iraq tells me the going rate to cross from Calais in a truck is anything between £2,500 and £12,000 per individual. And contrary to the pictures from many news organisations, the overwhelming majority of those crossing the Channel are not families or pregnant women with children. I have visited Calais – and years ago lived undercover in the old Sangatte camp – most of those congregating in northern France are fit young men.
Instead of accepting the few who can pay, we should try to do the most good for the most people. For the price of accommodating one person from, say, Syria, in the UK, you might be able to look after 50 refugees from the same war in places where most refugees find themselves: Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. We should offer much more support to these countries, already over-burdened by the chaos across their borders. They may not be the home of the refugees, but they can be made safe.
Finally, we must stop saying things just to make ourselves feel better and adopt tougher policies that might, in the end, improve the situation for those in greatest need. These tragedies will keep happening until we establish that if you come to Britain – or to Europe – illegally, you will not stay.
Adam Holloway is MP for Gravesham and a Conservative member of the home affairs select committee.
