 The
British government is struggling to stop illegal migrants attempting to
cross the English Channel on small boats — partly because of its need
for cooperation from France. British authorities have repeatedly accused
their French counterparts of not doing enough to stop small boats from
leaving French territorial waters. Pictured: Illegal migrants walk
ashore on the beach at Dungeness, England on September 7, 2021. (Photo
by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images) |
Nearly a thousand migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East have
attempted to cross the English Channel on small boats in just one day
to illegally get into the United Kingdom. The record-breaking surge in
illegal crossings is being facilitated by warm weather and calm seas.
The British government is struggling to stop the crossings — partly
because of its need for cooperation from France. British authorities
have repeatedly accused their French counterparts of not doing enough to
stop small boats from leaving French territorial waters.
Although the UK has pledged to pay France tens of millions of pounds
to stop migrants crossing the Channel, French naval vessels are accused
of escorting small boats into British waters.
French officials counter that the UK has not done enough to reduce
the incentives that act as a magnet for migrants: not only are newcomers
showered with generous social welfare benefits, but the UK's decision
to scrap national identity cards, combined with its sizeable shadow economy, makes it easy for illegal immigrants to find work.
On September 6, 785 migrants entered the UK illegally after crossing the English Channel, according
to official statistics compiled by Migration Watch UK, a British think
tank. It was the second-highest number of daily arrivals since a
record-breaking 828 migrants reached the UK on August 21. The previous
daily record was 482 migrants who crossed the Channel on August 4, according to the BBC. A record-breaking 3,510 migrants reached the UK by boat in July 2021.
More than 14,500 migrants have crossed the Channel in around 600
small boats so far in 2021, surpassing the 8,713 arrivals (in 650 boats)
during all of 2020, according
to Migration Watch, which notes that the actual number of arrivals is
probably far higher than what has been recorded in official statistics.
Since the beginning of 2021, not a single migrant has been deported back
to the safe European countries they traveled through, according to
Migration Watch, which stated:
"The number of people crossing continues to rise even
after nearly £200 million of taxpayers' money was paid to France since
September 2014 to tackle illegal immigration (see media report). This is hardly value for money.
"The government is also spending around £400 million of taxpayers'
money each year on 'free' accommodation for more than 60,000 asylum
seekers and failed claimants over the next decade (total of £4 billion
in the ten years from mid-2019 – see National Audit Office summary). The number of people housed has tripled since 2012 when it was around 20,000....
"Nearly 10,000 people have been housed in nearly 100 hotels across
the country in what is known as 'initial accommodation' set aside for
people just after they claim asylum but are awaiting an allocation of
more long-term housing (for more read this piece).
"This despite the fact that, as Home Office sources admitted recently, housing migrants in hotels creates a 'pull factor.'
"The incentives are skewed so that they encourage, rather than
discourage, illegal (and dangerous) trips that often lead to asylum
abuse (also see this Home Office page telling people what they will get if they claim asylum).
"Payments and the offer of free housing for those eligible while an
asylum claim is being processed (and for thousands of failed claimants)
may serve to encourage people to attempt the dangerous and needless
journey.
"98% of those arriving claim asylum once landed, says the Home
Office, even though they are traveling from a safe country from which
protection is not required. However, 81% have been found by the authorities not to have a credible claim here in the UK. The asylum route should be reserved only for the truly needy."
The UK's Clandestine Channel Threat Commander, Dan O'Mahoney, explained:
"This unacceptable rise in dangerous crossings is being driven by criminal gangs and a surge in illegal migration across Europe.
"We're determined to target the criminals at every level, so far, we
have secured nearly 300 arrests, 65 convictions and prevented more than
10,000 migrant attempts.
"But there is more to do. The government's New Plan for Immigration
is the only credible way to fix the broken asylum system, breaking the
business model of criminal gangs and welcoming people through safe and
legal routes."
The United Kingdom appears to be pursuing a two-pronged strategy to
curb the migrant flow: negotiating a bilateral deal with France and
reforming the UK's asylum system.
Anglo-French Border Deal
In November 2020, Home Secretary Priti Patel agreed to pay France £28
million (€33 million; $40 million) to stop illegal Channel crossings.
As part of the deal,
France doubled the number of officers patrolling French beaches, which
resulted in a significant decline in illegal crossings. As French
interceptions increased, however, people traffickers moved their
operations farther north along hundreds of kilometers of the French
coast.
In July 2021, Patel agreed to pay France another £54 million (€63
million; $75 million) to increase police patrols along the northern
coast of France. The deal called for increasing the use aerial
surveillance, including drones, and for drawing up a long-term plan for a
technological "smart border" to prevent crossings.
On July 21, addressing the Commons Home Affairs Committee, Patel revealed
that 60% of illegal arrivals have come from Belgium and that migrants
who have travelled across Continental Europe are amassing "along the
entire French coastline," not just in Calais, the closest point on the
European mainland to England.
On September 7, Patel threatened
to withhold millions of pounds in promised payments to France due to
the low numbers of migrants being intercepted before they reach British
waters. "It's payment by results and we've not yet seen those results,"
she said. "The money is conditional." Patel demanded that France stop three in four crossings by the end September. She also threatened to return boats carrying migrants in the Channel back into French waters.
French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin replied that Patel's proposal is contrary to maritime law and accused her of blackmail:
"France will not accept practices contrary to the Law of
the Sea, nor financial blackmail. Britain's commitment must be kept. I
made this clear to my counterpart."
Pierre-Henri Dumont, France's MP for Calais, claimed that the French coast is too big to secure:
"We have too many kilometers of shore to monitor. The
French coast is difficult to monitor because they [migrants] can hide in
a lot of places. There are a lot of roads, woods and trees. Even if you
are monitoring 100 percent of a small or large part of the French
coast, the smugglers will find a place to cross somewhere else.
"If it's not Calais it will be Normandy, and if it's not Normandy it
will be Belgium. If they're not going to Belgium they can go to the
Netherlands."
Mayor of Calais Natacha Bouchart has said Britain's "black market
economy" and "cushy benefits system" were responsible for drawing
migrants to her town. She said:
"They want to go to England because they can expect
better conditions on arrival there than anywhere else in Europe or even
internationally. There are no ID cards. They can easily find work
outside the formal economy, which is not really controlled.
"Calais is a hostage to the British. The migrants come here to get to
Britain. The situation here is barely manageable. The UK border should
be moved from Calais to the English side of the Channel because we're
not here to do their jobs."
Tory MP Tim Loughton accused French authorities of failing to honor their part of the deal:
"The French having a different interpretation [of
maritime law] is the French giving you an excuse for not doing what they
are not only able to do under international law but actually obliged to
do under international law.
"Because two crimes are being committed by the occupants of those
boats: one is trying to enter the UK illegally and the second is paying
money to organized crime. Both of which provide grounds for those boats
to be intercepted, the occupants apprehended in as safe a way as
possible and returned to France. You are getting fobbed off [tricked]
with excuses."
Craig Mackinlay, the Conservative MP for Thanet South in Kent, said that sending boats back to France would be a "high-octane" measure:
"We need to up the stakes and consider immediate removal
back to France of all who arrive via this illegal route and disregard
diplomatic niceties.
"This, above all else, would show, and rapidly, that the route does
not work and the migrants would simply not waste their money in trying
it."
Lee Anderson, the Conservative MP for Ashfield, added:
"We should drop these illegal immigrants off on a French
beach and send the French government a bill for the cost of the
journey."
French authorities counter that they will not take back migrants from
the UK — which has lost the legal right to return refugees to other EU
nations because of Brexit.
The British news magazine, The Week, quoting James Forsyth in The Times, noted that French and British interests are "not aligned" on this question:
"France, which had 92,000 asylum applications last year
to the UK's 27,000, is not particularly worried about people leaving its
soil. The fact is that the Channel crossings are 'almost impossible to
halt.' Both traffickers and migrants know that 'no civilized country can
allow people to drown at sea'; this is why people get on overcrowded
vessels. 'And this is why Britain is about to be plunged into a similar
crisis to the one Italy faced three years ago, albeit on a reduced
scale.'"
Immigration Reform
Home Secretary Priti Patel has pledged to make the illegal crossings
"unviable" by reforming UK immigration policy. On July 6, she introduced new asylum legislation — the Nationality and Borders Bill
— that aims to deter illegal entry into the UK by cracking down on
people traffickers and by making it easier to deport people who are in
the country illegally.
The main provisions include:
- new and tougher criminal penalties for those attempting to enter
the UK illegally by raising the punishment for illegal entry to four
years in prison (up from six months previously), and by introducing life
sentences for people smugglers.
- provide Border Force with additional powers to stop and divert
vessels suspected of carrying illegal migrants to the UK and, subject to
agreement with the relevant country such as France, return them to
where their sea journey to the UK began.
- increase the penalty for migrants who return to the UK in breach of a
deportation order to five years in prison (up from six months
previously).
- introduce expedited processes to allow rapid removal of those in the country illegally.
Home Secretary Priti Patel, in a statement to Parliament, said:
"The British people have had enough of open borders and
uncontrolled migration. Enough of a failed asylum system that costs the
taxpayer over a billion pounds a year. Enough of dinghies arriving
illegally on our shores, directed by organized crime gangs.
"Enough of people drowning on these dangerous, illegal, and
unnecessary journeys. Enough of people being trafficked and sold into
modern slavery. Enough of economic migrants pretending to be genuine
refugees.
"Enough of adults pretending to be children to claim asylum. Enough
of people trying to gain entry illegally, ahead of those who play by the
rules. Enough of foreign criminals – including murderers and rapists –
who abuse our laws and then game the system so we can't remove them.
"The British people have had enough of being told none of these
issues matter – enough of being told it is racist to even think about
addressing public concerns and seeking to fix this failed system.
"The British people have repeatedly voted to take back control of our
borders. They finally have a government that is listening to them. Our
priorities are the people's priorities.
"For the first time in decades we will determine who comes in and out of our country.
Immigration Control Minister Chris Philip added:
"The UK will always play its part for those in genuine need. But we will choose who deserves our help.
"Illegal immigration undermines that choice. Instead of the United
Kingdom being able to choose the children and families most in need,
illegal immigration instead allows those who pay people smugglers, or
who are strong, to push their way to the front of the queue.
"There is no worse example of that than the small boats crossing the
English Channel. Around 80% are young single men who have paid people
smugglers to cheat the system. They are not fleeing war. France is not a
war zone. Belgium is not a war zone and nor is Germany. These are safe
European countries with well-functioning asylum systems. These journeys
are dangerous and totally unnecessary, and they push to one side those
in greatest need, including women and children.
"Our legal system needs reform. It is open to abuse. People make
repeated human rights, asylum and modern slavery claims, often strung
out over many years, in an effort to avoid removal. But very often they
are later found to be without merit. For example, in 2017, 83% of those
last-minute claims raised in detention to frustrate removal were later
found to be without merit....
"This bill also has measures on age assessment. We are the only
European country not to use scientific age assessments. Recent
evaluations in Kent concerning 92 people claiming to be children later
found that around half in fact were not. There are very obvious and
serious safeguarding issues if men that are 23 years old successfully
pretend to be under 18 and then get housed or are educated with
16-year-old girls and we cannot tolerate that."
The central weakness of the bill is that deportations will be
dependent on the willingness of France and other EU countries to accept
the return of migrants.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has demanded that the French "stiffen their sinews" to prevent more migrants reaching the UK:
"A large number of people want to come to this country,
and we are doing everything we can to encourage the French to do the
necessary and impede their passage."
Natalie Elphicke, Conservative MP for Dover, called for emergency laws to give UK Border Force powers to turn back boats carrying migrants:
"First it was a few, then hundreds, and now 1,000 in a
day, the French just waving them through with a cheery 'Bon Voyage.' If
the French won't stop the small boats then we need to by turning them
back, making returns and taking firm control of our borders."
British commentator Melanie Philips concluded
that the illegal immigration problem will not be stopped until British
leaders drum up the courage to implement "draconian" measures:
"Trying to get the French to stop this traffic is to duck
the real problem. The reason so many migrants want to come to Britain
is that it has made itself the most attractive destination in the world
for such people. That's because migrants correctly perceive it to be a
soft touch. They know that Britain's slavish adherence to human rights
laws makes it so difficult to deport them that there's every chance they
won't be sent away but will be able to melt into the country and
receive accommodation and welfare services.
"To end this farce, therefore, Britain has to remove all those
incentives. It has to send such migrants away from Britain for the
processing of their asylum claims — to cruise liners in the North Sea,
to the Isle of Man, the Falklands, wherever; deport them to the first
country to which they fled; or fly them straight back to France. Anyone
without proper documentation should be made to realize they will never
be entitled to British citizenship or to access Britain's health,
housing or welfare services.
"To do anything like this, however, would not only provoke a storm of
accusations of racism, cruelty, inhumanity and so forth. It would also
be prohibited by the courts. To enact the draconian measures needed to
stop this illegal migrant traffic, Britain would have to leave the
European Convention on Human Rights and maybe also the Refugee
Convention — which it is deeply unwilling to do.
"As for changing Britain's interpretation of maritime law, this in
the same league as the not infrequently floated idea of rewriting human
rights law. Well, the British government can rewrite its interpretation
of international law to its heart's content; but the inconvenient fact
remains that, while the UK is party to the relevant treaties and
conventions, it remains bound by them.
"If Britain cannot accept the terms of those treaties and
conventions, it must leave them. Otherwise it will just have to take
what follows and lump it. But Boris Johnson cannot admit this; nor will
he take the action that is necessary, because that would take courage
and leadership and that's all Just Too Difficult."
