"If you come here illegally you can't stay". Those relatively simple words were spoken by the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in March of 2023 and delivered behind a boldly branded “stop the boats” lectern. While simple and straightforward in theory, the promise has proved challenging to put into action for a variety of reasons. The Illegal migration bill was ratified into law on 20th July 2023 after receiving royal assent, although this and other government policies on illegal immigration have received criticism from both the left and the right. In this article I will be looking at the pros and cons of the governments bill and its wider small boats policies, and how the British people are being affected.
A major criticism of this bill is that it does not take into consideration the UK’s obligations for human rights and protection for those fleeing persecution. The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Joanna Cherry KC MP said, “The Bill applies not only to refugees but also to victims of trafficking and slavery. By treating victims of modern slavery as ‘illegal migrants’ subject to detention and removal, this Bill would breach our legal obligations to such victims and would risk increasing trafficking of vulnerable people.” This is a view that is backed by the European Court of Human Rights, which adopted a resolution expressing concern over the fact that it would “increase legal uncertainty and conflicts between UK domestic law and the requirements of the European Convention on Human rights – as well as a number of other international conventions.” In March 2023, the EU home affairs commissioner said that she had spoken to the Home Secretary to tell her that the Illegal Migration Bill violated international law. The ECHR used these reasons to block the Rwanda deportation flights in June 2022, which had been decreed lawful by British courts.
However, others may support the bill, and the wider immigration policy in general, with an argument being that the vast majority of the immigrants on the small boats are not fleeing genuine persecution like in Ukraine, where 90 percent of refugees are women and children. The ex-home secretary Priti Patel told the House of Lords in 2021 “All the data and evidence has shown this – that in the last 12 months alone, 70% of the individuals who have come to our country illegally via small boats are single men, who are effectively economic migrants.” This claim is backed up by the government’s official website, gov.uk, which said that males aged 18 or over represented 87% of small boat arrivals in the year ending June 2023. This would point to the fact that there may be a possible gaming of the UK’s flexible asylum system. Notoriously, it was claimed by the government in 2022 over the summer that majority of arrivals in small boats from France—about 60%—had been Albanian nationals. Albania being recognized internationally as a safe country that is part of NATO and looking to become a member of the EU.
Others claim that the government shouldn’t be punishing immigrants, regardless of their legality in coming to the UK, but should be welcoming them as part of a solution to Britain’s labour shortage. The office for national statistics revealed that non-UK nationals accounted for 13% (109,000) of workers in the UK’s construction of buildings sub-sector. Surely, we should be welcoming immigration if it helps keep our economy afloat, especially now in a time of relative economic turmoil? While this is a valid point, other voices might point out the fact that those individuals who arrive on the small boats often do not fall under the same category as that 13 per cent of hardworking people who have arrived under legal means to the UK, mainly because there is no incentive to find any kind of work. If you arrive in Britain illegally and claim asylum, gov.uk reports that you will be given free housing, a weekly allowance and free medical care including free prescriptions for medicine, free dental care for your teeth, free eyesight tests and help paying for glasses. While this may sound wonderful to some, many point out that it is having a significant toll on the economy, having tens of thousands of people being completely supported for by the government and the British taxpayer. This point is further enforced by reports of small boats migrants disrupting local economies, namely with the indefinite housing in hotels and other accommodation (surely not a wonderful solution in the middle of a housing crisis?), which costs the taxpayer around £8 million a day. This in the long term is not feasible, especially in the mists of financial struggles in which families in Britain would benefit hugely from the money that is otherwise being diverted to help pay for small boats migrants.
Another argument in support of the bill is it helps eliminate the danger of illegal immigrants disappearing from the UK’s asylum radar and slip away into the country, for potentially nefarious purposes. Last November of 2023, home office officials have admitted they do not know the whereabouts of more than 17,000 asylum seekers whose claims have been discontinued. The bill would make the home office far more effective at keeping track of these migrants and make sure they do not disappear into the UK before deportation and potentially cause trouble. A sad example of this is in March 2022, when an Afghan migrant, Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai killed 21-year-old Thomas Roberts, an aspiring Royal Marine. It was later revealed that Abdulrahimzai, who lived in Poole at the time of the offence, arrived in the UK in December 2019, claiming he was only 14. He later told authorities he was 16 when he was arrested, but the court determined that he was 21. Examples like this may show why it is necessary to remove migrants who illegally come to the UK and stop people taking advantage of the current asylum system and proving a threat to people’s security. As well as this, British people are becoming concerned over the levels of illegal migration as a whole, with the Migration Observatory by Oxford university revealing that 52% of people polled said that they thought the number of immigrants coming to Britain nowadays should be greatly or significantly reduced. Surely the bill would be good for the country if the majority of British people support its aims?
Looking again at the social aspect of mass illegal migration, with tens of thousands coming across the channel, arriving from a host of different nations that have very different values to Britain, would it be wise to accept them with open arms? While some may say yes, others think that wholeheartedly accepting people whose background is unknown, without taking any kind of action to find out where they came from and if they are here as economic migrants, is foolhardy and dangerous. With the migrants coming on the small boats arriving from a host of different nations that have very different values to Britain, is it wise to welcome them in with open arms when their set of values and standards that could be in direct opposition to that of Britain’s? Refusal to integrate in the nation to which the migrants claim they seek safety, but just take advantage of its asylum system is a catalyst for social unrest.
In conclusion, the Illegal Migration Bill and the governments wider illegal migration policies can be criticised for being unfeeling or too lenient, driving Britain into a situation where it may have to remove itself from international conventions such as the ECHR, or by not taking advantage of migrant workers. However, it has the ability to deal with lots of the issues that mass illegal immigration brings to the UK, both economic and social, and takes these matters seriously. Perhaps most importantly, if it fulfils the wishes of the majority of the British public, who’s to say it's wrong to do so?
Written by Ethan Carmalt, Year 10