Trump has shown up Britain's border weakness
Donald Trump's decision to ban travel for citizens of 12 countries and restrict travel from another seven will undoubtedly result in uproar and legal challenges.
The idea of restricting the travel of an individual based on their country of origin, rather than their personal characteristics, is anathema to the liberal world-view, and rhetorically uncomfortable for an individualist Right.
That does not mean it is without merit. A person's country of origin – the culture they were brought up in, and the economic opportunities available to them on return – can be highly informative about their propensity to overstay visas, the fiscal contribution of their household contingent on their income, and many other factors that a sensible immigration system should consider.
In several cases, it is hard to take significant dispute with the logic of Trump's decision. Indeed, there is much for Britain to learn from it.
It was reported earlier this year that the Home Office was examining plans to restrict visa applications from countries prone to overstaying and asylum claims. This project should be carried out and expanded.
The Government has access to a wealth of information on the outcomes of migrants in Britain. If it turns out that for a given visa route, migrants from one country routinely impose higher costs to the state than migrants from another – through lower spousal workforce participation, higher birth rates, or a lower attachment to employment – then this should be reflected in the salary and income thresholds set for their visa applications.
Equally, restrictions on applications from countries which sponsor terrorism or which lack a 'competent or cooperative central authority' to provide sufficiently reliable background information for citizens attempting to leave are entirely sensible. Britain should mimic this, and should consider too the merits of restricting visa access for countries which refuse to cooperate in enabling the return of their citizens.
It is a grim note that part of Mr Trump's explicit motivation is avoiding repeating in America 'what happened in Europe'. If our migration system is becoming a cautionary tale in other political systems, our politicians should be willing to change it.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds
NEW YORK (AP) — The world's richest man could lose billions in his fight with world's most powerful politician. The feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could mean Tesla's plans for self-driving cars hit a roadblock, SpaceX flies fewer missions for NASA, Starlink gets fewer overseas satellite contracts and the social media platform X loses advertisers. Maybe, that is. It all depends on Trump's appetite for revenge and how the dispute unfolds. Joked Telemetry Insight auto analyst Sam Abuelsamid, 'Since Trump has no history of retaliating against perceived adversaries, he'll probably just let this pass.' Turning serious, he sees trouble ahead for Musk. 'For someone that rants so much about government pork, all of Elon's businesses are extremely dependent on government largesse, which makes him vulnerable.' Trump and the federal government also stand to lose from a long-running dispute, but not as much as Musk. The dispute comes just a week before a planned test of Tesla's driverless taxis in Austin, Texas, a major event for the company because sales of its EVs are lagging in many markets, and Musk needs a win. Trump can mess things up for Tesla by encouraging federal safety regulators to step in at any sign of trouble for the robotaxis. Even before the war of words broke out on Thursday, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration requested data on how Musk's driverless, autonomous taxis will perform in low-visibility conditions. That request follows an investigation last year into 2.4 million Teslas equipped with full self-driving software after several accidents, including one that killed a pedestrian. A spokesman for NHTSA said the probe was ongoing and that the agency 'will take any necessary actions to protect road safety.' The Department of Justice has also probed the safety of Tesla cars, but the status of that investigation is unclear. The DOJ did not respond immediately to requests for comment. The promise of a self-driving future led by Tesla inspired shareholders to boost the stock by 50% in the weeks after Musk confirmed the Austin rollout. But on Thursday, the stock plunged more than 14% amid the Trump-Musk standoff. On Friday, it recovered a bit, bouncing back nearly 4%. 'Tesla's recent rise was almost entirely driven by robotaxi enthusiasm,' said Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein. 'Elon's feud with Trump could be a negative.' One often-overlooked but important part of Tesla's business that could take a hit is its sales of carbon credits. As Musk and Trump were slugging it out Thursday, Republican senators inserted new language into Trump's budget bill that would eliminate fines for gas-powered cars that fall short of fuel economy standards. Tesla has a thriving side business selling 'regulatory credits' to other automakers to make up for their shortfalls. Musk has downplayed the importance of the credits business, but the changes would hurt Tesla as it reels from boycotts of its cars tied to Musk's time working for Trump. Credit sales jumped by a third to $595 million in the first three months of the year even as total revenue slumped. Musk's foray into right-wing politics cost Tesla sales among the environmentally minded consumers who embraced electric cars and led to boycotts of Tesla showrooms. If Musk has indeed ended his close association with Trump, those buyers could come back, but that's far from certain. Meanwhile, one analyst speculated earlier this year that Trump voters in so-called red counties could buy Teslas 'in a meaningful way.' But he's now less hopeful. 'There are more questions than answers following Thursday developments,' TD Cowen's Itay Michaeli wrote in his latest report, 'and it's still too early to determine any lasting impacts.' Michaeli's stock target for Tesla earlier this year was $388. He has since lowered it to $330. Tesla was trading Friday at $300. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Trump said Thursday that he could cut government contracts to Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, a massive threat to a company that has received billions of federal dollars. The privately held company that is reportedly worth $350 billion provides launches, sends astronauts into space for NASA and has a contract to send a team from the space agency to the moon next year. But if Musk has a lot to lose, so does the U.S. SpaceX is the only U.S. company capable of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. The other alternative is politically dicey: depending wholly on Russia's Soyuz capsules. Musk knew all this when he shot back at Trump that SpaceX would begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft. But it is unclear how serious his threat was. Several hours later — in a reply to another X user — he said he wouldn't do it. A subsidiary of SpaceX, the satellite internet company Starlink, appears to also have benefited from Musk's once-close relationship with the president. Musk announced that Saudi Arabia had approved Starlink for some services during a trip with Trump in the Middle East last month. The company has also won a string of other recent deals in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and elsewhere as Trump has threatened tariffs. It's not clear how much politics played a role, and how much is pure business. On Friday, The Associated Press confirmed that India had approved a key license to Starlink. At least 40% of India's more than 1.4 billion people have no access to the internet. Big advertisers that fled X after Musk welcomed all manner of conspiracy theories to the social media platform have started to trickle back in recent months, possibly out of fear of a conservative backlash. Musk has called their decision to leave an 'illegal boycott' and sued them, and the Trump administration recently weighed in with a Federal Trade Commission probe into possible coordination among them. Now advertisers may have to worry about a different danger. If Trump sours on X, 'there's a risk that it could again become politically radioactive for major brands,' said Sarah Kreps, a political scientist at Cornell University. She added, though, that an 'exodus isn't obvious, and it would depend heavily on how the conflict escalates, how long it lasts and how it ends.' ___ Associated Press Writer Barbara Ortutay in San Francisco contributed to this report.
Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
'The Five' touts need for 'transparency' following Biden's doctor being subpoenaed
All times eastern Special Report with Bret Baier Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage MOMENTS AGO: Trump takes questions as Abrego-Garcia faces human trafficking charges
CNN
28 minutes ago
- CNN
Proud Boys members suing Justice Department for January 6 prosecutions
Members of the Proud Boys who were convicted by a jury on several counts related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack – each of whom were later pardoned or had their sentences commuted by President Donald Trump – are now suing the Justice Department for what they say was a 'political prosecution.' The individuals, including several former leaders of the group, say the prosecution in the case amounted to an 'egregious and systemic abuse of the legal system and the United States Constitution to punish and oppress political allies of President Trump, by any and all means necessary, legal, or illegal.' Four of the five men – Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the group; Joseph Biggs; Ethan Nordean; Trump Zachary Rehl; and Dominic Pezzola – were convicted of seditious conspiracy and each received lengthy sentences prior to Trump's absolution. The group wants the government to pay $100 million in restitution for the criminal prosecution and has asked for a jury trial in the matter. In the wake of Trump's election for a second term, the administration granted full clemency to hundreds of people convicted of felony crimes like destroying property and assaulting police on January 6. Trump's reelection also brought with it a complete about-face on investigations into those who attacked the Capitol that day, effectively ending the largest ever investigation conducted by the FBI. Trump's Justice Department also recently announced it had reached a settlement in the lawsuit brought by the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed by an officer on January 6 after attempting to breach the Speaker's Lobby near the House chamber. CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment. Republicans and Trump allies have long argued that the hundreds of cases brought against people who participated in the January 6 attack often amounted to political persecution from Joe Biden's Justice Department because they targeted Trump supporters. The lawsuit filed Friday could either force the administration to defend its prosecution of the Proud Boys or settle with the men. One of the men suing the Justice Department, Dominic Pezzola, was the first rioter to break open a window at the Capitol, allowing scores of protestors to enter the building, prosecutors said during the trial. Prosecutors argued that the other four men were leaders of the group and helped coordinate and helm elements of the attack. 'Now that the Plaintiffs are vindicated, free, and able to once again exercise their rights as American citizens, they bring this action against their tormentors for violations of their Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment Rights,' the lawsuit says. The lawsuit argues that prosecutors went after the five men despite knowing they never organized or coordinated the events of January 6. Prosecutors, the lawsuit alleges, invented 'a whole new legal theory,' stacked the jury and breached attorney-client communications.
