Starmer must find REAL ways to solve migrant crisis – not pathetic sticking plaster ‘solutions' voters will see through

The Sun

17 hours ago

THE Home Secretary's plans to fast-track the ­asylum appeals process are, on the face of it, a welcome development.
Because asylum seekers awaiting the results of appeal are ­entitled to state support, including both a weekly allowance and accommodation in the infamous hotels, it means any delay in processing claims is a direct cost on the taxpayer.
4
Yet there are good reasons to doubt that it will provide anything more than a short-term palliative to a chronic, structural problem with the asylum regime – and perhaps not even that.
One of the biggest challenges facing the Home Office has long been deporting people whose claims are rejected.
Even if their country of ­origin is deemed 'predominantly safe', as Yvette Cooper put it, some governments make it very difficult to return their citizens.
In other cases, ­deportation is made extremely difficult because asylum seekers often destroy their ­passports.
Rejected asylum seekers have to be housed and supported by the state, just like those awaiting appeal.
This creates a very obvious incentive for politicians to turn any fast-track scheme into a rubber-stamping exercise, 'clearing the backlog' by waving people into the country.
It wouldn't be the first time politicians and campaigners have resorted to interpreting a problem over-literally in order to pretend to have solved it.
Just a few months ago, the Labour Government proposed to fix the problem of putting asylum seekers up in hotels . . . by having the Home Office buy up private rented housing instead.
Then there are those who suggest 'safe and legal routes' as a solution to Channel crossings — a proposal that hinges on the idea that the problem is people coming here in boats rather than their ­coming at all.
If that were the case, we could simply stop searching the lorries at the Channel Tunnel!
Moment bus full of asylum seekers are 'snuck into' 4-star London hotel under cover of darkness despite UK-wide protests
I don't want to sound like a partisan Tory here.
The previous government's efforts to tackle the crisis were in much the same spirit.
Whatever the merits of the Rwanda scheme, it was never going to accommodate more than a small fraction of the volume of illegal arrivals (although it nonetheless did seem to have some impact on the number of people trying to cross).
Left or Right, when it comes to illegal immigration the motto seems to be: 'look busy'.
Ministers keep tinkering around the edges of the ­problem, but nobody seems willing to confront the deep, structural pull factors which make Britain such an attractive target for migrants.
Some of these, such as our language being so ­widely ­spoken, cannot be helped.
But others, especially our non-contributory welfare system and the ease with which people can work in the black economy, could be tackled.
That, however, would require fundamental and far-reaching reform, not least of the welfare state.
We could also legislate to make deportations easier.
The Home Secretary has pledged to tighten the rules around 'exceptional circumstances', which is a good start.
TIED IN KNOTS
But the Government could go a lot further, in particular on restricting appeals under ­Article 8 of the ECHR — the ' right to family life ' — which underpins many of the most egregious decisions made by ­asylum tribunals.
For all the debate around whether or not the UK should quit the European Convention on Human Rights, we don't actually need to.
Under the British constitution, the ECHR only applies if given effect by domestic law, and Parliament can legislate as it pleases.
Labour should know this well: it was none other than Tony Blair who defied ­Strasbourg to refuse prisoners the vote.
Sir Keir Starmer is unlikely to be enthusiastic about such measures.
Lord Hermer, his friend and hand-picked Attorney General, has written to ministers ­rejecting the very idea that Parliament could legislate in any way that breached ­international law.
But the Prime Minister should learn from the fate of his predecessor.
4
Like Starmer, Rishi Sunak promised the nation he would stop the crossings.
He and his team were also — again like Starmer — unwilling to change or challenge any of Britain's existing legal or treaty commitments.
The result was that they tied themselves in knots trying to make the Rwanda scheme compliant with the ECHR, only to fail — and paid a historically heavy price at the ballot box the following year.
Labour MPs are already ­worried the same fate may befall them.
They are right to worry: while the Government's majority is huge, this is ­actually the most marginal parliament since 1945 in terms of seat majorities.
It would not take a big shift in public opinion to unseat dozens, or even hundreds, of Labour MPs at the next ­election.
So which is more important to Sir Keir: the future of his government or the good ­opinion of the Attorney General?
For so long as Hermer remains in post, the odds of this Government finding a ­lasting solution to the crisis are very small indeed.
MY Conservative Home colleague Tali Fraser opened our editorial meeting yesterday with the claim that 'too many HENRYs are leaving the UK'.
Now I quite agree that you can never have enough of us, but this wasn't merely an effort to please the boss.
4
'HENRY' apparently stands for 'high net worth, not rich yet' (I wish) and according to new research by the Adam Smith Institute and Onward, this country is developing a serious problem persuading young, well-educated Brits that they have a future here.
No fewer than 28 per cent of 18- to 30-year-olds are either actively planning a move overseas or seriously considering emigrating, according to the report The Prosperity Package.
That's very bad news.
At present, only about a third of British adults are net contributors to the Exchequer.
If the next generation of high earners are driven off by stagnant wages and a sky-high cost of living, that will only deepen our dependence on immigration.
It also raises important questions about our focus on 'net immigration'.
Yes, subtracting emigration gives a better picture of the raw numbers being added to our population – but it has perhaps made us too complacent about who is leaving.