Latest news with #asylumsystem
The Independent
01-08-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Has Labour made any progress at all on irregular migration?
T he number of people crossing the English Channel to claim asylum in small boats has reached a record high. More than ever – some 25,000 – have made the journey since the beginning of the year, and, if this continues, we will see the highest annual total since records began in 2018. A year ago, Labour pledged to 'smash the gangs' and to 'turn the page and restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly, and fairly'. There has been some progress, but it's fair to say that many feel impatient. Is it really that many? Yes and no. The 25,000 or so who've arrived on the south coast so far this year mean that the number is up by 51 per cent on this point in 2024 (16,842) and 73 per cent higher than at the same point in 2023 (14,732). So the country is well on course to exceed the figure of 37,000 who arrived by these irregular means last year, and the 46,000 in 2021, the prior record. On the other hand, it is far lower than the number of migrants arriving on a visa, entirely lawfully – some 431,000 net (938,000 gross, both figures including students) – and has to be set in the context of the UK's total population of 69 million. The number of irregular migrants last year was equal to the population of Guildford. On balance, it is still the case that migration of all kinds into the UK has been running at historically high levels for some years. Why so high? In terms of the big picture, on total migration, it is simply that the UK suffers from chronic labour and skills shortages – there aren't sufficient young people to replace retirees, so that means there are not enough workers. In addition, there are not enough with the right skills and in locations where demand is high, while those who do have the skills required are not always willing to do the jobs that are available at current wage rates. In the case of asylum seekers, the recent run of calm weather has certainly pushed the flows higher, and there is no shortage of civil wars and collapsing societies that are pushing them towards the UK. The stories about the Afghan refugees that made headlines in July are an extreme example of a wider phenomenon. There are lots of perfectly genuine refugees, in other words, as well as those who just want a better life. Has the government smashed the gangs? Evidently not, and certainly not to the extent required to stop the boats, but the authorities have been given the 'counterterrorism-style powers' and resources that Keir Starmer promised them. At best, it will take time. What about the returns policy? The one-in, one-out deal with France would reduce irregular migration, but it would have no net impact on the overall numbers. It's also relatively small – initially 50 a week, as opposed to the 898 who arrived last Wednesday alone. What happened to 'safe and secure routes'? This idea was quietly dropped by Labour in the months before the election because it wouldn't actually get the numbers down, which is what it's all supposed to be about. Clearing the backlog? Again, it will take time. There were a large number of unprocessed asylum seekers who were due to be deported to Rwanda and were being kept in limbo in hotels, and the number still arriving is such that it's like trying to empty a bath while the taps are running. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, says she has taken on more people to process claims, and some have been returned, either by force (8,590 in the year to March) or voluntarily (26,388 in the same period). International obligations and domestic law, as well as humanitarian considerations, require that all claims be assessed, and again, it will necessarily take time if so many have been left unchecked for so long. Even summary deportation is problematic, and this can also take time if the country of origin refuses entry and there are no third countries available to accept someone. Why don't we use the Royal Navy to tow them back to France? It's not what the navy is for, but also the risk to life is great, and the number of small boats would make the task impossible. British warships or Border Force vessels cannot enter French sovereign waters without permission, and the French government would retaliate. The Royal Australian Navy did take migrants into international waters, but this isn't applicable in the narrow English Channel, so that's not practical either. Why use hotels? Simply because there's nowhere else to put them, and accommodating them in tents in fields, as suggested by the Reform mayor of Lincolnshire, Andrea Jenkyns, would cause even more problems. Hotels are unpopular for understandable reasons, but so is paying to rent private houses, especially as homes of multiple occupation, or using much-needed social housing. Cooper has also promised to end the use of hotels, with the one in Epping that's been the subject of protests now an 'urgent priority'. What do the public think? Concern about immigration of all kinds has been growing, and when the small-boat figures go up, or when there are high-profile incidents involving migrant hotels, as now, the salience of the issue trends to increase in the opinion polls. The most obvious sign of dissatisfaction is the rise in support for Reform UK, even though its solutions – leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, 'sending them back to France', 'turning them back' or sending them to some unnamed third country – haven't necessarily been fully thought through. Indeed, they could make matters worse by encouraging the small boats to make undetected landings rather than surrendering to Border Force and making a claim. This increases the likelihood that these refugees would then end up in the hands of gang masters in the illegal economy, and living in slums, adding to crime. And if the boats were ever stopped, there are other routes, such as overstaying a visa. After all, the small boats only became the preferred method after the Channel authorities made the ports and lorries secure, and then the pandemic – plus Brexit – also made smuggling in vehicles, previously a popular tactic, almost impossible. What no party fully admits is that irregular migration is such an intractable problem that if it were as easy to solve it as is so often claimed, it would by now be a thing of the past. The solution would probably involve using every possible policy lever tried so far, and also introducing identity cards to prevent illegal working – a far bigger 'pull factor' than the welfare system. Another idea would be to allow the immigrants to relieve Britain's labour shortage, which includes unskilled work, thus boosting economic growth and tax revenues. Why not?
Telegraph
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Smoke bombs and bottles thrown at police during migrant hotel protest
Bottles and pink smoke bombs have been hurled at police during a protest outside a migrant hotel in Essex. On Sunday night, scores of police officers stood by in riot gear as the crowd gathered in the early evening outside The Bell Hotel in Epping, which was protected by a line of police vans and six-foot-high fencing. The protest was the third outside the hotel in the last week following the arrest of an Ethiopian migrant who was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. On Thursday evening, eight officers were injured and police vehicles were damaged as a demonstration at the hotel spilt over into violence. The mood of the protest on Sunday was largely peaceful at first, with several people in the crowd draped in Union flags while others carried placards, including one that read: 'You are paying billions to prop up a broken asylum system! Look after our own.' Some marched down the road carrying an England flag emblazoned with the words, 'Save Our Kids', while others in the crowd called for protests to be held weekly until the hotel closed. There were intermittent chants of 'Keir Starmer's a w----r' and 'Whose streets? Our streets', from people in the crowd, which included men, women and children. Events turned uglier as several glass bottles were thrown and shattered on the ground in front of police. At least one pink smoke bomb appeared to land on top of a police van. Essex Police had announced a Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 banning anyone from wearing a face covering at the protest tonight, and saying they risked arrest if they did. Several members of the crowd flouted the order by wearing balaclavas or scarves pulled across their faces with hoodies over their heads, but police did not appear to confront them. Essex Police admitted that 'one individual' had been arrested in Epping and taken into custody, but no details were given. Much of the anger at the protest on Thursday was directed against a group of anti-racism protesters who marched through the town towards the hotel. Members of the crowd hurled objects, including plastic bottles, eggs and a flour bomb, at the group as officers formed a protective cordon around them, and police vehicles were attacked. But no rival protesters turned up on Sunday night, removing the risk of a potential flashpoint, and it appeared to pass off more peacefully. An Essex Police spokesman said: 'We have a full policing plan in place to ensure the safety of everyone who is attending. 'To protect the public, this evening we have put a power in place to require the removal of face coverings (under section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994). 'If you are planning to protest peacefully about issues which are important to you and your community, then this is entirely lawful. 'However, on Thursday night, we unfortunately saw incidents of violence and aggression which have no place on our streets.' They added: 'We will deal robustly and quickly with anyone intent on coming into Epping to commit selfish criminal behaviour. 'We will police impartially, without fear or favour, and have legal responsibilities to protect those who want to exercise their rights peacefully, and we cannot prevent, hinder or restrict peaceful assembly. 'The right to peaceful protest is protected by law and allows everyone freedom of expression, but this must be done respectfully, and if there is a risk to public order, we will act appropriately. 'Thursday's protest saw people wearing face coverings and committing serious acts of disorder. 'Anyone who refuses to remove a face covering when required to do so is likely to be arrested and, if convicted, could face imprisonment.'
