This past weekend, hundreds of illegal immigrants made the treacherous crossing from France to the United Kingdom, across the Channel. But how has this come to pass? We are an island nation; it should be relatively straightforward to limit illegal movement from the Continent to our nation. If Australia can intercept and control attempts to enter illegally, with a far greater area of ocean to cover, so too should we be able to patrol the Channel.
I would not wish to suggest that France actively encourages migrants it does not want to deal with to travel to the UK. France is our friend, ally and partner in NATO and the UN as well as other international endeavours. It would make little sense for them to risk friendly relations with an important trading partner over this issue. Therefore, I am sure there must be a reasonable explanation for their ‘request’ of £30m support to help them deal with the migrant crisis at their end. After all, it should be recognisable that it is every country’s duty to uphold international norms and the sovereignty of national borders and to not seek profit out of their own shortcomings. If France is requesting that the UK pays for French border security, there must surely be a good reason – even if this is incomprehensible to me.
If the Government does not follow through on its rhetoric of control, of understanding the concerns of the British people and realising the Brexit goal of a sovereign maritime nation with full control of its laws, money, borders and seas, this Government will have failed the mandate that it received in 2019. The Conservative manifesto pledged to control illegal immigration and deliver Brexit. Thus far, neither have been achieved and if this crisis is not resolved it does not bode especially well for the terms of Brexit at the end of the year.
I hold no truck with any argument that these people are genuine asylum seekers. Genuine asylum seekers are those who claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. To get to the shores of the Channel and then attempt to cross requires immigrants to have travelled across the European Union and the various countries therein.
Our continued failure to clamp down on this problem only exacerbates the issue and further encourages people to take this risk. Moreover, it emboldens the people traffickers and gangs that have a near monopoly on illegal immigration. A refusal to take decisive action or refusing to support that action is no less than a willing acceptance and approval of criminal gangs and people smugglers.
It is my firm belief that one of the best ways to solve this problem is to expand the coastguard, which we should be doing anyway as a soon-to-be sovereign coastal nation with an independent trade policy, and creating within it a dedicated taskforce dedicated to catching and returning illegal immigrants to the country from which they departed, no doubt this will mainly be France.
Of course, this is would only be one part of a rigorous policy on illegal Channel crossings. Another part would be a vigorous pursuit of those who are facilitating and exploiting the migrants who seek to enter the United Kingdom. Such an operation would require international cooperation to be truly effective, but as long as our investigations are tolerated, and our evidence and arrest requests are truly respected we can make a significant difference.
Currently, the UK is perceived as ‘soft’ compared to many other nations when it comes to immigration, particularly that of illegal immigration. If we can change that image through a hard but fair approach to crossings – we can make a difference and stop people making the hazardous attempt to reach the UK.