Detain and deport
Labour has been trumpeting the number of removals since they came into office; some 9,400, of whom around 2,600 were forced removals. The rest, we can only assume, were voluntary returns, of whom there were 609 Brazilians, including 109 children. The Brazilians, we gather, were given £3,000 each, including babies and children, to be flown home. That’s £1.82 million. The government haven’t said how many of the other voluntary returns were given £3,000 to go quietly and not make a fuss. 7,000 at £3,000 each comes to a cool £21 million. Add to this the estimated cost of around £12 million for the thirty or so charter flights used to effect removal and we find that Sir Keir Starmer’s government have cost the taxpayer some £33 million to remove about 9,400 migrants with no right to be here.
And still the boats come, while more hotel space has been reserved. We might add that flights so far have been to safe countries like Albania, Romania, Brazil and Vietnam. Nevertheless, we mustn’t be churlish and welcome the increase in removals and deportations, which are essential for deterring illegal migration and restoring public confidence in border control. They send a clear message: if you come here illegally, or overstay your leave, you’ll be sent back.
Returns and deportations to safe countries are all very well but what about those coming from conflict zones or repressive regimes – countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Sudan or Somalia? Fact is that human rights laws can be used to thwart removal. Even those whose asylum applications are rejected get to stay because they can’ be sent to their country of origin or anywhere else. That’s why ditching the Rwanda plan was so shortsighted and foolish.
Deporting migrants to safe countries or persuading them to leave by crossing their palm with silver is the easy part. The real challenge lies in tackling the structural weaknesses that make the UK an attractive destination for illegal crossings in the first place. And here it is already clear that the Starmer administration is no more capable of tackling the problem than their predecessors. If anything, they’re worse.
Sir Keir Starmer claims he has a plan, to stop illegal migration, although what that plan is, is anyone’s guess. As we wrote last week, “smash the gangs” is a slogan, not a policy. The asylum backlog ballooned under the Tories. Labour’s approach will make it worse. As we keep saying, the traffickers know full well that once their clients are on the water, they’re home and dry. And that’s why the boats will keep coming, the hotels will remain full and why the traffickers will go on getting richer.
Even with Labour’s increases in deportations, the UK’s legal framework remains a significant barrier to removing illegal migrants. The Human Rights Act, in particular, acts as a lifeline for those who fail their asylum claims. Appeals drag on for months, sometimes years, as migrants cite Article 8 (the right to private and family life) or Article 3 (protection from inhumane treatment) to block deportation.
Time and again, these legal challenges succeed, creating a merry-go-round that prevents meaningful enforcement of immigration rules. Labour, despite its rhetoric, has shown no inclination to reform or repeal the Human Rights Act, a cornerstone of the system that allows illegal migrants to stay. Until they address this, their claims of getting tough on illegal migration will ring hollow.
Smashing the gangs
Labour wants to “smash the gangs”. They’ve set up a new Border Security Command, bringing together Immigration Enforcement, the National Crime Agency, and MI5, with the aim of treating smugglers like terrorists. On paper, it sounds decisive. In practice, it’s unlikely to work.
Smuggling networks aren’t like tightly knit terror cells. They’re loose, decentralised, and highly adaptable. Arrest one group, and another takes its place. Most of those prosecuted for steering small boats aren’t gang masterminds – they’re migrants themselves, coerced into piloting the dinghies in exchange for a cheaper crossing.
Labour’s plan also suffers from a glaring sense of déjà vu. Similar approaches have been tried before. Boris Johnson’s government launched the Clandestine Channel Threat Command, and international efforts like Project Invigor have coordinated intelligence-sharing and arrests across borders. None of them stopped the boats. Smuggling is a game of “whack-a-mole,” and Labour’s strategy is just another swing of the mallet.
No cap, no control
If Labour’s handling of illegal migration is weak, their stance on legal migration is even weaker. Sir Keir Starmer and his team have flatly rejected the idea of visa caps, dismissing them as “arbitrary.” Caps are about control. The PM and his ministers keep saying the Tories tried a cap for 14 years and it didn’t work. In fact, the only cap they put in place was to limit high-skill visas for non-EU nationals to 20,700 for a few years from 2011. This actually worked very well.
Caps serve as a vital shield against the constant lobbying from businesses, universities, and advocacy groups, all of whom want to keep the borders as open as possible. Without caps, immigration becomes a free-for-all, with different sectors pushing for exceptions to suit their own interests.
The level of migration we now have is driving an unprecedented population explosion. Limiting immigration has become an absolute imperative. A cap, enshrined in legislation, and tighter rules to ensure that migrants leave when they’re supposed to. In other words, zero net migration (i.e. balanced migration) is the only way to do it. Millions of people added to the population every few years, and the lightning pace of the resulting change to the nature of our society that follows, is a tightening noose around our neck. It’s time to end the madness, before it destroys us.
This article (Detain and deport) was created and published by Migration Watch UK and is republished here under “Fair Use”
Featured image: Steve Finn Photography
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply