‘Show Syd the ‘fugee face’
Deportation, policing and extremism
DOMINIC ADLER
‘Show Syd the ‘fugee face’ is a line from the 2006 film Children of Men (2006). Set in a dystopian 2027, the seaside town of Bexhill has become a brutal refugee camp run by jihadists. Immigration officer Syd, played by Peter Mullen, agrees to smuggle the story’s protagonists inside. To play the part, he tells them to make ‘the ‘fugee face.’ A ‘sad face.’ Inside the camp, left-wing extremists whip up the refugees into declaring an intifada. Then the army arrives….
Children of Men is hardly an intelligence assessment, but some story elements feel uncomfortably close. Consider 2026, which as I write is only two months old. America is forcing regime change in Iran. English politics flirts shamelessly with sectarianism. In return, the political right demands action. Meanwhile, our courts appear unwilling to convict activists who attack police officers with sledgehammers. On video they filmed themselves. The Home Office even considers being sceptical about immigration a form of domestic extremism.
This is the context in which I read this (paywalled) interview with Robert Jenrick in The Sunday Telegraph. Annabel Denham asks Jenrick about Reform’s strategy to deport illegal immigrants, arguably its centerpiece policy:
But, bearing in mind how many voters in Gorton and Denton supported a party that railed against Reform’s position on immigration, will it not be very difficult to deport large numbers of people from such places without massive civil unrest?
Jenrick replies:
“We’ve got no choice. It will require a tough approach but without it we won’t restore control to our borders.”
A tough approach, Robert? Oh my sweet summer child! Areas like Gorton and Denton risk becoming miniature versions of Children of Men’s Bexhill.
In another life, I investigated criminal and public order risks linked to domestic extremism. So I thought I’d write about the issues around policing a large-scale campaign to forcibly deport illegal immigrants. Britain is a house divided: I will argue not only that politicians massively underestimate the challenge, but that immigration as an issue might potentially prompt a resurgence of Seventies-style domestic terrorism.
Any strategy must anticipate and mitigate such a possibility.
The Red Army Faction. Let’s not end up there again, eh?
I’ve previously written on matters salient to immigration. You can read my stuff on Keir Starmer’s small boats crisis here. My thoughts on David Betz’s civil war theory are here. I’ve also written on the challenges of policing a multiracial capital city.
Right, here we go.
The Plan
It’s 2029. A right-of-centre coalition government, led by populists, wins a working Parliamentary majority. Shrewdly, it doesn’t promise how many illegal immigrants it intends to deport – after all, nobody knows how many there are. Figures range from 740,000 to 1.5 million. The new government does, however, insist there will be a ‘significant and noticeable reduction’ in the number of illegal immigrants and removals of failed asylum seekers – an online trawl suggests there are roughly 200,000 asylum seekers in the UK. Although some cases will be legitimate, the UK’s assumed withdrawal from the ECHR should increase overall deportation figures.
The new immigration policy would turn on three operational strands: TRACK, DETAIN and DEPORT. All three pose considerable challenges for law enforcement – not to mention an abundance of opportunities for opposing activist groups. It should be noted, as currently constituted, our law enforcement and criminal justice infrastructure isn’t remotely prepared for such operations.
Of course, should a left-wing coalition including the Green Party win in 2029, the point is moot. I might write about what this would look like – an open borders, laissez-faire immigration policy would invite activism too, albeit from the Right. Incidentally, the UK isn’t prepared for dealing with that, either.
The Cause
Immigration is an ideal issue for rousing the Omnicause, that coalition of activists existing under a far-Left / Trans / Green / pro-Palestine / anti-racist and, increasingly, Islamist umbrella. And, of course, Immigration is a topic uniting the ideologically inconsistent ‘Green and Red’ alliance of leftists and Islamists, putting off the day they’re forced to acknowledge their (existential) differences.
Unlike the radical / far-Right, the Omnicause traditionally attracts educated, politically-active, middle-class people. They’re adept at organising, fundraising and publicising their causes – in modern Britain the squeakiest wheels receive most oil. They have influential supporters in mainstream politics, the civil service and judiciary. Furthermore, police forces have been institutionally captured by Omnicausers or the Omnicause-adjacent.
This bloc, and its fellow travellers, will be energised by the emergence of a right-wing populist government. Remember – the Omnicauser, in his / her / their dreams, exists in a permanent state of righteous, near-adolescent rebellion. Now isn’t the time for a screed on quasi-Marxist theory, but they genuinely live for this stuff. More than a few of them never grow out of it. Look at Zara Sultana.
This new coalition also presents a fresh challenge for law enforcement – this time, the Omnicause has a potential direct-activist base beyond ‘Antifa’, custard-spreaders and the retired-vicars-from-Berkshire types it usually relies on for arrest-fodder. Now, the Omnicause has these guys onside too, adding a complicating dynamic for police chiefs increasingly in thrall to activist local politicians:
Muslim men march against UKIP in east London, 2025. Disorder in Britain’s multiracial enclaves remains, for successive governments, the elephant in the room
Tactics
Consider three core elements of our notional deportation strategy:
TRACK: Identifying illegal immigrants. Setting aside the operational challenges involving tracing upwards of 700,000 people, this activity offers ample opportunity for activists seeking to disrupt investigation efforts. Direct action tactics might involve harassing / obstructing government employees conducting interviews or interventions. They should expect to be personally identified and ‘doxxed’ on social media. In extreme cases, assaults might occur – either targeted or due to ‘scuffles’ by activists looking to push the acceptability envelope.
In short? Staff working in this field must be fairly protected. The objective will be to embarrass, shame and humiliate individuals working on any facet of immigration enforcement. The Animal Rights and Pro-Palestine movements offer ample evidence of what such activities might look like.
DETAIN: Arrest operations. I would expect activists to develop contacts inside those bodies involved in immigration operations, receiving tip-offs concerning upcoming raids. Some have already drawn comparisons with heavy-handed ICE operations in the USA – these, to my mind, are well wide of the mark. Nonetheless, detaining people is coercive. Coercion is ugly. Arrest operations risk becoming circuses, with dedicated activists using social media to mobilise flash-mob style protests.
There’s no easy solution for law enforcement, beyond tight operational security and a timely, proportionate public order response by police facilitating Border Force activity.
DEPORT: Residential centres will be required for those awaiting deportation. These facilities may be targeted by protest camps, possibly inspired by the Nineties protest scene. There will be break-ins and vandalism. Contractors and third parties linked to business functions supporting immigration centres will be targeted, in much the same way activists have penetrated animal research facilities or defence industry sites.
Such protest activity can be mitigated by enhanced physical security, robust policing and preemptive legal measures preventing protest camps being established in the first place. Oh, and perhaps by someone having a word with our increasingly activist judges about their increasingly maximalist interpretations of the law.
Then, of course, there are the usual demonstrations / marches beloved by Omnicausers. In any case, any mass deportation effort by a new government will invite protest tactics I would describe as the Miners’ Strike, meets the occasional Poll Tax riot with a dash of Swampy-style tunnel-digging. I’m sure the new-model police forces posited by the Home Office will be more than capable of managing such protests. Right?
Escalation
A subset of activists will desire escalation. Of course they will. They’ll dance around the margins of legality, usually by attempting to goad law police and officials into ‘overreacting’ – their complaints amplified by social media, ‘legal monitors’ and supported by activist lawyers. The State then risks what I’m going to call a degradation of severity, such as occurred after the proscription of Palestine Action. This saw de facto Terrorist Act offences, for logistical reasons, treated like parking tickets.
Then there’s the end-point of escalation – political violence, public disorder and terrorism. Cellular activist networks will coalesce. They will be difficult to track and penetrate. They will do everything in their power to cultivate folk-hero status. In the meanwhile, our hopelessly compartmentalized counter-extremism / terrorism policing model needs to change. So will official messaging and communications – many of these activists are bad faith actors. Open borders fundamentalism is a niche political fetish. It should be called out at every opportunity.
Policing
Right, that was the good news. The bad? The police, as we saw during the disturbances prompted by the Southport stabbings, struggle to contain wide-scale disorder. In some cases they’ve become partial to minority communities, effectively allowing them to ‘self-police.’ They’ve allowed their intelligence-gathering capabilities to degrade, especially at the local level. Poorly-funded, understaffed and inexperienced police officers will face unprecedented public order challenges, challenges for which they are ill-equipped.
I have no doubt any incoming government will expect the police, as if by magic, to adapt quickly to their demands. Perhaps policymakers should examine Margaret Thatcher’s plans for the NUM upon taking office. She knew a confrontation was inevitable. She won the police over, via the Edmund-Davis reforms. Then, when she was ready, Thatcher took action. Despite this, the Miners’ Strike was still ugly. Imagine what an over-ambitious, poorly-policed mass deportation strategy would look like?
These are the obstacles facing a future government. And Labour has another three years to salt the fields, placing legislative landmines for any incoming right-of-centre administration – I expect Shabana Mahmood’s immigration reforms will be significantly watered-down in the post-McSweeney Labour party.
Come 2029, would an incoming government display Thatcher’s perspicacity, patience and guile? Or will they demand immediate action, sensitive to the public demand for change? In any case, the challenges are clear. The risks are real. The tools to manage them are poor. Politicians, wonks and legislators – over to you. It’s why you’re paid the big bucks, right?
Either that, or we’ll all end up Syd’s ‘fugee faces. Sad faces, with the army called to Bexhill.
This article (‘Show Syd the ‘fugee face’) was created and published by Dominic Adler and is republished here under “Fair Use”
Featured image: The Children of Men
Leave a Reply