The unprecedented levels of asylum seekers coming across the English Channel on small boats have shocked the country. The vast numbers are only increasing, on an almost daily basis, even in bad weather. Wider legal immigration is damaging our society, but this issue genuinely compromises security and makes a mockery of our system, undermining our very status as a sovereign country. What’s more it is unfair on genuine refugees and legal migrants who have done things by the book.
It seems almost trite to discuss the issue now. Furious comment on the situation, in the face of incompetence, hollow promises and the seemingly blasé attitude of our establishment seems akin to King Canute’s mythical maritime campaign. Instead of complaining grumpily, we need to be very clear about four things. Firstly, how do we define terms? Secondly, how did we get here? Thirdly, what are the UK’s obligations? Lastly, how do we solve the problem? These are things we must identify, and convey in a cool and reasonable manner to anyone who will listen.
Terms
What do we call these unsolicited visitors to our shores? ‘Illegal immigrants’ is a common phrase, and their mass crossing is often referred to as an ‘invasion’. Both of these things may well be partly accurate, but these emotive terms invite the mainstream left and the open borders brigade to hit back with ‘ackchurleys’, as the online meme has it. To be precise we must call the interlopers ‘asylum seekers’ or ‘asylum claimants’. That assumes neither genuine nor fake.
On the other side of the argument, ‘refugee’ is often used, but this is wrong because it implies they are genuine before due process. The more neutral ‘migrant’ or ‘irregular migrant’ meanwhile does cover both possibilities, but because the term can also apply to conventional immigrants it perhaps legitimises the new arrivals. Some might say using ‘asylum seeker’ or ‘asylum claimant’ affords them legitimacy as well, but it is more specific.
Even though we believe the vast majority are chancers coming for economic reasons, we should remember that the official figures claim otherwise, and of course some will not be chancers. The current international framework does stipulate – with some caveats - if someone claims asylum upon entering a country, the country has to take them in while their claim is assessed. Technically anyone who does so is an asylum claimant - even though logic would say if they are lying it is an act of illegal immigration.
That’s what makes this saga so galling. Simply by the utterance of the three words ‘I claim asylum’, the system seemingly has to open up for these individuals. Common sense does not have a part in it. If someone is not from a country at war, or even from an especially repressive country, they must be considered as if they are. Even though we know many of these claimants coming by dinghy are from peaceful Albania, often with links to criminal gangs, we are asked to accept the unbelievable. Can this many Albanians be genuinely in physical danger from their own government? It doesn’t matter – it is ‘their truth’. It is the border enforcement equivalent of self-ID for gender reassignment. You can understand why people are furious and demoralised by this. Yet it is the international framework as it stands, and we have to engage with it as such. The key is to advocate changing how we apply that framework, and changing our laws to be able to do that.
Incidentally, some of the people coming in on dinghies or lorries just disappear into the broad daylight. If they are not intercepted or do not approach the authorities and claim asylum, then we can justifiably call them ‘illegal immigrants’. Of course if they are later caught, they might claim asylum and say they didn’t come forward because they were scared of being sent back. This of course may work, and indeed it often does. The same goes for those who simply overstay on visas, and thanks to our inefficient system are not detected. Those are illegal immigrants, although again they can always play the asylum card later.
Another line our side understandably repeats is ‘there’s no war in France’ or that there’s no war in these peoples’ countries of origin. The former is true, and the latter is often true. However, it again invites the ‘ackchurleys’. A claim of asylum or refugee status can be based on fleeing war or persecution – especially that involving a threat of death or torture. Indeed a British citizen could claim asylum in another country, although it is debatable how seriously they’d be taken. We need to realise it is not just a question of if there is a war or not, although clearly it should be a consideration – as common sense tells us war will be the biggest cause of refugees. We also need to realise that international law does not, as is often claimed, oblige an asylum seeker to present themselves to the first country they come to. In the EU and EEA, technically the Dublin Agreement obliges this, although it is poorly enforced (more on this later). We know our logic is generally sound, but yet again the law doesn’t respond to this logic.
How Did We Get Here?
Before we examine the international framework, let us examine why we are facing the asylum crisis. In the post-WW2 period, very few people were making such claims in the UK, not tens of thousands like today. It was the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s that saw a rise in asylum claims. People took their chance at a life in the West after the restrictions of the Communists, and there was political turbulence in post-Eastern Bloc Europe. Asylum applications to the UK increased by about a third in 1989, rocketing by 1991 when the Gulf War added to the number. The crumbling Yugoslavia bloc caused the most displacement, as the conflicts involving Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and others raged. Then came the Kosovan conflict in which NATO intervened. By 1999 applications had soared higher still, peaking in 2002. Then there was a lower but steady rate following the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Asylum claims can be shared by family members, meaning there is a number of claims, and a larger total number of people on top of that. If you take the total number for 2022 (89,938), it surpasses the number of claims in 2002 (84,132). These, then, are the highest asylum numbers ever, and there is no sign of them letting up.
Another event that made ‘asylum seeking’ rise in Europe was the Arab spring in 2011 and the rise of ISIS in 2014. As well as displacing people from Tunisia, Syria and Egypt, there was also a revolution in Libya, which gave the ‘justification’ for the West’s military action against Colonel Gaddafi. The tyrant’s removal stopped Libya from being a strong barrier against African asylum seekers. Indeed the West had been paying Gaddafi and leaders of other nations to contain them. Then came the ISIS onslaught. This displaced many Syrians and Iraqis, who were fleeing the most disgusting violence imaginable. The West did have some moral duty to them, but in the high numbers that came, this became an impossible order. It also became difficult to determine who was and wasn’t fleeing ISIS, because asylum seekers who were not Syrian or Iraqi realised they could destroy the documents that would prove this. Indeed, it was difficult to determine who was and wasn’t an ISIS or Al-Qaeda fighter, and both groups boasted they were using the crisis for infiltration.
In 2015, Angela Merkel made the fateful decision to invite the masses of asylum seekers into Germany, and by extension the whole EU and continent of Europe. Over a million are thought to have made the journey. In the UK we looked in amazement as this happened. We saw the huge terror attacks in Paris, partly perpetrated by gunmen and bombers who, true to the jihadists’ promises, had entered using the cover of asylum seekers. We also saw the mass sexual assaults of women on New Year’s Eve in Cologne. “How could Merkel have allowed this?” many of us thought. Some migrants came across the Channel and through the tunnel, but not that many, and our government sagely would not commit to the EU ‘refugee’ quota. In 2016 the situation was a big factor in the public’s decision to leave the EU. Later we would reject Jeremy Corbyn twice in General Elections, partly because we feared how he might handle such matters. Many of us felt we’d had a lucky escape, but in a few years’ time we wouldn’t feel so smug.
The Covid 19 pandemic saw the Western authorities hugely distracted, which meant it was easier for asylum seekers, and the people smugglers who traffic them, to come across borders and make sea crossings. All over the continent, our freedoms of movement were being curtailed for nearly two years, but asylum seekers were the one group who were seemingly exempt. It was Nigel Farage, followed by GB News, who shone the spotlight on the increasingly serious situation. It is still hardly touched by the mainstream media, and when it is, the bias is clearly in the asylum seekers’ favour.
It is also claimed Brexit is a factor in the increased numbers, because while we were in the EU up until December 30th 2020, we were covered by the Dublin Agreement. Under this, the first member state an asylum seeker arrives in is supposed to process that individual’s asylum claim. However, this means the responsibility is overwhelmingly on countries bordered by non-EU territory, such as Greece and Italy. Understandably, these nations do not want to have this burden, so they tend not to do it. Also when the numbers coming are massive, it is impractical to do. Of course, the asylum seekers don’t want to be detained close to the border either, so they avoid making their claims in these countries.
Under the agreement, if member states identify which EU country an asylum seeker was first processed and fingerprinted in, they can make a request to return them there. This only applies for one year after the crossing was made. The proportion of requests that are granted is very low. Looking at 2019’s data for 29 members of the scheme (this includes the EEA countries) just over 16% of outgoing requests were approved. The UK made 3258 requests, 263 of which were granted (just over 8%). We actually ended up with more asylum seekers being ‘returned’ to us than we sent back (714 versus 2236).
2018 was worse for the UK. Just 4% of our requests were granted, compared to 63% of incoming requests being approved. We sent back 209, but had to take in 1215 – over five times the number. For 21 member states, the average request approval was 25%. In 2017, just under 5% of the UK’s requests were granted, and we sent out 314 asylum seekers in exchange for taking in 461. In 2020, just over 1% of our requests were approved. We sent out 105 people but took in in 882 – over eight times as much.
The boat crossings, virtually non-existent before 2018, have certainly coincided with the Brexit period – rising drastically after we left. In fairness it could be that the Dublin Agreement was acting as a deterrent, even if it was not especially effective. People smugglers and migrant-friendly NGOs may have noticed that Britain did not negotiate any asylum seeker returns policy, bilateral or multilateral, when it left. That may have encouraged them. Equally it could just be that smugglers and asylum claimants saw others succeeding at making the crossing, saw Britain weakly handling it, and simply followed the trend. Likewise they might have reacted to the very public struggle of the government to take effective measures, with the liberal establishment stalling at every turn. The closure of ‘The Jungle’ camp in Calais may also have been a factor, because migrants were more contained there, and the pace of attempts was slowed. Regardless of the main cause, return agreements are needed, and in the penultimate chapter I will certainly be recommending the pursuit of them.
One aspect that has changed in the last twenty years and exacerbated irregular migration is communications and social media. Mobile phones and the dark web have made it much easier for asylum seekers and smugglers (and allegedly NGOs) to coordinate in their efforts. Social media, be it Twitter, Facebook or Instagram, has let word of mouth spread, and advertised (sometimes literally) the ease and the rewards of coming. It’s also made the public much more aware of what goes on. Some register their concerns, while others celebrate and agitate for more claimants to come. Potentially it also makes the migrant movements easier to track – although that requires the resolve and manpower of the state.
Let’s remind ourselves how many asylum seekers have come, and how many on small boats, rather than through other methods. In the UK 74,751 asylum claims were made in 2022 (concerning 89,938 people). In 2021 we had the fourth highest number of asylum claims in Europe, with 56,495. This was below Germany (148,233), France (121,233) and Spain (65,404). Out of 21 EU countries and the UK, the average was 29,926.
In 2022 the number of small boat arrivals hit 45,746. It was 28,526 in 2021 – so has almost doubled. The full number for 2023 is projected to reach 80,000. In 2018, 299 people came. In 2019 it was 1,842, and in 2020 it was 8,466. The highest amount to come in one day was 1,295 on 22nd August 2022.
Boat crossers make up an increasingly large proportion of asylum claims. In 2022, they made up 51.2% of claims (61.2% including family members processed on the same claim). In 2021 they made up 50.5% (58.8%). In 2020 they comprised 23.4% (28.7 %). In 2019 they amounted to 5.2% of claims, and in 2018 they comprised 1%. Bizarrely 10% of people that came in 2022 didn’t even have the presence of mind to claim asylum!
Let’s look at nationality (or at least, claimed nationality). In 2021, 30% were Iranians, 22% were Iraqis, 10% were Eritreans, 9% were Syrians and 5% were Afghans. In 2022 (first 9 months), 35% were Albanians, 15% were Afghans, 11% were Iranians and 10% were Iraqi.
Breaking down by sex, much is made by our side of the fact that most boat crossers are male. In 2022, the men totalled 20,250, whereas the women numbered 2,500. For children, there were around 5000 boys and 1000 girls. In other words over 70% of them are adult men.
There is plenty of justification attempted for this by the pro-asylum voices. Some say the strong young men are the ones best suited to making the crossing, and the intention is to send for their families later. They are painted as noble and outgoing providers, rather than cowards or adventurers who have left their families behind. You might accept that some of them fit the former description, but it seems unlikely that all of them do. Others say they intend to send money home to help their families – probably true, but this suggests their motives are economic, not out of necessity. Another argument is that young men are most likely to be oppressed, because they are more likely to be mixed up in dissident politics and be seen as a threat by a regime. That may be so – but look at Iran, it seems women are currently just as much (if not more) at risk of political persecution. The same goes for Afghanistan. Also, maybe we should ask what sort of dissident politics brought the young men here? The armed guerrilla variety? The type we should worry about?
Another statistic frequently trotted out is that a high percentage of asylum applications are approved by the government (usually 70-85% is quoted), which proves most asylum claimants are genuine. This is hardly convincing. Firstly, 15-30% is still a high number of bogus claimants. Secondly, do we trust the claims have been properly scrutinised? Or do the government consider it not worth rejecting an application because of the legal costs and effort that an appeal will bring? Perhaps it is simply taking these claims on the chin, as it would an increase of the deficit or an energy bill bailout.
Confusion is sometimes caused by the fact there is an initial decision stage, and often the rejections are appealed. Claims can be initially rejected, then approved, so any figures quoted should really take this into account. Between 2004 and 2021, three quarters of rejections were appealed, and a third of those rejections were then reversed. There was an initial approval rate of about 65% in 2021 and 76% in 2022. In 2004 it was 12%. The average initial approval rate between 2011 and 2021 was 66% per year. For applications (with known outcomes) between 2017 and 2019, 44% were initially granted. Another 44% of appeals were then granted, meaning the total number of successful applications went up to 59%.
In 2021 we had the fourth highest asylum approval rate in Europe. Switzerland, strangely for a country considered quite hawkish on such matters, had 90%. The Netherlands had over 70%, and both Austria and the UK had about 65%. Below us are Italy (50%), Germany, Belgium and Greece (about 45%), Sweden and Spain (30%) and France (about 25%). With Albanian claims, the UK is approving way more applications than our European neighbours. In 2021 Albanians had a 45% chance of being accepted. It was 0% in some of the EU and the EU average was 2%.
Next part tomorrow: what are the UK’s obligations?