Why do very smart people so often do very stupid things? Possibly it is because they cannot see how their actions look to those not similarly bestowed with such cerebral gifts.
Yet when you are an elected politician, it is the average Joes who ultimately get to decide your fate. The latest case in point is Rishi Sunak’s decision to grant an effective amnesty to up to 54,000 migrants who entered the UK illegally before March 2023.
Yet another promise of jam tomorrow is meant to sweeten a meal of mud pie today. That simply won’t work
Unlawful arrivals after that date will in theory soon be subject to a standard removals regime once Sunak’s Illegal Migration Bill is on the statue book and the Rwanda scheme is up and running. But those illegal entrants who were already in the asylum queue between June 2022 and March 2023 are going to be allowed to proceed with their claims and if successful will be able to stay in the UK for five years, after which they can apply to settle permanently.
This unpicks a key provision of Priti Patel’s 2022 Nationality and Borders Act which stipulated that such migrants could only remain for 30 months and yet wouldn’t be able to apply for permanent settled status for 10 years. The government, therefore, will have passed a tough provision designed to deter illegal Channel migrants and then ditched it within a year, apparently in order to spare itself political embarrassment about the size of the asylum backlog.
Does Sunak really not see the problem with this? If the government has been seen to lack the political will to enforce previous tough measures then why would anyone believe it will have the political will to enforce a future tough measures, such as are contained in Sunak’s current legislation?
This loss of nerve could act as a fresh pull factor for potential new waves of Channel migrants willing to take a punt on the continued pusillanimous nature of the Tory party. Not only this, but it is also bound to enrage those many 2019 Conservative voters for whom lax immigration control is a top two political issue.
In effect they are being invited to swallow yet more retreat and surrender before any significant breakthrough has been achieved in respect of Sunak’s ‘stop the boats’ pledge. Had the Prime Minister already got his new legislation onto the statue book, confirmed the legality of the Rwanda scheme and started deporting Channel migrants in large numbers he might just have got away with an unpalatable concession to an earlier cohort.
But he has not yet achieved any of these things. Instead, yet another promise of jam tomorrow is meant to sweeten a meal of mud pie today. That simply won’t work.
Sunak appears to have been spooked by the idea that the very long backlog of asylum claims is what is truly bothering voters, rather than the openness of the system to wholesale abuse by would-be economic migrants and welfare tourists. In fact, it is probably a marginal plus for those of us who truly believe in ending the asylum racket that so many of those exploiting it are marooned in a seemingly never-ending limbo pending decisions on their claims. At least such a state is marginally uncomfortable rather than constituting yet another positive incentive for all-comers.
In the British context, clearing the asylum backlog is generally a euphemism for granting more people leave to remain. That means they get access to the British labour market and often the benefits system too. This is why it is generally left-wing politicians who don’t actually believe in strong border control who choose to focus on the backlog allegedly being the core of the asylum problem.
Sunak no doubt rationalises his new concession as being one way to reduce the vast use of hotel rooms to house illegal migrants. Those granted leave to remain and to work can be far more easily moved on to more permanent and less visible accommodation.
But his political antennae are once more being found wanting. He hasn’t yet grasped the real nettles. And what if his Illegal Migration Bill is diluted into nothingness by the House of Lords? Or what if the Court of Appeal decides aspects of the Rwanda project are unlawful and thus that it can’t proceed as envisaged?
All he will then have to present to voters who are already sceptical about his sincerity is another round of let downs, concessions and surrenders. As Tony Blair once chided John Major, this would be ‘weak, weak, weak’.
First stop the boats Prime Minister. And only then ask us to consider unappetising tidying-up exercises in respect of the damage already done.
Comments