Why ‘safe routes’ to asylum can’t work

I have never met Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, but I have not the least doubt that his heart is in the right place. And that’s the problem. In the current and coming furore about small boat crossings and what to do about them, too many who comment are concerned to show that their heart is in the right place. Too few appear ready to contemplate the natural rather than the hoped-for consequences of stopping the government’s plan to deport those who come here without permission to a third country like Rwanda.

The natural consequences, the natural direct consequences, are that hundreds more men, women and children will drown (or suffocate in lorries) in the years ahead. More than 300 have already done so since 2000. There is no good reason to suppose the British and French government’s attempts physically to block would-be migrants from embarking or landing can ever do more than constrict the flow, as they do now. Many will always get through, and some of these will perish in the attempt. If you oppose the government’s plans to send away those who land, then whether or not you know it you are advocating an indefinite continuation of migrant deaths. And that is cruel.

Let me explain. Mr Solomon (I use his name as a shorthand for the many liberal voices that have been raised in support of the Refugee Council’s argument) is sensible enough to have anticipated the response that his passionate denunciations of the government’s plans will prompt. ‘Well, what would you do?’ His answer has been clear and often repeated, and you’ll see or hear the gist of it from many good souls objecting to the deportation plans.