At least 27 people drowned in the Channel this week attempting to reach the United Kingdom. I say “at least,” because it is hard to count the bodies after they drift away in the darkness. And we do not know how many others attempted the same crossing from a different beach.
Until 2018, it was very rare for refugees to cross the Channel in small boats. With increased security measures making entry by lorry harder and harder, a few tried it and found it worked. With no palpable response from the British or French governments beyond harsh words, others followed in their wakes. At first, the small boat crossings seemed to have replaced entry by lorry: a change of route, not an overall increase. The latest immigration statistics suggest that is no longer the case. The number of asylum applications rose sharply between June and September, to the highest levels since 2003. The pressure on politicians on both sides of the Channel to “do something” is intense.
Some populist politicians want to stop the boats because they don’t like refugees. Others want to stop the boats because it is a dangerous journey for vulnerable people. Either way, we should all agree it is desirable to stop the boats. But there is no simple solution now that this method of entry into the UK is so well established as a route. The French are already doing a great deal but could perhaps do more, given the media coverage of French police standing by at the beach while groups of migrants set off.
But those climbing aboard flimsy dinghies on remote French beaches are not easily deterred. They are no strangers to the danger of a small boat crossing. Many have already risked the journey from Turkey or Libya. Since 2014, 23,000 have drowned while making Mediterranean crossings. It seems unlikely that a few more deaths will deter others. And if they simply resume entry by lorry, that was not very safe either, as the deaths by suffocation of 39 Vietnamese people in 2019 highlighted. Over 300 people are reported by the Institute for Race Relations to have died attempting to enter the UK by all routes since 1999.
Some sort of returns arrangement with the French or with the EU as a whole might have some deterrent effect, although that seems unlikely. It would also represent a huge change of direction for a government that has turned to relying on “self-deportation,” encouraged by the hostile environment. The UK’s capacity to remove asylum seekers using Europe’s Dublin returns system—the arrangement under which refugees can be returned to their point of entry into the EU—declined over time, before ending entirely with Brexit at the end of 2020. The “self-deportation” policy has not worked either, with voluntary returns also now at an historic low.
Push-backs at sea have been touted as a possible way forward. These arguably breach international law but the EU carries them out anyway, as do the United States and Australia. They all push back into someone else’s arms, so do not simply prevent entry and allow the boat to drift away. But without co-operation from the French, push-backs would amount to endangering some lives to save others.
So-called “off-shoring” of refugees to a safe country faces a similar diplomatic hurdle. There is no other country that seems willing to receive our refugees. Moral objections do not appear to trouble the present government, but even if a country could be found, there would remain huge legal and practical obstacles. The refugees would have to be detained there in camps to stop them resuming their journeys, the huge expense would likely limit the experiment to a handful of unfortunate individuals, and human rights laws would prevent transfer to a country where a person faces inhuman or degrading treatment.
Other deterrent policies have no discernible effect. Government ministers like to talk about “pull factors” that supposedly attract people to the United Kingdom. Labour market regulation, benefits access and rates, health care and so on are all within the ready control of the government. Limiting access passes the “gut instinct” test with the government and the public, and conveniently marries with ideological motivations. But there is no evidence, despite much academic work on the subject, to suggest that this will affect what are sometimes called “destination preferences.” As poet Warsan Shire puts it, “no one leaves home unless / home is the mouth of a shark / no one puts their children in a boat / unless the water is safer than the land.” Being horrible to some people who have already arrived will not stop other people from following in their footsteps. Even if they knew what awaited them, they have already endured experiences far worse than even Priti Patel can devise.
The top five countries of origin of those claiming asylum in the UK over the last few months have been Iran, Eritrea, Albania, Iraq and Syria. They are refugees. 64 per cent were granted asylum by the Home Office in the year to September 2021 and 48 per cent of those who appealed then won their appeal.
Safe and legal routes are also sometimes touted as a solution. It is true that opening the borders would eliminate demand for unsafe passage. But a numerically capped safe and legal route from France to the UKmay actually increase demand for unsafe crossings, because it might serve to attract more people to France. The French might therefore be loath to permit the UK to operate such a scheme on French soil. We should certainly open safeand legal routes to the UK and resettle more of the world’s refugees. The government should start by getting the much-vaunted but long-delayed Afghan citizens resettlement scheme up and running. It is unlikely this will do much to reduce unsafe crossings, though.
The depressing reality is that the deaths this week—and many thousands more—are the price our society is willing for other people to pay in order to maintain our system of closed borders. Without a radical new settlement, they will remain a feature, not a bug.
