immigration
Five Biggest Border Lies Debunked Republicans are lying about...
Five Biggest Border Lies Debunked
Republicans are lying about immigrants and the border. Here are five of their biggest doozies.
1. They claim Biden doesn’t want to secure the border
Well, that’s rubbish. Biden has consistently asked for additional funding for border security.
Republicans have just as consistently refused. They’re voting to cut Customs and Border Protection funding in spending bills and blocking passage of Biden’s $106 billion national security supplemental that includes border funding.
2. They blame the drug crisis on immigration
That’s more rubbish. While large amounts of fentanyl and other deadly drugs have been flowing into the U.S. from Mexico, 90% arrives through official ports of entry, not via immigrants illegally crossing the border. In fact, research by the Cato Institute found that more than 86% of the people convicted of trafficking fentanyl in 2021 were U.S. citizens.
3. They claim that undocumented immigrants are terrorists.
Baloney. For almost a half century, no American has been killed or injured in a terrorist attack in the United States that involved someone who crossed the border illegally.
4. They say immigrants are stealing American jobs.
Nonsense. Evidence shows immigrants are not taking jobs that American workers want. And the surge across the border is not increasing unemployment. Far from it: unemployment has been below 4% for roughly two years.
5. They blame crime on immigrants
More baloney. This has been debunked by numerous studies over the years. In fact, a 2020 study found that undocumented immigrants have “substantially” lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants.
Notwithstanding the recent migrant surge, America’s homicide rate has fallen nearly 13% since 2022 — the largest decrease on record. Local law enforcement agencies are also reporting drops in violent crime.
Who’s really behind these lies?
Since he entered politics, Donald Trump has fanned nativist fears and bigotry.
Now leaning into full neo-fascism and using the actual language of Hitler to attack immigrants.
Trump wants us to forget that almost all of us are the descendants of immigrants who fled persecution, or were brought to America under duress, or simply sought better lives for themselves and their descendants.
Know the truth and spread it.
An indictment of British Government..
People who want to be in the UK find it rather difficult to help it… See this article where asylum Seekers from Braverman’s Barge are now in fact volunteering to help the indigenous needy! It is way beyond time that we allow asylum seekers to work – especially as the Tories keep telling us that... Read more
The Politics of Memory in the Italian Populist Radical Right – review
In The Politics of Memory in the Italian Populist Radical Right, Marianna Griffini examines Italy’s political landscape, following the roots of fascism through to their influence on contemporary politics. Skilfully dissecting nativism, immigration, colonialism and the profound impact of memory on Italian political identities, the book makes an important contribution to scholarship on political history and theory and memory studies, according to Georgios Samaras.
The Politics of Memory in the Italian Populist Radical Right: From Mare Nostrum to Mare Vostrum. Marianna Griffini. Routledge. 2023.
Find this book: 
Marianna Griffini’s The Politics of Memory in the Italian Populist Radical Right stands as a thorough examination of Italy’s political landscape, weaving together historical threads and contemporary realities. The book provides a nuanced analysis that dissects the roots of Italian fascism and charts the trajectory of its influence on present-day politics, offering a solid exploration of the nation’s political memory.
Griffini sets the stage for an exploration of how collective memory shapes political ideologies
The eight chapters form a cohesive narrative that progressively deepens the understanding of Italy’s political milieu. Chapter One serves as a poignant introduction, capturing the current state of the Italian radical right and framing the central theme of memory. Griffini sets the stage for an exploration of how collective memory shapes political ideologies, a theme that reverberates throughout the subsequent chapters.
Chapter Two delves into the concept of nativism, contextualising it within both the broader European framework and the specific nuances of Italian politics. This nuanced exploration lays the foundation for comprehending the intricate dance between nativism, populism and the enduring echoes of Italy’s fascist past. Chapter Three, clearly outlines the research methodologies, establishing the scholarly background underpinning the entire work.
Chapter Four posits the emergence of the nation-state and examines the impact of otherisation, offering a lens to comprehend the dynamics of Italian politics. Otherisation, as a concept, illuminates how politicians endeavour to portray certain societal groups as different, often excluding them from the national identity. In this chapter, the analysis effectively traces, in a historiographical manner, the gradual development of this phenomenon over several decades, establishing a connection to fascist movements.
Otherisation, as a concept, illuminates how politicians endeavour to portray certain societal groups as different, often excluding them from the national identity.
The book takes a pivotal turn in Chapter Five, addressing the weighty topic of immigration and the multifaceted challenges it poses. This chapter serves as a bridge, connecting historical narratives with contemporary realities, offering a comprehensive understanding of the role immigration plays in shaping political discourse.
Chapter Six unfolds a detailed analysis of colonialism and its impact on attitudes toward immigration. Griffini’s exploration of colonial pasts and their connection to collective memory, as presented in Chapter Seven, adds a further layer of historical depth, illustrating the enduring influence of historical legacies on present-day political ideologies. The theoretical approach of memory underscores the colonial exploitation of other cultures by Italy. Notably, Griffini highlights how memory could be approached from a different angle in order to humanise and confront Italy’s colonial past, instead of supressing it.
Griffini highlights how memory could be approached from a different angle in order to humanise and confront Italy’s colonial past, instead of supressing it.
The zenith of the book occurs in Chapter Eight, where Griffini articulates the central argument concerning the profound influence of memory on shaping political identities. This segment stands as the magnum opus of the analysis, persuasively contending that the historical omission of specific memories related to both embracing and challenging Italy’s colonial past serves as a catalyst for the resurgence of fascist attitudes. This provides a critical insight into Italy’s seemingly inescapable political patterns.
The historical omission of specific memories related to both embracing and challenging Italy’s colonial past serves as a catalyst for the resurgence of fascist attitudes.
The book not only navigates the complexities of Italian politics but also engages with theoretical debates, contributing valuable insights to the understanding of populism. By elucidating the links between emotionality and the radical right, Griffini demonstrates how political ideologies, when fused with emotional undercurrents, can yield extremist outcomes.
A noteworthy strength of the book is its emphasis on ethnocultural ideas and the notion of belonging to the nation, especially in the context of increased migration within the European Union. The examination of otherisation as a phenomenon serves as a profound analysis, unravelling how Italian voters perceive the intricate role of the nation and how this perception catalyses the rise of radical right movements.
While the discussion between colonial and political theory may initially challenge some readers, it ultimately contributes to the richness of the analysis. The book successfully navigates the fluid boundaries of these theories, illuminating historical concepts that persist in the shadows and continue to shape contemporary political landscapes. However, a clearer bridge between those two concepts would have been useful for readers who are not entirely familiar with all the technical terms explored in the book.
[The book] provides key findings that not only shed light on the surge of the radical right but also offer a template for understanding the intricate political dynamics in other European countries.
The Politics of Memory in the Italian Populist Radical Right emerges not only as an exploration of Italian politics in 2022 but as a timeless contribution to scholarly literature. It provides key findings that not only shed light on the surge of the radical right but also offer a template for understanding the intricate political dynamics in other European countries.
Griffini delves into Italy’s colonial past, shedding light on its historical neglect and the deliberate concealment of past atrocities. This collective memory has been influenced by the infiltration of fascist tendencies into contemporary Italian politics. While the rise of far-right parties was noticeable up until 2022, none matched the achievements of Meloni with her election that year. Griffini’s examination of Italy’s colonial history offers a partial explanation for the limited comprehension of the nation’s past, intricately intertwined with its fascist history.
While the rise of far-right parties was noticeable up until 2022, none matched the achievements of Meloni with her election that year
Also, the book’s refusal to indulge in unnecessary predictions is a testament to its commitment to historical rigor. Given the unpredictable nature of Italian politics, this decision aligns with the broader theme of acknowledging the complexity inherent in the nation’s political trajectory.
In conclusion, despite the potential challenge for some readers in navigating between colonial theory and the concept of memory, the book constitutes an important contribution to scholarship on political history and theory and memory studies. Further research in the field is important for a more profound understanding of the intricate political dynamics unfolding in other European countries, illuminating how the normalisation of the radical right often stems from historical complexities. This book is highly recommended for students exploring Italian politics in 2022 and academic scholars seeking familiarity with historical perspectives shaping the extremes of the political spectrum in Italy.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.
Image Credit: Alessia Pierdomenico on Shutterstock.
Why is Political Philosophy not Euro-centric?
In a recent post about unfair epistemic authority, Macarena Marey suggests that
In political philosophy, the centre is composed of the Anglophone world and three European countries…
One can think of “the center” in terms of people or of topics. Although Marey’s post is clearly about philosophers not philosophies, and I agree with her, one can also address the issue of “the centre” about philosophies.
For my part, I wonder the opposite: how come political philosophy is not Euro-centric? If Anglophone and European philosophers dominate the field, as indeed they do, why doesn’t European politics dominate political philosophy, too?
My point is not that European politics should dominate political philosophy, but that it is surprising that it does not. First, because philosophers often sought solutions to the political problems of their time (think of Montesquieu or Locke on the separation of powers; of Paine and Burke debating human rights during the French Revolution etc.). Second, because the European Union is a political innovation on many respects; had a philosopher presented the project (“imagine enemies at war pooling their resources”), it would have been dismissed as utopian. Finally, because EU is a complex organization which deals with enough topics that it is hard not to find yours. Topical, innovative, and complex – but not of interest for European hegemonic philosophers: is this not puzzling?
You doubt. But how would political philosophy look like if it was Euro-centred? Certainly, renewed — by philosophical views tested at the European level or inspired by the European institutions. For example, there would be philosophical analyses of “new” topics such as:
- Freedom of movement – a founding freedom of the European union over the last 70 years. Surprisingly, there is not a single philosophical treaty on this freedom today (although freedom of speech, of assembly etc. are well represented); all philosophical studies reason as if it were natural to control immigration, as if open borders were an unrealistic utopia – in short, as if the EU did not exist (neither Mercosur‘s or African Union‘s institutions).
- Distributive justice between states or within federal states – a political reality since the 1950s or earlier. But since the 1970s, philosophers have been praising Rawls, Walzer, and others who argue that redistribution between states is not a matter of justice (no reviewer have ever asked them whether the existing European/international redistribution was unjust etc.).
- Justice of extending / fragmenting states and federations of states – today, cosmopolitanism is considered in opposition to nationalism, not to regionalism or federalism; secession/ unions are under-discussed in theories of justice or critical race theory; there are more philosophical studies on just wars than on peace etc.
Many other sources of philosophical renewal are not specific to the European Union but could have been be activated if political philosophy was Euro-centric. For example, international aid has been institutionalized since the WWII (as I have briefly shown here), but prominent philosophers reason about its justice as if it did not exist. Less prominent philosophers should adapt to the existing terms of the debate.
In short, if political philosophy was a little more Euro-centric, its questioning would be renewed and more realistic. If it is not, the problem of political philosophy is not “Euro-centrism” but “centrism” tout court: we tend to organize around a few “prominent philosophers” and their views rather than around originality, pluralism, and truth.
Neoliberalism’s idea is to shift costs to people while underinvesting and ignoring that government creates money
I think that this might be a good working definition of neoliberalism. It goes together with the idea that – so personally inadequate, uncertain and unconfident are the supposedly best people in society – that they consider, in spite of their power and wealth, that they can be safely certain of flourishing only when both... Read more
Message for Labour
This clip – just one minute – from a Zoe Gardner interview on LBC is distinctly informative and highlights Labour’s stupidity in yet again following the Conservative narrative: It is even suggested that Labour would choose to export to truly democratic Tanzania rather than dictatorial Rwanda. I agree with Zoe’s idea that some people will... Read more
The immigration argument goes round and round…
And the way it is controlled enshrines people trafficking just because the Conservative government is either completely incompetent – or, more probably, likes it that way… This is all powerfully and clearly explained in just over two minutes by immigration researcher and expert, Zoe Gardner:... Read more
Is the Media Helping Richard Tice Sanitise Far-Right Responses to Immigration?
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Life is good for Richard Tice. The leader of Reform UK has it all: money, power, a beautiful girlfriend, and his own TV show. So why is he so angry?
It’s a question not asked by the media. In TV interviews, Tice is never grilled, but merely warmed by the light of the camera. Now Reform UK is polling at ten per cent, the party is being “taken seriously”. What that means in practice is not more scrutiny, but more attention — and the sanitization of a party of the far-right.
When the Office for National Statistics released new immigration data in November, showing a record 672,000 net migration in the year to June, Tice was invited on to the BBC and Sky News to offer his response.
In the same month, Tice was the subject of a respectful profile in the centre-left New Statesman. Nigel Farage, Tice’s friend and Reform UK’s honourary president, was beamed into seven million homes on ITV’s I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!
Tice’s partner, Talk TV journalist Isabel Oakshott, appeared on the BBC’s ‘Question Time’, where she expounded Reform's unique policy of “net zero immigration” and defended Farage’s grumble in the jungle. " Tice was back on the BBC himself earlier this month, talking migration on Newsnight.
How has Tice used this newfound media interest? “These huge mass immigration numbers are changing the nature of our country”, he mused on the BBC’s 'Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday': “It’s making us poorer financially and it’s making us poorer culturally.” Culturally?
“I think that sense of Britishness”, he went on, “who we are, our heritage, our history, our Christian values and ethos.” Over on Sky News’ 'Sunday with Sophy Ridge’, Tice called for a “one in, one out” system of “net zero immigration” (there it is again), and claimed Labour and the Conservatives represent “two different forms of socialism”.
In all of these media slots, Tice was presented as a tough but serious voice on migration and a thorn in the side of Rishi Sunak. With his nice suit and polished media style, one could mistake Tice for a Conservative backbencher — a minority figure, but safely part of mainstream politics. Yet a glance at Tice’s social media, and his output as a host on GB News, reveals a different picture.
EXCLUSIVE
WATCH: Nigel Farage Used ‘Homophobic Racial Slur’ in Personal Message Video
As ITV pays £1.5 million to platform the politician on ‘I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!’, a Byline Times investigation reveals how he charged £75 to use what appears to be a serious racial slur in a personalised video message
Dan Evans and Tom Latchem
The Mask Slips...
It's on GB News that you'll see a hot fury at the state of modern Britain. In videos on Twitter (currently X), Tice glares out of the screen, eyes wide, finger jabbing. Against a Union Jack backdrop, Tice barks about the UK’s “con-socialist” government, “climate change nonsense”, and “open borders” immigration.
On GB News — a channel owned by millionaire hedge funder Paul Marshall and Dubai-based investment firm Legatum Group — Tice often responds to the mildest challenge from guests or interviewers by yelling as if he’s been physically wounded.
When given free rein on GB News, he talks like this: “People want action, they want this stopped. Up and down this country, communities are having their lives, their high streets, blighted, by having these young men of military age being dumped into their communities, and there is a huge amount of suffering, of sadly resentment growing, people feel it’s unfair.”
It’s a bit rich to warn of growing public “resentment” when that’s so clearly your bread and butter. But the key phrase here is “young men of military age” — it smacks of race-baiting and incitement one suspects he would not have tried on the BBC.
When you add Reform’s pledge to “declare a national emergency” over people crossing the Channel in small boats, and its revival of Farage’s “breaking point” poster from the EU referendum, the picture sharpens. (It’s worth recalling that Tice helped to poison the Brexit campaign by co-founding Farage’s Leave.EU with Aaron Banks.)
If Tice is ever too cryptic, Reform’s co-deputy leader Ben Habib will spell it out for you. In a Daily Express article in August, Habib took up the US right’s holy war against Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) policies: “They are promoting people from different ethnic minorities, religious backgrounds and sexual preferences even if doing so would be to the detriment of their organisations and the exclusion of the ethnic majority.” Yikes. Habib goes on to call these alleged policies “an extreme form of socialism”.
Chatting migration on GB News the other day, Habib said: “We’re effectively being required, as the dominant culture in the country, to take the knee to these ethnic minority cultures, and ethnic religions.”
Note the term “take the knee”, which again borrows from the race politics of the United States, turning NFL player Colin Kaepernick’s protest against racism into a symbol of white humiliation.
The Right-Wing Blind Spot Over Free Speech
A new report by the Institute of Economic Affairs think tank describes the emergence of the ‘culture control left’ – conveniently looking the other way when it comes to the right of politics
Stephen Delahunty
Repeating the Farage Mistake
None of this should be a surprise from a party founded by ‘I’m a Celeb’ star Nigel Farage, who made a career out of racist scare stories, from his “Romanian crime wave”, migrants with HIV exploiting the NHS, to Muslim rapists attacking British women.
It doesn’t take much digging to find these quotes, which are not easily squared with Reform’s image as a normal party with reasonable concerns about immigration. The same goes for Reform’s claim to push for “common sense” on net zero climate targets, when its leader praises CO2 emissions as “plant food”, and as DeSmog has reported, all Reform’s donors this year are either climate deniers or have business in fossil fuels.
As for being an “anti-elitist” party on the side of ordinary people, how does this fit with its policies to crack down on non-existent electoral fraud by postal votes (another US import), to “abolish inheritance tax for all estates under £2 million, 98% of estates”, or to scrap the windfall tax on oil and gas companies? All of these are easy to find in the party’s manifesto, along with the false claim that “the vast majority of [asylum] claimants are economic migrants or from Albania under the oversight of their criminal gangs”.
But the good manners of British politics have the effect of sanitizing anyone, however crackpotted, who has some claim to legitimacy, whether that’s a job at a think tank or media outlet — or in Reform’s case, a bump in the polls.
Having nurtured the careers of every demagogue and chancer from Boris Johnson to Nigel Farage, hacks are almost eager to repeat their mistake. The media’s learning curve is long, and it bends toward potential fascists.
It’s also an indictment of the post-Brexit ecosystem, which has moved so far to the right that Reform’s racist demagogy and paranoid red-baiting can pass as normal conservative politics.
‘Get Brexit Done’ is now ‘Stop the Boats’: Is the Rwanda Bill the Conservatives’ Trojan Horse?
We again have some members of the Conservative Party arguing that the UK needs to abandon another European institution, writes former British diplomat Alexandra Hall Hall
Alexandra Hall Hall
Changing the Terms of the Debate
In a country where the Government is keeping refugees in a prison ship, and trying to break international law to deport them to Rwanda, the Faragists are both a cause and an effect. Having scared the Conservatives into moving to the right, they shout from the wings and raise their demands.
The mistake was to grant their first premise, so that the question isn’t “Should we crack down on immigration?” but “Have we gone far enough to do so?” As British schoolchildren are taught in history lessons, you can’t appease the far-right. But that hasn’t stopped the British government from trying, and they’ve painted themselves into a corner with nowhere else to go.
Reform can’t be ignored. The issue is not whether its politicians and fans should be “platformed”, but how. If we’re going to be told Reform UK is electorally important, it’s beyond time its spokespeople were asked some proper questions.
For example, does Tice agree with his deputy’s babble about socialist plots against Britain’s “ethnic majority”? Why should anyone buy Tice’s pose as a champion of working people when he is paid by hedge funds and campaigns for dirty air, voter suppression and tax cuts for the rich? And what the hell does migrants being “of military age” have to do with immigration’s effect on housing and public services?
It's not clear whether Richard Tice is an angry man or just plays one on TV. But given his far-right agenda, perhaps it’s time journalists gave him something to be angry about.
‘Get Brexit Done’ is now ‘Stop the Boats’: Is the Rwanda Bill the Conservatives’ Trojan Horse?
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
One of the lines that stays with me from learning Latin at school is from Virgil’s epic poem, the Aeneid – “Timeo Danaos et Dona Ferrentes” ("I fear the Greeks, even when they bring gifts”). This line was uttered by the Trojan priest, Laocoon, who was warning that the Trojan Horse apparently gifted to the city of Troy by the departing Greeks might actually be a trap.
In similar fashion, I can’t help feeling that 'I can’t Trust the Conservatives, even when they obey the Law'.
A huge song and dance was made by the Government before last week’s first vote on its Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill that the legislation – just – stayed within the framework of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The Bill, if adopted, would allow government ministers to ignore temporary injunctions raised by the European Court of Human Rights to stop flights taking off at the last minute. However, it would still allow asylum seekers to launch legal appeals to argue that they should be spared deportation, if they can claim various special circumstances.
Supporters of the Government’s approach argue that the Bill goes as far as it can, without breaching international law – and that Rwanda itself would withdraw from the scheme if the UK went any further.
Conservative opponents of the bill, including 29 MPs from the right wing of the party, who abstained on the vote, argue that it does not go far enough and that the language should have explicitly ruled out the scope for any legal challenges to deportation, whether under domestic or international human rights law.
Former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick, who resigned over his disagreement with Rishi Sunak’s migration policy, was even quoted (ironically, on Human Rights Day) as saying that the Government must put "the views of the British public above contested notions of international law" and that MPs are "not sent to Parliament to be concerned about our reputation on the gilded international circuit".
I feel a weary sense of déjà vu. This is Brexit, on repeat.
The Israel-Hamas War: Searching for Moral Clarity Amid Conflict
Former British diplomat Alexandra Hall Hall reflects on the complexities involved in the conflict and why there are no easy answers – if any
Alexandra Hall Hall
Yet again, we have some members of the Conservative Party arguing that the UK needs to abandon another European institution – this time the European Court of Human Rights – in order to 'take back control' of immigration.
Yet again, they scapegoat others – on this occasion 'lefty lawyers' – for 'thwarting' the will of the people.
Yet again, they claim unique knowledge and possession of what that 'will of the people' actually is – though there has been no explicit vote put to the public as to whether they really do support the Rwanda scheme, even if it involves the UK derogating from some aspects of human rights law. Just as there never was any explicit indication in the EU Referendum that the British public wanted the most hardline break with Brussels, including departure from the Customs Union and Single Market.
Yet again, we have Conservative MPs misrepresenting the facts, to argue that the Rwanda scheme will brilliantly solve all of the UK’s immigration problems – despite the evidence that it will only ever be able to remove a few hundred migrants, at most, and only at vast expense; that it will do nothing to resolve the massive asylum claim backlog; and the fact that most immigrants to the UK come here legally, partly as a result of the Government’s own migration policies.
But then, Conservative MPs never acknowledge inconsistencies in their arguments, whether over Brexit or now over immigration.
Just like during the Brexit debates, Conservative MPs now are also happy to gloss over inconvenient facts regarding migration – such as that our health, care, agriculture and hospitality sectors are dependent on affordable immigrant labour, and that there are no 'safe, legal' routes for asylum seekers to come to the UK.
Instead, they waffle on about this being yet another issue of 'sovereignty'. Indeed, the Rwanda Bill goes one step further than Brexit, in deliberately overriding the Supreme Court’s judgment on Rwanda, to assert that Rwanda actually is a safe country. So now, not just laws, but facts, are whatever the British Government says them to be.
Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping are no doubt delighted to see members of the British political establishment adopt their practices of disinformation and disdain for international law. How much easier it makes it for them to continue gulling their own citizens, and defying international conventions and treaties, when they can point to a country like the UK – previously a stalwart defender of the international rules-based order – doing the same.
And just as during Brexit, so now, we have different factions of the Conservative Party tearing themselves to shreds, while critical national and international problems go unaddressed.
The hapless Sunak is in the role of Theresa May, desperately trying to hold his party together and risking pleasing none. The same Goldilocks dilemma prevails – his immigration policy risks being too hard for the One Nation group of MPs on the moderate wing of the party, but too soft for the so-called 'Five Families’ factions on the right wing of the party.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
Terrified of losing voters to Nigel Farage and the Reform Party, Sunak, like May, will keep trying to appease the migration hardliners, though they will never be satisfied until he has fully ruptured relations with the ECHR. Terrified of alienating traditional conservative voters in their constituencies, the centrist MPs will hold their noses and keep going along, putting party before principle, time and again.
The one advantage Sunak has over May is that it would be hard, even for this shameless party, to seek to replace him as party leader, without triggering a general election, in which – on current polling – many MPs would lose their seats.
But this is precisely why I sense a trap.
For now, Sunak can play the role of responsible statesman, doing his best to restrain the more extreme members of his party, and insisting that any British legislation should stay just on the right side of the law. If the legislation passes, and asylum seekers start being deported to Rwanda – even if it’s only a few dozen – he can make the case that his scheme works, and campaign in the general election for voters to back him, in order to allow it to continue.
But if the legislation falls, or squeaks through only to be defeated again in the courts, before any asylum seekers are deported, Sunak can switch tactics to campaign full bore in support of leaving the ECHR – on the grounds that he has exhausted all options and that his hand has been 'forced' into accepting the most extreme approach.
This ploy might not be enough to prevent Conservative defeat to the Labour Party, but it might be enough to save a few seats and to allow the party to keep posturing in hardline fashion on immigration, without ever having to suffer the embarrassment of the Rwanda scheme failing, or having to deal with the damaging wider consequences of leaving the ECHR, such as for the Good Friday Agreement, or our post-Brexit relationship with the EU.
Like the Trojan Horse, I believe the Rwanda bill is a set-up. 'Get Brexit Done’ is now 'Stop the Boats’. But, unlike the good citizens of Troy, I believe British voters will not let themselves be suckered a second time.
Never trust the Conservatives, even when they bring 'gifts'.
Deaths in the Channel: Survivors and Rescue Teams Feel Targeted by Plan to ‘Stop the Boats’
Don't miss a story
A year ago today at least four people drowned while crossing the English Channel in an overcrowded dinghy. Their deaths barely made headlines, there were no public statements from the authorities and no inquiry is underway. The incident was instead co-opted by the Conservative Party, which seized on the chance to talk about the work they are doing to “smash the business model of the people smuggling gangs”.
But the Government isn’t smashing the people smuggling gangs. They’re going after migrants themselves. In January, Ibrahima Bah, a 19-year-old man from Senegal accused of piloting the stricken dinghy will be hauled through the courts again on four counts of manslaughter, held up as an example of what happens to those who have their hand on, or anywhere near, the tiller of a boat. If convicted, he could receive a life sentence.
The Home Office has long labelled small boat pilots as “people smugglers”. Evidence used against them is often contested. In Bah’s case, it involved being photographed close to the tiller. In June he reportedly told the court that he was merely a passenger who had initially refused to pilot the vessel until being assaulted and threatened with death by the smugglers if he failed to comply.
Often, the evidence used to prosecute is gathered from arriving migrants who are interviewed immediately after they disembark, when they are disoriented, traumatised and still under arrest. Their phones are taken, they are held in a police cell and they may not have legal representation. One of the survivors from the December 2022 incident told me that within an hour of arrival, he and other members of the group had been instructed to point out the pilot in what felt like a “police lineup”. Their statements would then be used as evidence to criminalise Bah, who had, they say, been a friend, “like a brother”, to many in the boat.
For the last year, more than a dozen of the survivors have been holed up together at a dilapidated guesthouse on the Kent coast, presumably so they could be called upon for further evidence in the trial, if required. I went to meet them there one foggy afternoon in September. Among the group were five Afghans who had narrowly escaped death that night, and who knew those who had perished in the shipwreck. "It was so cold, I did not know if I was alive or dead", Abdul-Azim told me.
A fishing trawler had come to their rescue at around 03:00, after at least 45 minutes spent clinging to the rim of the dinghy, its wooden boards collapsed inwards. By that stage, most of the group were in the water; others had been pushed back out to sea by a strong current and died in five degree water. One man slipped while climbing aboard the fishing boat and was crushed between the dinghy and the trawler. Another had been hit in the head by a broken wooden slat as the boat collapsed, knocking him unconscious. He, too, drowned in the freezing water, his body still missing, a year on.
EXCLUSIVE
Asylum Waiting Lists Rocket by 236% as Migrant Housed on Cramped Barge Takes Own Life
A day after the suicide of a man aboard the Bibby Stockholm exclusive data obtained by this newspaper shows migrants waiting three years or more for a decision on their future has more than trebled in the past year
Tom Latchem, Dan Evans and Adam Bienkov
One of the first responders to arrive at the scene, at around 03:30, was the RNLI Dungeness rescue team. Among them was Adam, a volunteer on one of his first shifts as a lookout for the boat crew. Two bodies lay face down in the water; he and other team members had to pull them up. “You never forget something like that,” he told me, standing on the shingle beach the following week. Shortly after that, a group of far-right ‘vigilantes’ (as they’re called by the RNLI) spray-painted ‘Taxi’ over the lifeboat station doors, parroting Nigel Farage’s claims the volunteer crews are a “taxi service for illegal migrants”. Crew members started taking their RNLI parking permits off their cars, after their tyres were repeatedly deflated. Most have been pilloried at the school gates or at their local pub.
Frontline search and rescue staff regularly tell me they resent their roles having become so politicised. “The Government has done nothing to stop the boats except slap a slogan on it", one Border Force member told me on the picket line in Dover recently. “We shouldn’t be used as a political tool - we’re civil servants doing frontline work. Our jobs shouldn’t feel political, or be political, but they are.”
As the scrutiny has worsened, so too has the public response. Search and rescue workers have been consistently demonised in the right-wing press, to the extent they have had to take measures to protect themselves and their families. The teenage daughter of a coastguard was recently approached in the street by three far-right men, who allegedly shouted and swore at her, accusing her father of people smuggling. Another search and rescue contact had left his job after he’d been beaten unconscious in a pub, recognised for TV interviews he had done. Many now understandably choose not to speak out for fear of reprisal.
To make matters worse, the frontline agencies are chronically under-resourced and under-funded. “It’s a clear political choice, isn’t it?” a member of the Border Force said. “We’re on our knees, but we can’t recruit because the pay is so bad, and our vessels aren’t fit-for-purpose.” A senior member of HM Coastguard commented that: “As long as we continue to put policy before operations, people will keep dying in our waters".
Don't miss a story
Rather than focusing its efforts on bolstering frontline teams, the Government continues to pile its resources into criminalising migrants who ‘facilitate entry’ by driving boats. Despite the grandstanding, the number of arrests of those accused of piloting boats is tiny: only 87 people since March 2022. It might sound like tough talk, but the figures speak for themselves.
Meanwhile, at the sharp end of it all, whiling away the days and months behind bars is a teenage boy, his mental health reportedly in tatters.
“What happened to him?” the survivors asked me that autumn day on the Kent coast. After they had given their statements, the line of communication had suddenly gone dead. I explained about Bah’s trial in the summer, and how the jury had been discharged. “Ibrahima is not a criminal. None of us are criminals,” Abdul-Azim said. “We saw our friends under the boat, we saw them die out at sea. Why can the Government not see that we are not to blame for this?”