True Blue and Grassroots hero Dame Andrea Jenkyns has organised a parliamentary debate for this Tuesday on the Costs of Illegal Immigration.
For British voters this is a top priority issue. It is something that our politicians and civil servants should have fixed years ago.
Conservative Post Readers have been highly active in the space, putting forward petitions and solutions. And as we outline below, illegal immigration is a problem we really can fix. Here’s How:
Compulsory Off-Shoring
Every day we read the same story. An Illegal immigrant goes on the rampage. They should have been deported years ago, but they absconded, pretended to convert to Christianity, or were going through their umpteenth legal appeal. One day it’s Emad Al Swealmeen – a man with a history of criminality who tried o blow up a maternity ward. Next it’s acid attacker Abdul Ezedi, who was granted asylum even after a string of sexual offences. Then there’s Ahmed Ali Alid who has just been convicted of stabbing an innocent pensioner. This is only getting worse.
Yet the solution is remarkably simple.
We just have to make it impossible to claim or be granted asylum on UK territory. In fact, we make it impossible to claim any form of visa, extension or immigration right on UK territory. You either have to make your claim from abroad, or we designate a British Island.
This is not unusual. Many other countries already have this stipulation. It is such a simple blanket rule. But it means the whole issue of hundreds of thousands on the run does not happen. They don’t need to be found and deported, which is when the legal issues get really costly.
We can also control numbers. With applicants kept offshore, we can set a quota of how many we will settle annually and pick the best, so as not to overwhelm local services, housing and cohesion.
But most importantly, off-shoring can keep us safe. Undocumented migrants, war criminals, sexual predators, terrorists, and violent offenders can no longer just come here and run amok as they have been doing.
The options are manifold. We could rent some territory from a developing country and designate that as our asylum centre; as Italy is doing with Albania. Or we can use one of our myriad barely inhabited islands.
Ascension Island is one possibility that has been floated. But even if that is too difficult logistically, there are more local options, like Foula. Foula is 15 miles off Shetland’s choppy seas. That makes it close enough to supply but impossible to abscond from. Foula already has decent port access and its own airstrip. It has just 35 inhabitants, most of whom are crofters. We could pay the residents handsomely to resettle elsewhere (other Scottish islands are covered in vacant crofts). At 13sq km, Foula could provide humanitarian facilities for up to 200,000.
The reality is, we would never need anything like those numbers. Because off-shoring all illegal and asylum cases really works. Australia had 20,000 small boat arrivals a year. Then it off-shored them. The next year it had to 200, then zero. That’s right, zero in two years.
Because off-shoring all illegal and asylum cases really works. Australia had 20,000 small boat arrivals a year. Then it off-shored them. The next year it had to 200, then zero. That’s right, zero in two years.
The Student Loans Model
Another easy and money-saving way to stop the boats is a student loans style system. Under this approach, anyone entering the UK without valid paperwork would have to pay for everything (and I mean everything) they claim. And if they cannot pay upfront, they will need to take out a high-interest loan. In fact nothing would be free: food, healthcare, accommodation, translators, legal fees phone calls would all have to be paid for. On top of all that we could charge a processing fee or fine of £100,000 for an asylum application made by anyone who has entered this country illegally.
All this would have to be borrowed by an asylum seeker and they are liable to pay it all back to the British government; with the money automatically deducted from any income and benefits.
This simple approach kills off the economic case for illegal immigration. With hundreds of thousands (plus interest) to be paid back, there is no chance of getting rich, or owning a house or car. The possibility of a comfortable life is off the table.
In fact, it incentivises asylum seekers to leave whenever it becomes possible. If your home country becomes safe you will want to escape the bills. If your application is unsuccessful, you will want to get out before the bailiffs come, and never return to face your debts.
Moreover, it incentivises asylum seekers to cooperate and minimise costs. If you demand a four-star accommodation, bring dozens of spurious legal cases, do not cooperate, abscond or demand special treatment; you can have it all, but you will pay for it with interest for the rest of your life, trapping you in poverty.
The only way to make an economic success would be to cooperate and minimise your costs. And if you’re claim is successful, work every hour God sends to pay off your debts.
But the real icing on the cake is that a financial deterrent like this does not breach Human Rights Laws. Even Sunak and Hunt could get behind it.
Polluter Pays: International Liability for Governments that Create asylum seekers
Recent cases in international law against countries like Argentina, Venezuela and Russia, have made it easier for decent countries to seize the assets of rogue states as compensation.
We can now do the same with asylum. In other words, if an asylum seeker arrives, and their home country will not guarantee them a safe return, the UK government should sue that country for millions. That means we can go round the world and seize any assets linked to the home government – including things like ships, trade finance, buildings and stakes in businesses.
This would force asylum countries from Albania to Eritrea to get their house in order and stop flooding us with citizens they have a duty to look after.
Polluter Pays: UN Safe Zones
When a failed state is creating a dangerous number of asylum seekers, the UN Security Council can legally annexe a chunk of its territory and administer it as a safe zone. This can be done under the international legal doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention. Then asylum seekers from the entire region and elsewhere can be settled there. When the failed state regains its stability, it can reclaim its territory, and in return must take in all the asylum seekers now settled there.
The Nobel Prize Solution
In 2011, three of the world’s leading Development Economists, led by Nobel Laureate Michael Kremer, used extensive real-world modelling, to show how the current system rewards all the bad guys (bad countries, asylum shoppers, bogus claimants, lawyers, human traffickers etc.) and punishes the good guys (legitimate refugees and welcoming host countries).
Further, their work proved that the only way to fix this is a global ‘market’ for asylum claimants. Under their proposed system, an asylum seeker would make a claim digitally from wherever they are, and all potential countries would ‘bid’ to take the claimant. The lowest bidder would process and host the asylum seeker.
This compassionate solution would save asylum seekers having to take perilous journeys across the world, it would allow them to be settled more quickly, it would provide vital cash to developing countries, and it would instantly kill off the viciously exploitative human trafficking business.
In this sense, the Rwanda deal should be just the start. An emboldened Britain UK could lead the world on establishing such a global system.
Our Marshall Plan to stop the boats
This radical idea wad first written up right here on Conservative Post. Instead of settling asylum seekers in our over-crowded and broken country, we immediately send them abroad as trainee workers on UK-funded aid projects. From now on, any country that wants access to our multi-billion pound British aid budget will have to take in a set number of asylum seekers. After a few years of working hard on aid projects, the host nation will have a duty to settle those asylum seekers in their new home country.
This seems commonsense. Why pay hundreds of millions for able-bodied young men to lounge around in Rwanda, when they could be doing valuable and life-saving work in the same sort of places; and ultimately become valued citizens of those nations? Moreover Instead of cutting the aid budget, we could dramatically increase it with some of the billions currently wasted on our broken asylum system.
This scheme would completely disincentivise bogus and opportunistic asylum seekers, while giving genuine asylum seekers the chance to give back. Under such a scheme there is no economic benefit to claiming asylum; only an altruistic one.
This really is a compassionate solution. It gives genuine asylum seekers a new purpose in life. Instead of being resented, asylum seekers could be valued as contributors to their new homelands.
If Britain had the courage to lead, our Marshall Plan could become the compassionate global solution for the problem. And one that provides both a deterrent and helps the developing world.
Cut Asylum Acceptance Rates in Half
You might wonder why asylum seekers go to such trouble to flock to our shores. For example, what’s wrong with France? The answer is that when it comes to granting asylum, the UK has become one of the softest countries in the world.
This is nothing to do with the ECHR. Countries such as France, Romania and Sweden (all signatories) have acceptance rates of 20 or 30%. The UK has an acceptance rate of over 75%!
Labour have said they will cut the backlog by waiving through tens of thousands of illegal arrivals.
Worse still, our asylum acceptance rate has more than doubled (from 31%) since 2018. And this is under a Conservative government supposedly ‘doing whatever it takes’ to stop the boats. In fact, Rishi Sunak was so desperate to cut the backlog he actually waived through tens of thousands of potentially dangerous illegal arrivals without proper checks. Now Keir Starmer has said he will do the same. Is it any wonder we are overrun?!
In fact, Rishi Sunak was so desperate to cut the backlog he actually waived through tens of thousands of potentially dangerous illegal arrivals without proper checks. Now Keir Starmer has said he will do the same. Is it any wonder we are overrun?!
Indeed, it has become so easy to get asylum in the UK, that asylum seekers who have lost their cases elsewhere come to us for another go. According to Home Office guidance, we should not even worry if asylum seekers lie on their applications. The truth is, our soft touch is proving downright dangerous.
Again, take the recent case of rampaging killer Ahmed Ali Alid. Alid had his asylum claims rejected across multiple European countries. Yet he was able to walk onto a ferry, come to Britain, and claim years of free housing and benefits before going on his murderous rampage.
But most jaw-dropping of all is Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai. On his way to Britain, Abdulrahimzai was convicted of drug offences in Italy, and then convicted of murdering two refugees with a machine gun in Serbia. Next, Abdulrahimzai used a string of false identities to cross Europe, and had his asylum claim rejected in Norway. No bother, he boards a ferry to borderless Britain. Even though he is clearly in his mid-20’s, Abdulrahimzai claimed to be a 14 year old and was housed with a foster carer and sent to school alongside children! It was only a matter of time before he murdered an aspiring young Royal Marine. No one at the Home Office has ever taken responsibility for these failures. Nothing has changed. It could (and almost certainly will) happen again. This disturbing story highlights precisely why millions of decent Conservatives cannot bring themselves to support this government.
If Sunak and Cleverly were serious about migrants, there is an easy fix. You don’t even need to leave the ECHR. You simply copy the procedures of low acceptance countries like France. You bar asylum to anyone who lies on their application, has committed a criminal offence or had their asylum case rejected elsewhere. Doing so would slash arrivals without breaching international law; and crucially it would stop the most dangerous migrants.
Derogation, Derogation, Derogation
You have probably never heard of The Energy Charter Treaty. Two months ago the UK unilaterally left the treaty after thirty years, along with about half a dozen European Nations. This is all perfectly normal, sovereign nations leave treaties and derogate from treaty provisions all the time.
The British People have been gaslit. We are told that if we so much as derogate from a woke UN treaty or the ECHR, then fire and brimstone will rain down on us. That is total rubbish. As a sovereign nation we can leave or modify treaties whenever we like. In fact, the right to do so is one of the fundamental tenets of international law.
The British People have been gaslit. We are told that if we so much as derogate from a woke UN treaty or the ECHR, then fire and brimstone will rain down on us. That is total rubbish. As a sovereign nation we can leave or modify treaties whenever we like.
It is also incredibly easy. Most of the time, The Royal Prerogative allows government ministers to join or leave treaties without so much as a parliamentary debate. And if MPs really do want to override international treaties, the Primacy of Parliament means all they have to do is write as single line into any Bill:
The Act overrides all prior national and international law and should not be interpreted in the light of it.
It really is that easy.
If our leaders are too cowardly to quit the ECHR, why not start at least derogating from the most idiotic provisions? Start with an uncontroversial rule that any foreign national convicted of a serious arrestable offence (in the UK or abroad) is deported immediately after any custodial sentence, and without any regard as to their personal safety or welfare. We put public safety first. Good commonsense stuff and an easy vote winner. And once you’ve done one or two no-brainers like that, it gets easier to finish the job and reclaim our democratic sovereignty.
Compulsory Military Service
With a growing number of countries threatening our security and way of life, the issue of conscription has raised its head. Indeed we could see NATO troops in Ukraine before the end of the year.
This begs the question: in the event of war, who should be first to the frontlines? Why should it be hard-working young Brits or Patriotic squaddies, when there are thousands of illegal immigrants and career criminals across the land?
These are people who have hitherto harmed our society. If they want to avail themselves of our freedom, culture and way of life, surely we should ask them to make a meaningful contribution and be the first to defend it? At the very least that may make them a bit more appreciative of our values. And, with over a million illegal immigrants arriving in Europe every year, here is a way we can stop Putin in his tracks.
So instead of rewarding criminal gangs who break into our country with four star hotels, or letting off serious criminals with early release, we should conscript them into our territorial army. If the UK finds itself in a war, they should rightly be the first to the front.
The Social and Economic Prize of Fixing Illegal Immigration
The reality is we could use a combination of all or some of the above. As polls have shown, doing so would be politically popular; especially with neglected conservative voters.
But it is not just the political benefits, the social benefits are obvious. The reality is that most of those illegal arrivals are here to do us harm. Tackling illegal immigration is a vital step in battling crime, Islamism, ghettos, terrorism and societal breakdown.
And as if that weren’t enough, the economics of any solution are eye-wateringly good: IF THE SCHEME HAS NO LOOPHOLES.
That’s because Asylum seekers impose a truly enormous financial burden on the UK: including high criminality, high unemployment and poor integration; plus huge legal, social, healthcare and accommodation costs. And then there’s chain migration, as arrivals often bring dozens of relatives. Incredibly, these problems persist even among second and third generation asylum seekers.
That’s because Asylum seekers impose a truly enormous financial burden on the UK: including high criminality, high unemployment and poor integration; plus huge legal, social, healthcare and accommodation costs.
The lifetime costs of migrants can last the best part of a century. Tot it all up the all-in costs of each and every one can be estimated at anywhere between £200,000 to over £1 million!
A deterrent system not only saves that expenditure, but it can reduce the number by 95-100%, as Australia’s off-shoring did.
So, even on the most conservative scenario, (£200k saving per asylum seeker and numbers fall 95%), you can spend £4m on each migrant and you’re still quids in. On the extreme scenario (£1m saving per asylum seeker and 99% fall), you can spend £100m per migrants and you’re still quids in!
In other words, it is worth spending money to get this right. Even if the per head cost is huge (as with Rwanda), a good deterrent is economically worth it – BUT ONLY IF THERE ARE NO LOOPHOLES!
The Will to Power
What is abundantly clear is there are dozens of great ways to fix illegal immigration. Any of them could save our country, win back votes and pay economic dividends.
Yet there is a wider point here that goes far beyond illegal immigration.
For the past decade, the Sunaks, Hunts, Cleverlys and Camerons have been telling you a lie: that Britain is in a uniquely difficult position, and that they are trying their best to fix all of our impossible problems.
That is utter hogwash.
On the desks of ministers and the inboxes of civil servants, there are complete solutions to every single major problem the UK is facing: cost of living, immigration, healthcare, worklessness, prosperity, debt, tax, education, crime, public sector reform, defence, housing and even potholes. These are tried and tested, ‘oven-ready’ solutions that could be implemented tomorrow. Because the truth is, every nation, government, business and local authority the world over is facing exactly the same challenges as us; and they have found good answers.
At a raucous fund-raiser last month for Dame Andrea Jenkyns, the guest of honour was Suella Braverman. In an impassioned speech, the former Home Secretary outlined how Greece was effectively stopping the boats, as are many other countries. It all comes back to the same point: This is not difficult. It is just a matter of political will.
Our current leadership is lacking that. Why? We do not know. It could be ideology, idleness, vanity, vested interests, blackmail, corruption, malign foreign influences, pushy in-laws, North London dinner parties, career aspirations at big tech or the UN, or all of the above. But let’s be clear:
With political will, Illegal Immigration can be fixed.
With political will, Britain can be fixed.
We just need leaders with the will to power.
By Andrew Hunt.
Author Andrew Hunt graduated from Cambridge with a Law degree in 2003. He worked in TV production before moving into finance. It was here that he became fascinated by how personal investors and small companies could turn negligible resources into enormous fortunes. Applying the same mindset and principles, Hunt was able to retire in his thirties. He now invests in interesting projects which aim to make the world a better place and runs a radical centre-right environmental think tank. He is also the author of Better Value Investing.
