Labour’s dangerous ‘welcome culture’ for migrants is costing taxpayers £8.5bn a year – they have no plan to stop it

WHAT happened to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s promise to “stop the boats”?

She certainly had a lot of talk before the election.

7

7

7

In April, she wrote that “dangerous border crossings undermine our border security, increase profits for criminal smuggling gangs, increase chaos in our asylum system and endanger lives.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Yet between general election day and last Wednesday, 6,859 people arrived on small boats, more than a third of the 20,433 who have arrived so far this year — and in just eight weeks.

Yvette was also full of big ideas.

We would get new counter-terrorism-style powers and new international intelligence-sharing agreements to “destroy criminal gang networks”, as well as a new Returns and Enforcement Unit to quickly return those who have no right to be in the UK.

Her resolve now appears to be wavering as she faces what many people saw as inevitable: the number of illegal migrants arriving in small boats has increased since Labour scrapped the Rwanda scheme.

On Wednesday, 614 people arrived, while on Tuesday there were already 525.

The boats are getting bigger and bigger. On average, there were 66 migrants in each boat that crossed the Channel. And yet the French coastguards can’t seem to spot them.

This is despite a deal last year in which then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak agreed to pay France almost £500 million over three years to intercept and stop the boats.

The Rwanda programme certainly acted as a deterrent. That was clear earlier this year when Ireland began complaining about migrants crossing from Northern Ireland into the Republic.

Have you ever wondered why asylum seekers seem so desperate to cross the Channel? France if they are already in a safe country?

In 2022, the success rate for migrants seeking asylum in the UK was 76 percent. In France, it was just 29 percent.

There is a terrible human cost to not stopping this illegal human trafficking.

Traffickers who cram 60 people into a rubber dinghy don’t care whether their passengers live or die. This year, 25 people have died trying to reach Britain, four of them last month when a rubber dinghy partially deflated and capsized off the French coast.

There is also, needless to say, a huge cost to British taxpayers. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the UK government spent a net £230m on asylum, border, visa and passport operations in 2019/20.

7

7

By 2023/23, that had risen to £4.2 billion. That figure is part of Rachel Reeves’ infamous £22 billion “black hole” in the public finances, which she claims the government failed to budget properly for asylum claims.

But how should a government actually budget for uncontrolled, illegal migration?

Reeves may be confronted with an even larger black hole next year, given the increase in illegal immigrants.

The boats are getting bigger and bigger. On average, there were 66 migrants in each boat that crossed the Channel.

The asylum system is designed to filter out economic migrants and only help people who are genuinely afraid for their lives.

We can’t take everyone with us

But it has proven far too easy for asylum seekers to make up stories to support their claims. Think of Liverpool bomber Emad Al-Swealmeen, who tried to appease the clergy at the city’s cathedral by claiming he was converting to Christianity, when, as a coroner found, he was still a practising Muslim.

We have a moral obligation to help desperate people where we can, but the best way to do that is to support them close to the places they are fleeing – for example, in camps on the edge of Syria.

What we cannot do is take in everyone who could potentially apply for asylum.

There are 5.4 billion people living in dictatorships around the world. The whole point of the Rwanda plan was to better distinguish genuine refugees from economic migrants.

Anyone who is truly afraid for their life would certainly appreciate the chance to start a new life anywhere.

The truth is that no developed country can just open its doors to everyone who wants to move there and start over. It would quickly be overwhelmed — there are 6.8 billion people living in the world’s 152 developing countries.

7

Britain in the 21st century is not like the United States in the 19th century. Back then, a country that stretched across much of the Midwest could absorb vast numbers of immigrants, who could then go to work building new cities, railways and farms.

Many migrants do not provide for their own subsistence, consuming more in public services or benefits than they contribute in taxes.

Britain is now a small, overcrowded island with a highly developed welfare state, where it is no longer acceptable to house people in primitive conditions.

In any case, the US stopped telling the world to “send us your huddled masses” once the economy matured and there was a less insatiable demand for labor. By the time the Statue of Liberty was built, the first restrictions were already in place.

Yet there are proponents of mass migration who believe that Britain can absorb an unlimited number of people and that they will all boost the economy.

It is true that there are many migrants who help staff our hospitals and care homes — sometimes doing jobs, like fruit picking, that British workers seem reluctant to do. People who come here to work, especially in professions where there is a shortage, are very welcome.

However, many migrants do not provide for themselves. They consume more through public services or benefits than they contribute through taxes.

Net migration, which stood at 685,000 in 2023, is simply far too high. Neither our public services nor the economy can absorb such numbers.

The government has acknowledged this and at the same time acknowledges that it must tackle illegal migration.

But what does it actually do?

We still have no one in charge of the new Border Security Command. The Rwanda plan is gone and the government has announced that from January 2025 it will no longer use the Bibby Stockholm, the excellent barge in Portland Harbour that keeps at least some asylum seekers out of four-star hotels.

But there is no sign of any reform of the Human Rights Act, which has been used time and again to frustrate the return of foreign criminals and terror suspects to their home countries – such as an Albanian criminal who was allowed to stay on the grounds of his right to family life, despite being described by the National Crime Agency as an ongoing threat to the UK.

Do you live by strict language?

Meanwhile, other European countries are beginning to take a much tougher approach.

Germany This week, 28 Afghan criminals flew back to their homeland, ignoring those who complained that Afghanistan is not safe for anyone. Maybe it is not, but Germany is a little safer because of it.

As other countries crack down and our own government dismantles what few deterrents exist, Britain will only become an even more attractive destination for illegal migrants.

What finally spurred Olaf Scholz’s government into action was a fatal knife attack by an Afghan refugee in Mannheim in May.

Germany is also exploring a scheme for processing asylum applications in Rwanda.

It’s a far cry from the Germany of 2015, when Angela Merkel’s government introduced a “welcome culture” for migrants.

Denmark has begun returning refugees to Syria, as parts of the country are now safe enough to return.

Italy has seized charity rescue ships that picked up migrants in the Mediterranean and brought them to Italy.

As other countries crack down and our own government dismantles what few deterrents exist, Britain is only becoming an even more attractive destination for illegal migrants.

Sir Keir Starmer and his colleagues will have to back up their tough talk on migration, or voters will quickly lose patience.

7