ANOTHER tragedy unfolded in the English Channel last week, as 12 more people – half of them children and one a pregnant woman – lost their lives attempting to reach the UK in search of safety.
This heartbreaking event followed the deaths of 27 people in November 2021, 31 more in December 2022, and this year so far 39. All of these individuals perished while trying to seek refuge in the UK, highlighting the deadly consequences of broken immigration policies in both here and in France.
According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), more than 200 people have either died or gone missing while crossing the English Channel in recent years.
READ MORE: French fix is storing problems amid far-right threat
The repeated failure of successive UK and French governments to protect those seeking safety is a matter of life and death. The UK’s Conservative government, in power for the last 14 years, and France’s lack of proactive measures, share responsibility for this ongoing crisis.
Now, with a recently elected Labour government, there is an urgent need for them to address the perilous journeys being undertaken.
The Conservative Party poured billions of pounds of taxpayer money into stricter border controls, including unworkable and costly schemes such as the Rwanda deportation plan.
The UK initially committed almost £140 million to Rwanda for the forced relocation of asylum seekers, although it would have only affected 1% of those coming to the UK via irregular routes. Recently, we learned that the true cost of the Rwanda plan was almost £1 billion.
These migrants, including families and children, are often forced into the hands of people smugglers because no viable, safe alternative routes exist for them to seek asylum.
As a result, human smuggling has become a booming business. Smugglers can attribute much of their success to the UK’s restrictive policies, which leave people no choice but to risk their lives on dangerous journeys.
If safe and legal routes existed, desperate individuals wouldn’t be left with little option but to trust these criminal networks.
The Labour Government recently scrapped the Rwanda plan – a wise decision. The scheme was expensive, legally questionable, and would have tarnished the UK’s reputation regarding its adherence to international asylum obligations.
However, while Labour’s current approach under Home Secretary Yvette Cooper (above) focused on “cracking down on smuggling gangs,” might sound effective it is unlikely to work in practice.
Research on border control consistently shows that smuggling operations adapt to enforcement strategies, often changing tactics to continue operating.
Moreover, many experts argue that even in the absence of organised smuggling, desperate individuals would still make the treacherous journey to the UK.
Many of those crossing the Channel have strong connections to the UK, whether through family ties, shared language, or historical links due to the British Empire’s colonial past. These pull factors are far more compelling than any barrier the UK can construct.
People fleeing conflict or persecution are not deterred by fences; the threat of violence in their home countries is a far more powerful motivator.
READ MORE: Ireland's energy bill cut shows 'boundless opportunities of independence'
If Labour are serious about preventing further tragedies they must confront the root causes of migration and displacement. The government should explore humane solutions, such as introducing asylum visa applications from outside the UK.
As it stands, UK immigration law only allows asylum claims to be made from within its borders, effectively forcing individuals to undertake dangerous, irregular journeys.
This policy creates a monopoly for smugglers, as they are the only ones offering a route to the UK. While many have called for safe routes, successive governments have ignored these pleas, perhaps due to pressure from a vocal minority of anti-immigration pundits, politicians, and far-right voters.
OR perhaps there is simply no political will to solve the problem, despite clear evidence that safe routes can work. One need only look at the example of Ukrainian refugees: not one has crossed the Channel in a small boat, nor have smugglers preyed on them, because they have access to safe routes via airports.
Scotland, with its long tradition of welcoming those in need, would undoubtedly be at the forefront of providing asylum visas and embracing those fleeing persecution and war. The Scottish Government has consistently expressed a compassionate approach to migration, showing a willingness to offer sanctuary and support.
As a nation, Scotland would welcome these individuals with open arms, recognising not only their need for safety but also the contributions they can make to our communities. The Labour Government must distance itself from ineffective, headline-grabbing policies and focus on implementing practical, humane solutions.
Opening safe routes from outside the UK, resuming resettlement schemes and expanding family reunification visas are essential steps. This would allow people to apply through regular, legal channels rather than resorting to dangerous crossings.
Finally, Labour must also consider the economic realities facing the UK. With an aging population and millions of unfilled jobs, a humane immigration policy that acknowledges the country’s obligations under international law can benefit its long-term interests.
Addressing the root causes of migration, providing safe alternatives and respecting the dignity of those fleeing persecution are not just moral imperatives. They are also pragmatic solutions to an ongoing crisis.
Savan Qadir is a journalist, campaigner, and co-author of the book UK Borderscapes: Sites Of Enforcement And Resistance
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel