The Tribune

WITH surprising candour, even the minister responsible for immigration has admitted it. In the words of the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, the UK’s current asylum system is “broken”. This is an issue of prime importance in Britain, not least because the nation’s lack of control over its own borders was one reason for withdrawing from the European Union. So perhaps it is worth examining the current situation in some detail.

What has contributed to a growing crisis is the large numbers of migrants crossing the English Channel in small overloaded boats from France and landing illegally in the southeast of England. The numbers have now reached record highs and Mrs Patel has said the British public is “absolutely fed up” with what is going on. So far this year, some 10,500 – 2,000 more than the entire total for last year which was itself a record – have made the perilous 21-mile journey, with an unprecedented total of 430 landing in one day in July.

The British tradition of tolerance and forbearance is stretched to the limit when holidaymakers relaxing on beaches during the summer months witness these small boats brazenly landing illegal immigrants alongside them in full view of all. They regularly express their outrage that this is being allowed to happen.

In a worsening situation, many are accusing the government of a craven attitude and feeble response to such brazen disregard for the law. Rather than protecting the UK’s frontiers by sending illegal migrants straight back, the Border Force is seen to be stepping in to protect them on landing – after sometimes having to save them while still at sea – by providing accommodation and cash support while the lengthy process of their asylum requests begins.

There are others, however, who applaud this softly, softly approach and maintain Britain should support such crossings because of its moral obligation to assist those fleeing persecution in their own countries, with such campaigners for refugees’ rights saying there is also a humanitarian obligation to accept distressed people arriving on Britain’s shores. Moreover, the nation has international obligations as a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention that forms the basis of the work of the UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) - also known as the UN Refugee Agency - and outlines the rights of refugees as well as the legal requirement for states to protect them.

It is well known that historically Britain has a proud record of offering a safe haven to those suffering persecution in their own countries – to cite just three well-known examples, the Huguenots in France in the 17th century, those escaping Nazi tyranny in the 1930s and the Ugandan Asians fleeing the appalling rule of the egregious Idi Amin in the 1970s. Given such a background, few would argue that in modern times the UK should not assist genuine refugees as it has always done – and the pre-pandemic level of Britain’s legal immigration was running at about 700,000 people a year.

However, as noted in this column in the past, that is a far cry from mainly so-called economic migrants descending en masse in an uncontrolled manner on a prosperous and ordered country like Britain in the quest for a better life there. What is more, the illegal channel crossings, which are undermining the credibility of the legitimate asylum process, are being exploited by human-trafficking criminal gangs. As the influx accelerates, the situation may spiral completely out of control.

So, with the most recent polls already showing 61 percent of Britons in favour of blocking asylum for migrants who have arrived legally through a “safe” country – instead of applying for asylum in that country – illegal channel crossings in what has been described as a grotesque free-for-all on the beaches of the county of Kent can no longer be tolerated.

Clearly, it is absurd to pretend all those making this crossing are terrified victims in search of a safe haven from oppression. In reality, they are mostly economic migrants who have travelled from Africa, Asia and the Middle East through several European countries to northern France and thereafter to England with its bountiful social security system based on need irrespective of past contributions.

Last year’s figures showed that some 74 percent of these were aged under 40 and 87 percent were male. That said, following the withdrawal from Afghanistan of US and other NATO forces, the number of people genuinely seeking a safe haven from the Taliban will inevitably increase, in addition to others escaping a humanitarian crisis there that has been predicted by the UN.

As a result of all this, the British government is introducing tough new legislation in the shape of a Nationality and Borders Bill which has already passed its second reading in the House of Commons with a comfortable majority. The Home Office has stated the rise in dangerous small boat crossings of the English Channel is unacceptable and it will crack down on the “despicable groups” behind people smuggling who – under the draft legislation - will face imprisonment. Britain has offered France financial aid to stop the boats leaving its coast, but this increase is still happening because of a surge of illegal migration across Europe and the draw of the UK which is seen as treating migrants generously.

Meanwhile, the government has made it clear it wants an immigration system that is “firm” and “fair” and with “safe routes for people to come legally”. The proposed new law will make it easier to deport illegal migrants, but access to the UK’s asylum system will continue for those who make authorised arrivals – for example, by air with a travel visa. Anyone attempting unauthorised entry could be sent for processing in a “safe third country” and could face a prison sentence.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out as increasing numbers of people are saying – without exaggerating the problem – that a nation without enforced borders is not a nation at all but just a land mass without the bonds of legitimate citizenry. Sounds familiar? Yes, that was what former President Trump was saying to justify his border wall.

FIXED-TERM ELECTIONS – WHY NOT?

The Prime Minister’s decision to hold an early general election on September 16, instead of in May next year when he is obliged to go to the country five years after the 2017 poll, has reopened debate about fixed-term elections.

The Bahamas inherited from Britain the system that allows a sitting Prime Minister to call an early election at a time of his choosing. So it might be of interest to look at the current situation in the Westminster Parliament.

Before the UK’s Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (FTPA), which provides that Parliament is dissolved automatically after five years, dissolution was a Royal Prerogative power that was exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister – and this meant, in effect, the choice lay with the latter.

Now, under the 2011 legislation, the triggering of an early election requires a vote in Parliament – a motion of no-confidence in the sitting government being passed or a motion for a general election being agreed by two thirds of all MPs in the House of Commons, thus ensuring cross-party support.

The essential difference brought about by the FTPA is that it removed the ability of Prime Ministers to call an election at a time of their own choosing. However, another method available to a sitting government is to table a short Bill setting aside the provisions of the FTPA which only requires a simple majority.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson used this strategy to secure a general election in December, 2019, after claims that the FTPA “led to political paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action”. This was, of course, a reference to Brexit in relation to which it could be claimed that any paralysis was due to a minority Tory government lacking sufficient parliamentary support for its Brexit plans. Some critics maintain the sitting government should not have been helped out in this manner while others say the only way to resolve the issue at the time was to put it to a test of public opinion through a general election.

A drawback of the FTPA is that it can allow a weak government to remain in office. But its main advantage is to produce certainty and stability around which people can plan. Its aim of ending the governing party’s ability to call an election for political gain at a time of its own choosing – for example, because of some potential development affecting its electoral chances – received much support because many consider that in a democracy such a procedure is unfair and against the interests of the electorate and therefore undesirable.

According to reports, new legislation is now going through the UK Parliament to repeal the Act and restore the Prime Minister’s dissolution powers. In Britain, opinion on the issue varies. But, according to the UK press, there seems to be a general view that in a mature democracy it is preferable to hold elections at set intervals that are known to all in advance. On balance, this produces clarity and transparency together with fairness for opposition parties and increases people’s trust in the electoral process while also helping voter registration. No doubt the issue will continue to be debated here in The Bahamas, with former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham reported in the press last week to have said a fixed date is necessary to ensure people are properly advised and prepared for a general election.