The Tribune

THE thorny issue of immigration has hit the headlines again on both sides of the Atlantic. In the US, the ending of Title 42, which allows the authorities to expel migrants before they have a chance to file for asylum, is causing major controversy while the UK government announced last week bold and imaginative new plans to handle illegal migrants landing on the country’s shores.

In Britain, control of the nation’s borders has become an issue of prime importance in recent years, not least because the need to take responsibility for this was one reason for withdrawing from the European Union in 2020. Last year, the numbers of migrants crossing the English Channel from France reached record highs - and so far in 2022, according to the official figures, more than 4,600 people have made the crossing. But some say the true figure could be nearer 5,500, and this is likely to rise in the more benign weather conditions during the summer months.

The government has been heavily criticised for failing to resolve this crisis. As the stream speeds up, there is widespread agreement amongst politicians and the general public that something needs to be done to stop human trafficking gangs exploiting people in their bid to cross the Channel. For a relatively small and heavily populated island nation like Britain, uncontrolled immigration is simply unsustainable because of the strain on public services, the obvious security risk and because it encourages illegal traffic. It is unacceptable to the country as a whole, and this was explicitly acknowledged last year by the government minister responsible for immigration, Home Secretary Priti Patel, who was quoted as saying that the British public is “absolutely fed up” with what is going on – and, in particular, with the lie that those arriving are escaping persecution in their own country when most are economic migrants seeking a better life, attracted by the generosity of Britain’s welfare state.

Under the UK’s new plan only bona fide asylum seekers will be allowed to stay in the country in the first instance. The rest will be flown to the central African state of Rwanda where they will either be allowed to stay permanently or will be returned to their country of origin. In practice, this seems to mean that all those coming to Britain illegally will be assessed on arrival and, if deemed to be an economic migrant rather than a refugee fleeing a dangerous homeland, they will be sent to Rwanda for further processing and will be treated there in accordance with local refugee rules. The aim of the plan is to reduce illegal immigration, save lives and disrupt the business model of the smuggling gangs; and, undoubtedly, the intention is to deter economic migrants who may think twice about paying these gangs only to end up in a country in Africa 4,000 miles away.

The Home Secretary has called this historic deal between Britain and Rwanda the world’s first “global migration and economic partnership”. She has said that other countries - including Italy, Greece, Denmark and Germany - have shown interest, and they will doubtless sympathise with the comments of Prime Minister Boris Johnson that “our compassion may be infinite but our capacity to help people is not”.

Few figures about the funding of the project, and the aid package that presumably is part of the deal, have been published apart from initial costs for the UK of some $150m. Future costs will surely be hard to determine since they will depend on the future flow of migrants. But it is estimated that deterring illegal entry will create significant savings in the longer term.

Inevitably, there have already been objections to the Rwanda deal, with Amnesty International critical of Rwanda’s “dismal human rights record” and the UN refugee agency calling the scheme unacceptable and a breach of international law. Britain’s opposition Labour Party has labelled it “extortionate, unworkable and unethical”. Critics also wonder how the plan can be squared with the UK’s international legal obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights, of which it remains a member.

There will also be genuine worries about Rwanda being a dictatorship, with a one-party state, lack of press freedom and continuing human rights abuses. Moreover, the country is still tainted by the civil war and genocide ending in 1994 during which thousands died in widespread and sustained tribal clashes. But, by all accounts, the modern Rwanda with its population of 12 million is stable and prosperous with a burgeoning economy, and its capital, Kigali, is peaceful and thriving. It is clear that the UK government judges that under the new scheme anyone removed there from Britain will be treated fairly within the law while the UN refugee agency, despite criticising the scheme, is on record as admitting that Rwanda has been doing a good job in integrating refugees.

It seems that the framework of Britain’s innovative plan will become the basis for a new Nationality & Borders Bill which presumably will be closely scrutinised by MPs. But, whatever the objections, it is clear that firm action is needed to deal effectively with illegal migration to the UK. The latest polls show that a majority of the public support this most recent initiative by the Tory government, since, they say, in order to function properly a nation needs to control its borders – and that eerily echoes the words of former President Trump when he was trying to justify his border wall.

Is tide turning against wokeness?

The founder and CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, Elon Musk, is reputed to be the richest person in the world. His launch of a takeover bid for social media giant Twitter has been all over the news recently and, at the time of writing, it is unclear whether he will succeed as the company takes action to thwart him.

What I have found particularly interesting are his remarks about the need for Twitter to be a social media platform for free speech. Reportedly, he maintains that, as a micro-blogging platform and means of communication for individuals – and even world leaders – around the world, free speech protections normally applicable to a public forum should be in force. This ought to be the case rather than Twitter being permitted to be a de facto arbiter of free speech and deciding whom to shut down.

Equally interesting are his views about wokeness which he has described as “divisive, exclusionary and hateful” as it basically gives “mean people a shield to be mean and cruel, armoured in false virtue”. Whether or not he takes control of Twitter, the views and influence of the wealthiest person on the planet in relation to this important issue must inevitably count a good deal in one way or another.

In relation to the trashing of history and accusations of past racism - particularly any connection with slavery - others talk about minority groups searching for things to be “outraged” about and then creating a huge fuss which in turn intimidates the leadership of the chosen target.

That leadership becomes so obsessed with not upsetting the tiny minority that it loses sight of, and consideration for, the huge majority of people who are proud of their country and heritage.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines woke as “originally: well-informed, up-to-date” but now, of course, it chiefly means being alert to racial and social prejudice, discrimination and injustice; and surely most people would applaud that. But it is said that in the UK woke is also now being used by some as a pejorative term indicating “political correctness gone mad”.

This is, of course, a big subject worthy of a full debate. But suffice it to say today that I discovered in the UK press recently a claim that perhaps the tide was beginning to turn against the “relentless pernicious march of woke fundamentalism”. The writer complained that the UK’s public institutions had been overwhelmed by identity politics promoted by a vociferous minority - and, in particular, trans-gender extremism sought to blur the line between sex and gender, arguing that a person should be allowed to self-identify as male or female. However, earlier this month the British Prime Minister grasped the nettle – not before time, in the view of many – and, while acknowledging the complexities of the trans-gender debate, came out fighting for women by stating that biological males should not compete in female sports. The evidence shows that the majority of people would agree with him. Many also now hope that he will target schools and universities, which are accused of pushing trendy and divisive ideologies, because freedom of speech, thought and expression are the foundation stones of a liberal democracy and they should be actively encouraged, not silenced through intolerance of competing points of view.

It seems to be the case that wokeness is partly about threatening to ruin the lives of others with whom one disagrees while tolerance is, of course, all about understanding and respecting the ideas and views of others. So it is surely appropriate and right to push back against it, though whether the tide is really turning remains to be seen.

Anzac Day

Commemoration of the centenary of Anzac Day in 2015 attracted worldwide attention, though recognition annually of this day of remembrance – April 25 -- for Australia and New Zealand tends to be more limited. But, since it is the day these two proud nations commemorate and honour the service and sacrifice of members of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, it is as important to them as our own Remembrance Day on November 11 is to us.

Anzac Day is observed on April 25 because that was the date in 1915, during the First World War, of the landings by Allied forces – including large numbers of Australians and New Zealanders - on the Gallipoli peninsular in Turkey. This was part of the ill-fated Dardanelles campaign during which the Allies suffered extremely heavy casualties. It was originally conceived as a commemoration of those two countries’ war dead during the whole of the First World War, but it was later extended to the Second World War as well and also widened to include all who suffered and died in overseas conflicts.

So April 25 will be a sombre day of remembrance for Australia and New Zealand – and, as an indication of the importance of Anzac Day, on its 90th anniversary in 2005 the then Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, described the Anzac spirit as giving the country a lasting sense of national identity forged during the First World War.

In writing about this, I must confess to a personal interest. My grandfather, who as a general commanded New Zealand’s armed forces after the First World War, served as a colonel during the fighting at Gallipoli. He was later responsible for the successful night-time evacuation of NZ forces under the noses of the Turks and without suffering any casualties. Needless to say, his subsequent letter in manuscript to my grandmother describing this achievement is now carefully preserved in our family archives.

The actions of the Australian and New Zealand armed forces – both at Gallipoli and in numerous subsequent conflicts around the world – have left a powerful legacy which has become an important part of the national identity of both countries. The spirit of Anzac Day remains as strong as ever – and long may this continue.