The Tribune

HAVING written last March about the unveiling by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of new proposed legislation to deal with illegal immigration, it seems timely today to revert to the subject now that the Bill has become law.

Historians maintain that the basic human stock of England has been settled and relatively homogeneous since time immemorial. But the evidence shows that there have always been episodes of migration to Britain even though until about the middle of the 20th century the number of people born abroad who were living in the country was relatively small – and that was clearly the case despite the fact that over the years Britain had offered safe haven for those genuinely facing persecution in their own countries. Two prominent examples were the Huguenots as Protestants fleeing France during the 17th century onwards and Jews in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and later.

In modern times, one of the strengths of Britain, as a rich and stable democracy committed to the rule of law and respect for human rights around the world, has been to continue this policy of welcoming those under threat and in genuine need. This has included most recently refugees from Afghanistan - as well as from Hong Kong after China’s security crackdown - and those displaced by the war in Ukraine. In the 1990s and beyond, the figures show that the pace and scale of migration increased to a level without historical precedent so that between 1991 and 2011 – years when censuses were held -- the foreign-born population of England and Wales more than doubled.

All this shows that there can be no doubts about the UK’s fine record in welcoming over the years migrants in distress. Polls suggest that most rational and reasonable people welcome immigration as a benefit to the nation as long as it takes place in an ordered and controlled manner under established legal procedures – indeed, this has become an issue of prime importance in recent years, not least because the pressure on the UK government by voters to take responsibility for controlling its own borders was one reason for leaving the European Union in 2020.

Illegal immigration, on the other hand, is an altogether different matter. This has become an endlessly controversial issue in the UK and a political “hot potato” that demonstrates a massive failure by government despite the PM making “stopping the boats” one of his five key priorities. His Bill, now the Illegal Migration Act 2023, was specifically aimed at tackling illegal immigration and especially those coming by small boats across the English Channel from France, the number of which continues to surge even as the loss of life has increased. Not only does this route put lives at risk on grossly overcrowded boats and dinghies but it also undermines the public’s faith in the ability or willingness of authorities to enforce the law and hands control to ruthless gangs responsible for human trafficking. It also weakens the existing system of legal immigration and is grotesquely unfair to those who follow the correct procedures. It shows that weak central government is allowing a parallel illicit immigration system to exist alongside the official, legal one.

The stated purpose of the new Act is to prevent and deter unlawful migration by unsafe and illegal routes by requiring removal from the UK of people who try to enter the country in breach of immigration control. The Illegal Migration Act changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally and with no obvious case to apply for asylum will not be able to stay and, instead, will be detained and then promptly removed, either to their own country or a safe third country, and barred from applying legally in any future attempt to enter the UK.

It remains to be seen how this will work out in practice. Any new system will doubtless be subject to legal challenge by human rights groups, charities in the UK and by the UN’s refugee agency; as well as by a liberal Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the Church of England, who is seen by some as delving into matters that are beyond his remit. But the problem is becoming worse. Since the beginning of 2018, at least 100,000 migrants have sought to enter Britain illegally by crossing the Channel which is a perilous journey irrespective of the dangerous overloading of boats because it is the world’s busiest shipping route. Last year, 45,000 reached the UK’s southern shores and this year the figure could rise to 50,000.

Reportedly, amidst the legalistic manoeuvres and spurious appeals as this situation has gone from shambles to fiasco, there is now talk that the government should seek an alternative off-shore base on an island in the immediate vicinity of the UK mainland for processing genuine asylum claims – similar to the holding centres created by Australia some years ago. Migrants arriving illegally from France, which should be considered as a completely safe country, should be able to seek asylum - if they are judged to have a strong enough case - while being held at such centres. Moreover, asylum should be considered as the right to live in a place of safety not one of economic opportunity in what is seen as the UK’s overly generous welfare conditions.

Meanwhile, it is revealing that the figures show that other countries like France, Germany, Sweden and Spain reject substantially more asylum claims than Britain does. No sensible government of any nation state can afford - as the UK seems to be doing in relation to the small boats situation - to allow any part of its borders to be abolished in practice and thus permit unknown numbers, including potential criminals, to enter the country. What is more, if there is no limit on numbers, how much longer can Britain’s already tottering welfare state – as well as its housing supply, medical facilities, schools and transport in generally peaceful and ordered social conditions - survive. Thus, members of the public inevitably pose the basic question – should their country be allowed to impoverish itself so as to take in people en masse from poorer parts of the world?

Perhaps Prime Minister Sunak put it best with his memorable words about those crossing the English Channel in small boats, exploited and trafficked by criminal gangs putting their lives in danger – ‘If you come illegally, you will not be allowed to stay. Our policy is to break this cycle of misery. It is fair and moral and the right thing to do’.

Historic and unique trilateral summit

The high-level trilateral meeting in Washington on Friday between President Biden and the leaders of Japan and the Republic of Korea has been generally regarded as an historic moment because it was the first-ever stand-alone summit between the US and these two countries together.

Both Japan and South Korea have been close American allies for decades but the two have a long history of mutual acrimony arising from Japan’s harsh colonial rule for most of the first half of the 20th century. The Americans call this ‘lingering historical baggage’. It is said that former President George W Bush managed to convene meetings with these two traditional antagonists in the margins of international meetings, but that such informal gatherings had rarely been productive.

Now, as a result of what must have been careful and persistent diplomacy in preparation, Biden has managed to get them together at Camp David for trilateral consultations in what is being regarded as something of a diplomatic coup for the president – and this will be music to his ears after setbacks like the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. Traditionally, this venue has been used by US presidents as a retreat to negotiate deals with foreign leaders; and Camp David has a symbolic importance as a place where the US has successfully brought adversaries together in the past.

Friday’s high-level trilateral consultations were against a background of China’s more aggressive stance in the region and, apparently, a bid to project unity in the face of its growing power as well as nuclear threats from North Korea. So, in addition to Russia, the activities of these two, will have loomed large over the meeting as China was condemned for its ‘dangerous and aggressive behaviour’ in the South China Sea.

Judging from the immediate commentary by US and world media, the outcome this time has been a considerable success. In addition to heralding a new era of cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region and a pledge to deepen partnerships, the meeting produced an agreement to create a “hotline” for discussion if a crisis in the region warranted urgent consultation, with all three countries also acknowledging the importance of regular ordinary consultation at lower levels in order to coordinate their responses to regional challenges and threats that could affect their collective interests and security. It was also agreed that leaders should meet in person at least annually in order to build on the momentum of the Camp David summit; and there was provision for sharing assessments on a range of “geostrategic” issues, while trilateral security cooperation would be strengthened by holding joint defence exercises and sharing information; for example, about the nuclear threat from North Korea.

According to reports, many observers have been impressed by how comprehensive this cooperation agreement was as it also covered economic issues like the protection of supply chains. It struck me, too, that, although it falls short of a formal three-way alliance, it is a bold move by Japan and South Korea both in pursuing bilateral rapprochement and - despite China being the principal trading partner of both - agreeing to a strong trilateral statement that “we strongly oppose any unilateral attempts to change the status quo in the waters of the Indo-Pacific”.

This summit is clearly another important element in the Western reaction to Chinese expansionism and North Korea’s nuclear threat. It should serve to strengthen what is already in place – for example, defensive groupings like the QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) between the US, Australia, India and Japan and AUKUS (Australia, the UK and US) under which nuclear submarines are being supplied to Australia through cooperation on military technology. This is also consistent, of course, with the actions of other Western powers; for example, the UK shifting its diplomatic focus towards the Indo-Pacific region, since this is becoming the geopolitical centre of the world, with countries such as India, China, Japan and Australia among others making up some forty per cent of global GDP.

LIONESSES MISS OUT ON WORLD CUP FINAL GLORY

In his message to the England players who had just lost to Spain in the Women’s Football World Cup final on Sunday, Prince William, as President of the Football Association in England, congratulated them on having done themselves and their country proud despite their narrow defeat by a single goal.

Many English fans will surely agree with him that, although they failed to win World Cup glory by lifting the winner’s trophy, the Lionesses acquitted themselves superbly in managing to reach the final and representing their country so well. Some pundits are saying that, despite being the underdogs, Spain deserved their victory on the day as they were better technically at holding and distributing the ball while dominating the midfield. But it was a close match and, throughout the second half, England were looking for an equalising goal that would have extended the contest.

This group of players were the first England senior football team to reach a World Cup final since the men’s team were victorious and became world champions in 1966. Their inspirational performance and achievement has created a huge legacy and will surely have a lasting impact on the development of the women’s game in Britain and on society as a whole for years to come. This achievement becomes all the more significant when one learns, after a little research, that in 1921 the Football Association declared – somewhat pompously - that “the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged”. The ban was later lifted and the Women’s FA was founded as a separate governing body in 1969. Now, half a century later, it is a very different story, with England’s Lionesses already established European champions and in the final of the Women’s World Cup, which was founded in 1991 – and all this has been encouraged by a strong public following which the women’s game now enjoys.

 Inevitably, the players and huge number of fans are heartbroken that this time their team failed at the last hurdle. But, on all the evidence, success in the future is surely guaranteed – and it is said that one of the next challenges on the horizon will be the Olympic Games next year. For the fans, in particular, that cannot come soon enough as women’s football has caught the imagination and hearts of millions of Britons.