Priti Patel’s Bill condemns the poorest migrants to danger and death 

The hypocrisy of the Conservative Government is on full display this week, with “Freedom Day” wielded in one hand, and Priti Patel’s new immigration policies, embodied in the Nationality and Borders Bill, sitting in the other. Policies that will, among other things, mean that any migrants who enter the UK through “improper channels” can be threatened with up to four years in prison.

This crackdown is being introduced as a way to protect migrants, to ensure their safety from predatory human smugglers. However, this will also make it harder for those who are fleeing war, famine, violence, and persecution to find a safe place to live.

What Priti Patel and the rest of the Government need to remember is that entering a country through “improper channels”, in order to claim asylum in that country, is not illegal. And for many, it is the only option they have. The UK’s visa application system is complicated, requires contacts in the UK, and is very expensive. Currently, only the richest migrants and refugees are able to escape danger and hostility through proper channels. By cracking down on other means of entering the country, we are condemning some of the world’s most vulnerable people to pain and danger, and even death.

If the Government really wanted to protect potential migrants from being taken advantage of by smugglers, it should have made it easier to enter the country through proper channels. Or, at the very least, it should stop actively contributing to the conditions which force people to migrate in the first place.

Threatening those fleeing war and violence with prison is especially cruel during a pandemic. Prisons are places where outbreaks of Covid-19 are common – particularly in the UK’s many private prisons. And such a policy is ineffectual; potential prison sentences may sound like the lesser of two evils for those fleeing the likes of Yemen and Syria, where death is the alternative.

One could argue that the UK, though one of the richest countries in the world, isn’t capable of taking in more refugees, or that we have taken in our fair share and shouldn’t be expected to go further — essentially, that there’s nothing in it for us. But the UK has depended on migrants for hundreds of years, not only for the cultural diversity that we celebrate, but also for its workforce. At present, the UK is suffering from the worst labour shortage so far this century, with companies crying out for workers. Not only would making immigration easier be the moral thing to do, it would also help boost the UK’s floundering economy by ensuring that there are no jobs left undone.

One could also argue that we simply don’t have the space – but in fact there are around 269,000 homes in the UK currently sitting empty. So not only are there plenty of jobs to go around — there is also a surplus of housing. What then is the argument for the danger of migrants? That they would boost our economy too much? That they would add too much fascinating cultural diversity? That they would bring too many useful skills to further the interests of the country?

It is unconscionable to threaten to imprison people for the non-crime of entering the UK through improper means. It is illogical not to accept new talent, skills, and labour to help give our pandemic-stricken economy a much-needed boost. If Patel and her colleagues were more interested in doing what is actually best for the country, and the world, they would stop their ludicrous, jingoistic crusade and realise that the UK’s privileged position should be used to help as many as possible, not to promote isolated individualism.

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.