Immigration: we need humanity, pragmatism and a rigorous visa system

Anyone who claims that there is an easy answer to the question of immigration is guilty of purblind naivety. We have arrived at this problem for a number of reasons. One basic factor was identified by Peter Lilley: a tacit alliance between employers, who are keen on cheap labour, and virtue-signalling Lefties who insist that any attempts to control immigration are racist.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has virtually aligned himself with the Lefties, insisting that it is immoral to ignore the claims of poor people who seek refuge on our shores. This creates a problem for Christians, because Jesus Christ seemed to express a similar sentiment in parts of the Gospels. There is also a difficulty for Kantians: “Act as if your every action will become a universal moral law.”

Neither a Christian nor a Kantian, it seems to me that both positions make impossible demands on human nature. Prime Minister Salisbury, who was a devout Christian, spoke of the radical impossibility of Christian ethics. If that was good enough for him, the rest of us should not torture ourselves by trying to attain the unattainable.

There are two views as to the purpose of government in this country. The first, to which most people would subscribe without necessarily thinking it through, is that the purpose of our government is to protect the lives, liberties and property of His Majesty’s subjects. In the words of David Cameron, a prime minister should hope to leave the country stronger and the people more prosperous.

People who believe that tend to be proud of their country. They might well agree with Lord Melbourne, who said that being born British is a very high draw in the lottery of life. While not claiming that the British people have somehow been exempted from the doom of original sin, they would assert that our history has been a relatively benign one by the standards of other imperial powers. When we contemplate our past, we British do not believe in strutting or boasting. We leave that to certain continental nations who use assertiveness to cover insecurity. But we are entitled to a quiet pride.

Our laws ought to be British laws, enacted by our parliament, justiciable in our courts. But law-abiding foreigners legitimately resident in this country should have nothing to fear from any of that.

I remember talking to an American who was still shaking his head about our legal system – in admiration. He had a legal case against a British firm and his lawyers assured him that he ought to win. But what was this? The Master of the Rolls and other similar flummery: surely this was what the infant US had struggled to overthrow. So how could a plain, honest-to-God Yankee hope to succeed against all this medieval mountebankery? There was a simple answer: by having what was indeed a good case. He won. My American was happy to concede that in the law-courts of some American states, there was a distinct risk of home-cooking. Not in the UK. He now understood why a lot of firms wanted their disputes to be tried in Britain, and if he ever came across His Lordship the Master of the Rolls, he would be delighted to bow to him.

So this approach to English law ought to satisfy every reasonable person who seeks the protection offered by our system. That would include any immigrant who has a right to be here. But what about the illegals and the millions of others who might wish to come here?

Two principles ought to prevail. It should be made clear that no illegal immigrant should be permitted to remain in the UK. If they cannot be deported, they should be kept in spartan accommodation, or in Rwanda, with no prospect of settlement.

As for genuine refugees, Britain has a long and honourable tradition of giving succour to persecuted groups. The Huguenots, German Jews in the 1930s, Hungarians fleeing the Soviets after 1956, Ugandan Asians, a lot of Hong-Kong Chinese: in each case, we were able to do our duty while enriching the country. Almost all those immigrants turned out to be excellent citizens.

That will probably be true of two recent groups who are swelling the immigration figures: more Hong-Kong Chinese, and Ukranians. They made up about 40 per cent of the current total. Many of them no doubt hope to return home, but if that proves impossible, this country has little to fear.

Other supposed refugees are a much more dubious commodity. As asylum seekers are obliged to declare themselves in the first safe country which they arrive in, there can be no right of asylum for those arriving from France. It could be argued that economic migrants, who have struggled to reach these shores, might be more desirable than some political refugees. Although the latter may have lost a power-struggle in their own homeland, this does not necessarily make them attractive human beings with decent values. If they had their way, the oppressed could easily become the oppressors. A lot of the economic migrants might well be safer.

But that is irrelevant. The numbers would be far too great. We have to place limits, enforced by a rigorous system of visas. We must also do far more to utilise our own labour force.  

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life