Very interesting read. One missing component is "self deportation". Every illegal would receive £3,000 on leaving the country. Yes, it would be galling to reward them in this fashion, but it would be cheaper than either the expensive measures proposed or letting them remain on the present terms. Combined with the withdrawal of benefits, free housing etc, a very great number would accept - and the Left could do nothing about it. There would be a cut-off date - any who had not taken the money and gone by that date would be sent to Rwanda (or equivalent) which should spur them into taking it!
This would be even more effective combined with a genuine hostile environment policy - increased English fluency requirements for jobs/residency, cousin marriage ban, burqa ban, cutting foreign mosque funding etc. Carrot and stick.
I'm not against banning halal slaughter, but would it be possible without also banning schecita (sorry about tha spelling) which is the Jewish equivalent and much the same?
I fully endorse the banning of halal slaughter but note a side effect that we must be prepared for: Last year, there was a news story about a bull which had escaped slaughter in Birmingham and was running around the streets. What wasn't addressed by the press was where had the bull escaped from? I do not believe this was ever established but it is generally agreed that it escaped from an unlicenced, unregulated, illegal, back-street abattoir. This horrendous cruelty is clearly already widespread in our country and we must be prepared to detect and crack down on soaring levels of it as legal halal abattoirs are closed.
You can't ban halal slaughter and *also* ban the importation of halal meat. This is absolutely ridiculous and will just lead to a massive underground industry. Pete North has written about this on X.
Look I've not been insulting towards you, I just said the idea is ridiculous. The amount of energy, resources and effort required to implement a ban on both slaughter and import of halal/kosher meat could never possible justify whatever gains you imagine there to be.
The halal/kosher question is a distraction from the more pertinent issues. Whenever the new right focuses on it, they lose credibility with centre-right voters and small-c conservatives who see it a costly, unnecessary, and rather illiberal intervention.
By all means, push for better labelling and stuff like that, but talk of bans will just elicit eye rolls.
I think that before a ban is practical, two steps might pave it way. Mandatory labelling is essential but it must coincide with a campaign (unofficial) to make the public fully aware of what halal slaughter entails. I feel confident that public outrage and resulting changes in purchasing habits would reverse the trend of halal being the default in restaurants and the catering sector more widely. This would blow a huge hole in the halal industry and reduce it to the niche market that it should be. A ban could then follow.
What do a cousin marriage ban and burqa ban have to do with the deportation of primarily working-age men who entered illegally?
Cousin-marriage bans are simply not enforceable. Burqa bans target a minuscule minority of women from diverse Muslim backgrounds, most of whom are British (by birth or by naturalisation) or married to British nationals.
Encourage self deportation (ie emigration to origin or dual national country) or assimilation.
You raise good points, I'm unsure about cousin marriage ban being unenforceable, several European countries have such a policy.
But generally, I think the principle of incentives which encourage self deportation are sound, but the actual mechanisms very much up for debate. I listed some that are often discussed without too much thought, you are right to question what will likely work best.
The Home Office has two categories of “Deportations”: Voluntary Removals and Enforced Removals. Enforced Removals are what most people understand as deportations.
Voluntary Removals are 3-4 times greater in number than Enforced Removals; they are partially incentivised - probably why you never hear about them much.
But if you want to actually get rid of people…..it seems to be more successful.
In terms of language I think we could talk about voluntary deportation as repatriation. This could make it more palatable to the public and is, in many ways, a more accurate description.
If the Right fails to deliver on its strengths. Deportations, demographics, law and order, the ordinary voter will accept these are lost causes and just vote for the candidate that promises the most "free struff".
Or subscribe to less salubrious far right organisations willing to "get their hands dirty" (ie intimidate and attack immigrants) in order to persuade immigrant populations to leave.
This assessment also needs to account for the vast number of asylum seekers who come via airports. It’s a known fact that several arrive in countries such as Italy where they hop onto planes and then dispose of passports.
Let us also remember the Civil Service may need gutting to get rid of the activists who would act against these policies.
"all legal impediments to state action regarding illegal migrants must be removed to avoid the possibility of judicial review and legal restraint."
Surely this will take many months at the very least, and possibly a couple of years. Legislation to repeal various Acts will need to be proposed and move through the HoC and HoL. There will need to be a new HRA proposed to wrap up any loose ends arising from the repeal of other laws.
Other parties and activist groups will do their best to slow down or derail all such legislation, especially at the HoL stage. There will be pressure to insert clauses that will water down its effectiveness.
It's a process that should definitely be put in motion at the earliest opportunity, but I don't think any Government can sit and twiddle its thumbs while waiting on it completing.
In the meantime, there should be a plan to introduce as many hoops and obstacles in the 'immigration pathway' to make the process more tedious for illegal (and to an extent legal) migrants.
As mentioned in another comment, there can be a short-lived 'amnesty' (let's say six months) at the start where illegal migrants are told they can voluntarily leave the country and be given a financial payout. And they may get a further reward if they provide the authorities with valuable information such as specific businesses that are employing illegal migrants, locations of residence etc. The additional payment is only handed out if the information is verified to be true.
Once the scheme ends, the carrot is taken away and only the stick is left.
Other mechanisms like enforcing proper entry and exit border controls at airports will help catch 'refugees' that travel to their home countries on holidays.
Before deportation (voluntary or not), all illegal migrants should have their biometrics and DNA captured and stored for a substantial amount of time (30 years??). This means there is a database to cross-reference on any unsolved crimes, and also means if some manage to re-enter the country again, it will be flagged and they can be quickly apprehended if they put in another asylum claim etc.
Improving enforcement of employment laws, going after those who use illegal immigrants in their workforce, strengthening language requirements, removing benefits and housing, extending the timeframe to gain ILR/citizenship, creating red lists of problematic countries, prosecution and prison sentences for those obstructing arrests and deportations, removing public funding from charities in general, revamping the immigration process and visa categories etc etc can all help chip away at the overall numbers and make Britain less of an easy ride to those who seek to exploit it.
Wow. This is a tough read. One hopes that a trap of this kind, a complex operation presupposing a need to obscure government actions from the British public, would never be sprung upon us by a democratic gouvernment. I don't have any solutions myself. And in general I support this policy. But I have to say I would feel a little evil supporting a scheme like this. I guess I would be one of the horrified members of the British public, not liking the taste of the medicine?
Do you find the alternative scenario posed (i.e. the outbreak of civil strife) plausible, and if so do you think that deportations are preferable to that outcome?
Personally I think the vision in this article and in this Substack more generally is overblown, but I basically agree that current levels of illegal immigration are very dangerous and that this urgent issue is handled with an almost cartoonist buffoonery that goes some way towards explaining why reform are the leading party in much of Britain today. But the detached language here bothers me. It puts me in mind of a warehouse worker shuffling inventory. I think that the necessary change in immigration policy and the even more necessary mass deportations must be carried out firmly, coolly, but deftly and without pleasure. There is no pride to be taken here. I personally find no joy in subjecting a human being to maltreatment. I don't see any other option but to press ahead with these changes. But this language bothers me tremendously
What issue do you have with the language? The conceit of the article is that it is supposed to be a research memo so the language is intended to be clinical (and therefore without pride or joy), but even so it makes the point that even a quick, successful operation will prove to be unpopular because of the human element
It's not just because the British are a sentimental people, as the article notes, but that the average person doesn't really like tough rhetoric. It goes down a lot better in "macho" countries like the US whereas in Britain we like to be less aggressive and more understated in our speech.
Part of the reason the DT and DM took issue with Theresa May's "hostile environment" was the language around it. It was jarring. It rubbed me the wrong way at the time too. Because if you recall the messaging wasn't just about dis-incentivising illegal migrants but about shutting down many of the legal visa routes and framing nearly all immigration as problematic.
I had various friends on the Post-Study Work visas who were working professional jobs and doing everything by the book in order to transition into Tier-2 sponsored worker visas, so to hear the Cameron govt talk about such visas as mere pathways to gaming the system was infuriating. This tarring of everyone with the same brush is not a winning message.
A future Reform govt would do well to recognise that there are many well-intentioned migrants who want to contribute and that unfortunately some of them will be collateral damage of the policies that are ultimately needed to make the country safer and reduce strain on public services. An effective govt would convey a certain level of empathy and regret, not just talk in terms of “Immigrants are a net burden” or "All illegals have broken the law so we're coming for them". Many people feel averse to this rhetoric; it's not nuanced enough for the people in the middle.
I have known visa overstayers who did everything they could to regularise their status and those who couldn't repatriated themselves because they were reasonable people. This will account for significant portion of illegals and it needs to be recognised, rather than talking about them all as potential criminals and exploiters.
I am Jewish. My great grandparents fled Austria just before the holocaust. Austria offers people in my situation a repatritian of sorts, essentially an Austrian passport with fewer restrictions than would normally apply. Its a very generous plan. But as you might imagine, Austrians like orderly paperwork. You have to prove you are who and what you say you are. The process of applying for my passport involved me reading many many reports and letters written by and for a soulless beurocracy. Normal people implementing the law. I perused endless drab documentation referring to the theft or my great grandparents property and their total persecution. "They are Jews and so the law states that they must be brutalised and so I Mr such and such deem it lawful and appropriate to seize their assets yada yada yada". What struck me most, more than the evil and the pointlessness - was how boring it all was. It was mundane and unexpressive.
The topic we are discussing is not evil. It is in no way like the holocaust. It is just. It is necessary. It is cruel - but it is fair. But you ask about the language... I hope we don't look back on this kind of language with shame or disgust.
Ms. Arendt's point about the 'banality of evil' should not be reversed such that banality is evil. Ultimately the prospectus set out in the article is good or evil independently of the quality of the prose.
I tend to think the policy is justified by necessity, but of course necessity has been the justification of every atrocity in history, and I do worry (as I think the article concedes) that a small number of people genuinely deserving of or needing sanctuary (not unlike your ancestors) will be caught up in it.
But if that worry causes us to pause we give in to the fallacy of status quo bias. You do not need me to tell you what a threat to the lives of British jews small boat asylum seekers pose, etc.
"...a trap of this kind, a complex operation presupposing a need to obscure government actions from the British public, would never be sprung upon us by a democratic gouvernment".
We literally had this during lockdown which was the gravest ever breach of rights committed by a peacetime govt against its population! Every single person residing in this country was impacted. There has still been no reckoning whatsoever.
In contrast, the policies being set out above are only intended to target a small minority of the population and, illiberal though they may be, the motive is a valid one and the means would arguably justify the ends.
That said, there should obviously be safeguards in place to prevent this becoming a standard way of running affairs in this country.
Part of the graveness of this misjustice you are referring to is that it was not so much hidden as not mentioned and ignored, then later obscured and mystified, and by the time the scale of this invasion was apparent we were already imperilled by its implications. That was a crime, as you say. It is not a legitimate tactic. It should not be imitated. Implementing its inverse in the same distorted and surruptutious way is not the way.
Sections 4.4 to 4.7 are the crux of it. Third-country holding is just thrown in as if were really easy to arrange. Even assuming no legal constraints, I don’t think it will be easy to arrange, especially at the required numbers and regardless of how “loose” it may be.
The secret operation to deport people sounds like the way to do it, but there are no numbers. Flights will be “continuous” but what are the destinations?…that’s the whole point. Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan? Really?
An estimate of the illegal population is around 1 million, with half a million being from countries that just won’t co-operate and over which the UK has no leverage. That’s half a million people to be flown to unknown destinations, in secret?
Only by having some idea of the numbers proposed, can you make sense of sections 4.4 to 4.7.
Bit utopian because it is a radical plan. I don't think the British people. as they are today, would ever swallow these tough measures. They would also exacerbate racial tensions in society. What is to be done then? Not much. I fear...😉
Yes. This is.right-wing "deport them all" utopian thinking, the flipside of the "refugees welcome" utopian thinking we see on the left.
At the end of the day, managing large populations is a messy affair. I think we need a certain degree of pragmatism and a dose of realism.
The immediate focus should be on preventing small boat arrivals, deporting serious criminals and false asylum claimants, and reforming the welfare system. Measures can be employed to encourage repatriation, such as cash transfers or a crackdown on networks that operate in the black market (delivery services, vape shops, barbers, restaurants, etc.), but ultimately I don't think people would welcome a system of increased surveillance in their day-to-day life or a "papers please" society in which immigration agents burst into ordinary workplaces demanding to see ID.
We.simply have to accept that many people are here to stay and think about how we manage this. The multicultural approach focused on "community relations" has failed. But the idea that we can simply turn back the clock by forcibly removing 1M people is very fanciful.
Possibly an amnesty from deportation should be offered to women and children illegal migrants, and possibly to men over a certain age (45, 50). I mean, they will be a burden but they are not committing rapes, and it may lower the opposition to deportation.
This article amounts to a revolutionary takeover of the apparatus of the state, absolutely unacceptable and undemocratic. Measures this extreme are unconstitutional and illegal unless taken openly through parliament and with a clear mandate through a manifesto commitment at the general election. This is truly dangerous
Such an important point in Section 3: Willing the Ends, Protesting the Means. The general view on immigration is incoherent and inconsistent.
The Pew Research Center (USA) who study unauthorised populations in Europe and North America, estimate that over half of the UK illegal population have been here for more than five years, which is unique in Europe.
It is from this that social resistance will come. No-one minds if the bunch of Middle Eastern guys hanging around on the street corner get bundled into a van if they’re illegal, but when it comes to that nice chemist on the corner who has always been there, or your daughter’s school friends disappearing, things will start to look different.
There always so much noise about who we want to exclude from society but none about who we want to include. We need proper citizenship laws to say who we are, not Commonwealth and all that nonsense. “UK Citizen” ID cards would stop foreigners using public services and make it clear who it is we want to include.
Surely any bill dealing with migration law should be smuggled into something like a budget so it wouldn’t be noticed? Labour have already done this many times before.
I think its quite easy optics in a sense. Have someone in the Home Office start leaking the costs of housing migrants, specific sexual offence's, etc to the papers on the regular. Even the BBC recently ran a report on asylum fraud that raised “normie” hackles.
The migration bill that matters, suspending asylum, ECHR, Human Rights Act etc. will be noticed all over the world. It can probably only be done with a large right-wing majority in parliament, who may have to abolish the House of Lords to do it…an added bonus.
I just don't think that should have to be true. Look at Joe Biden's inflation reduction bill that was actually effectively about Renewable power.
The right in this country needs to learn to take the Danish approach. You shouldn't really even talk about the remigration that you're doing. You should just do it in the background!
Yes I get your point. The Danish government had to talk about it a bit though, as it was their election platform. But yes the UK does obsess about rules too much.
I don’t think the UK public would accept the incentive policy that Denmark has though, under any circumstances.
Surely any bill dealing with migration law should be smuggled into something like a budget so it wouldn’t be noticed? Labour have already done this many times before.
But the destinations of the Berlin airlift accepted them coming, gave them permission to land. This is not the case with the countries of of origin of around half a million people illegally in the UK
Very interesting read. One missing component is "self deportation". Every illegal would receive £3,000 on leaving the country. Yes, it would be galling to reward them in this fashion, but it would be cheaper than either the expensive measures proposed or letting them remain on the present terms. Combined with the withdrawal of benefits, free housing etc, a very great number would accept - and the Left could do nothing about it. There would be a cut-off date - any who had not taken the money and gone by that date would be sent to Rwanda (or equivalent) which should spur them into taking it!
This would be even more effective combined with a genuine hostile environment policy - increased English fluency requirements for jobs/residency, cousin marriage ban, burqa ban, cutting foreign mosque funding etc. Carrot and stick.
Banning halal slaughter and banning the importation of meat so slaughtered?
I'm not against banning halal slaughter, but would it be possible without also banning schecita (sorry about tha spelling) which is the Jewish equivalent and much the same?
Much as I regret further slights upon our Jewish friends, yes Kosher meat will inevitably be prohibited too.
I fully endorse the banning of halal slaughter but note a side effect that we must be prepared for: Last year, there was a news story about a bull which had escaped slaughter in Birmingham and was running around the streets. What wasn't addressed by the press was where had the bull escaped from? I do not believe this was ever established but it is generally agreed that it escaped from an unlicenced, unregulated, illegal, back-street abattoir. This horrendous cruelty is clearly already widespread in our country and we must be prepared to detect and crack down on soaring levels of it as legal halal abattoirs are closed.
You can't ban halal slaughter and *also* ban the importation of halal meat. This is absolutely ridiculous and will just lead to a massive underground industry. Pete North has written about this on X.
Your response, and its contumely contribution, indicates the worth, or otherwise, of your opinion.
Look I've not been insulting towards you, I just said the idea is ridiculous. The amount of energy, resources and effort required to implement a ban on both slaughter and import of halal/kosher meat could never possible justify whatever gains you imagine there to be.
The halal/kosher question is a distraction from the more pertinent issues. Whenever the new right focuses on it, they lose credibility with centre-right voters and small-c conservatives who see it a costly, unnecessary, and rather illiberal intervention.
By all means, push for better labelling and stuff like that, but talk of bans will just elicit eye rolls.
I think that before a ban is practical, two steps might pave it way. Mandatory labelling is essential but it must coincide with a campaign (unofficial) to make the public fully aware of what halal slaughter entails. I feel confident that public outrage and resulting changes in purchasing habits would reverse the trend of halal being the default in restaurants and the catering sector more widely. This would blow a huge hole in the halal industry and reduce it to the niche market that it should be. A ban could then follow.
Plus 'red-listing' migration from certain countries: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia etc.
"Animal welfare laws" regulating inhumane practices in the food industry.
Would the cousin marriage ban include the Royal Family, most of them married to cousins, including Elizabeth?
What do a cousin marriage ban and burqa ban have to do with the deportation of primarily working-age men who entered illegally?
Cousin-marriage bans are simply not enforceable. Burqa bans target a minuscule minority of women from diverse Muslim backgrounds, most of whom are British (by birth or by naturalisation) or married to British nationals.
Encourage self deportation (ie emigration to origin or dual national country) or assimilation.
You raise good points, I'm unsure about cousin marriage ban being unenforceable, several European countries have such a policy.
But generally, I think the principle of incentives which encourage self deportation are sound, but the actual mechanisms very much up for debate. I listed some that are often discussed without too much thought, you are right to question what will likely work best.
The Home Office has two categories of “Deportations”: Voluntary Removals and Enforced Removals. Enforced Removals are what most people understand as deportations.
Voluntary Removals are 3-4 times greater in number than Enforced Removals; they are partially incentivised - probably why you never hear about them much.
But if you want to actually get rid of people…..it seems to be more successful.
In terms of language I think we could talk about voluntary deportation as repatriation. This could make it more palatable to the public and is, in many ways, a more accurate description.
Those are the categories that the Home Office uses in their reporting. They don’t use the word deportation.
Enforced Removals
Voluntary Removals
Yes I realise that. I'm talking about language as used in the media or political messaging.
Agree this should be an option, but probably need to be in five figures range payment.
I balieve the Swedes offer 3,000 euros and have had a good take up.I suspect that it would not so much the amount as the alternative (Rwanda).
A much higher amount wouldl
certainly be needed to persuade those who are here legally to leave.
If the Right fails to deliver on its strengths. Deportations, demographics, law and order, the ordinary voter will accept these are lost causes and just vote for the candidate that promises the most "free struff".
Or subscribe to less salubrious far right organisations willing to "get their hands dirty" (ie intimidate and attack immigrants) in order to persuade immigrant populations to leave.
This assessment also needs to account for the vast number of asylum seekers who come via airports. It’s a known fact that several arrive in countries such as Italy where they hop onto planes and then dispose of passports.
Let us also remember the Civil Service may need gutting to get rid of the activists who would act against these policies.
"all legal impediments to state action regarding illegal migrants must be removed to avoid the possibility of judicial review and legal restraint."
Surely this will take many months at the very least, and possibly a couple of years. Legislation to repeal various Acts will need to be proposed and move through the HoC and HoL. There will need to be a new HRA proposed to wrap up any loose ends arising from the repeal of other laws.
Other parties and activist groups will do their best to slow down or derail all such legislation, especially at the HoL stage. There will be pressure to insert clauses that will water down its effectiveness.
It's a process that should definitely be put in motion at the earliest opportunity, but I don't think any Government can sit and twiddle its thumbs while waiting on it completing.
In the meantime, there should be a plan to introduce as many hoops and obstacles in the 'immigration pathway' to make the process more tedious for illegal (and to an extent legal) migrants.
As mentioned in another comment, there can be a short-lived 'amnesty' (let's say six months) at the start where illegal migrants are told they can voluntarily leave the country and be given a financial payout. And they may get a further reward if they provide the authorities with valuable information such as specific businesses that are employing illegal migrants, locations of residence etc. The additional payment is only handed out if the information is verified to be true.
Once the scheme ends, the carrot is taken away and only the stick is left.
Other mechanisms like enforcing proper entry and exit border controls at airports will help catch 'refugees' that travel to their home countries on holidays.
Before deportation (voluntary or not), all illegal migrants should have their biometrics and DNA captured and stored for a substantial amount of time (30 years??). This means there is a database to cross-reference on any unsolved crimes, and also means if some manage to re-enter the country again, it will be flagged and they can be quickly apprehended if they put in another asylum claim etc.
Improving enforcement of employment laws, going after those who use illegal immigrants in their workforce, strengthening language requirements, removing benefits and housing, extending the timeframe to gain ILR/citizenship, creating red lists of problematic countries, prosecution and prison sentences for those obstructing arrests and deportations, removing public funding from charities in general, revamping the immigration process and visa categories etc etc can all help chip away at the overall numbers and make Britain less of an easy ride to those who seek to exploit it.
Good suggestions.
Wow. This is a tough read. One hopes that a trap of this kind, a complex operation presupposing a need to obscure government actions from the British public, would never be sprung upon us by a democratic gouvernment. I don't have any solutions myself. And in general I support this policy. But I have to say I would feel a little evil supporting a scheme like this. I guess I would be one of the horrified members of the British public, not liking the taste of the medicine?
Do you find the alternative scenario posed (i.e. the outbreak of civil strife) plausible, and if so do you think that deportations are preferable to that outcome?
Personally I think the vision in this article and in this Substack more generally is overblown, but I basically agree that current levels of illegal immigration are very dangerous and that this urgent issue is handled with an almost cartoonist buffoonery that goes some way towards explaining why reform are the leading party in much of Britain today. But the detached language here bothers me. It puts me in mind of a warehouse worker shuffling inventory. I think that the necessary change in immigration policy and the even more necessary mass deportations must be carried out firmly, coolly, but deftly and without pleasure. There is no pride to be taken here. I personally find no joy in subjecting a human being to maltreatment. I don't see any other option but to press ahead with these changes. But this language bothers me tremendously
What issue do you have with the language? The conceit of the article is that it is supposed to be a research memo so the language is intended to be clinical (and therefore without pride or joy), but even so it makes the point that even a quick, successful operation will prove to be unpopular because of the human element
I think language does matter.
It's not just because the British are a sentimental people, as the article notes, but that the average person doesn't really like tough rhetoric. It goes down a lot better in "macho" countries like the US whereas in Britain we like to be less aggressive and more understated in our speech.
Part of the reason the DT and DM took issue with Theresa May's "hostile environment" was the language around it. It was jarring. It rubbed me the wrong way at the time too. Because if you recall the messaging wasn't just about dis-incentivising illegal migrants but about shutting down many of the legal visa routes and framing nearly all immigration as problematic.
I had various friends on the Post-Study Work visas who were working professional jobs and doing everything by the book in order to transition into Tier-2 sponsored worker visas, so to hear the Cameron govt talk about such visas as mere pathways to gaming the system was infuriating. This tarring of everyone with the same brush is not a winning message.
A future Reform govt would do well to recognise that there are many well-intentioned migrants who want to contribute and that unfortunately some of them will be collateral damage of the policies that are ultimately needed to make the country safer and reduce strain on public services. An effective govt would convey a certain level of empathy and regret, not just talk in terms of “Immigrants are a net burden” or "All illegals have broken the law so we're coming for them". Many people feel averse to this rhetoric; it's not nuanced enough for the people in the middle.
I have known visa overstayers who did everything they could to regularise their status and those who couldn't repatriated themselves because they were reasonable people. This will account for significant portion of illegals and it needs to be recognised, rather than talking about them all as potential criminals and exploiters.
I am Jewish. My great grandparents fled Austria just before the holocaust. Austria offers people in my situation a repatritian of sorts, essentially an Austrian passport with fewer restrictions than would normally apply. Its a very generous plan. But as you might imagine, Austrians like orderly paperwork. You have to prove you are who and what you say you are. The process of applying for my passport involved me reading many many reports and letters written by and for a soulless beurocracy. Normal people implementing the law. I perused endless drab documentation referring to the theft or my great grandparents property and their total persecution. "They are Jews and so the law states that they must be brutalised and so I Mr such and such deem it lawful and appropriate to seize their assets yada yada yada". What struck me most, more than the evil and the pointlessness - was how boring it all was. It was mundane and unexpressive.
The topic we are discussing is not evil. It is in no way like the holocaust. It is just. It is necessary. It is cruel - but it is fair. But you ask about the language... I hope we don't look back on this kind of language with shame or disgust.
Ms. Arendt's point about the 'banality of evil' should not be reversed such that banality is evil. Ultimately the prospectus set out in the article is good or evil independently of the quality of the prose.
I tend to think the policy is justified by necessity, but of course necessity has been the justification of every atrocity in history, and I do worry (as I think the article concedes) that a small number of people genuinely deserving of or needing sanctuary (not unlike your ancestors) will be caught up in it.
But if that worry causes us to pause we give in to the fallacy of status quo bias. You do not need me to tell you what a threat to the lives of British jews small boat asylum seekers pose, etc.
I appreciate this response. Your first paragraph is very compelling to me.
"...a trap of this kind, a complex operation presupposing a need to obscure government actions from the British public, would never be sprung upon us by a democratic gouvernment".
We literally had this during lockdown which was the gravest ever breach of rights committed by a peacetime govt against its population! Every single person residing in this country was impacted. There has still been no reckoning whatsoever.
In contrast, the policies being set out above are only intended to target a small minority of the population and, illiberal though they may be, the motive is a valid one and the means would arguably justify the ends.
That said, there should obviously be safeguards in place to prevent this becoming a standard way of running affairs in this country.
Part of the graveness of this misjustice you are referring to is that it was not so much hidden as not mentioned and ignored, then later obscured and mystified, and by the time the scale of this invasion was apparent we were already imperilled by its implications. That was a crime, as you say. It is not a legitimate tactic. It should not be imitated. Implementing its inverse in the same distorted and surruptutious way is not the way.
Sections 4.4 to 4.7 are the crux of it. Third-country holding is just thrown in as if were really easy to arrange. Even assuming no legal constraints, I don’t think it will be easy to arrange, especially at the required numbers and regardless of how “loose” it may be.
The secret operation to deport people sounds like the way to do it, but there are no numbers. Flights will be “continuous” but what are the destinations?…that’s the whole point. Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan? Really?
An estimate of the illegal population is around 1 million, with half a million being from countries that just won’t co-operate and over which the UK has no leverage. That’s half a million people to be flown to unknown destinations, in secret?
Only by having some idea of the numbers proposed, can you make sense of sections 4.4 to 4.7.
Bit utopian because it is a radical plan. I don't think the British people. as they are today, would ever swallow these tough measures. They would also exacerbate racial tensions in society. What is to be done then? Not much. I fear...😉
Yes. This is.right-wing "deport them all" utopian thinking, the flipside of the "refugees welcome" utopian thinking we see on the left.
At the end of the day, managing large populations is a messy affair. I think we need a certain degree of pragmatism and a dose of realism.
The immediate focus should be on preventing small boat arrivals, deporting serious criminals and false asylum claimants, and reforming the welfare system. Measures can be employed to encourage repatriation, such as cash transfers or a crackdown on networks that operate in the black market (delivery services, vape shops, barbers, restaurants, etc.), but ultimately I don't think people would welcome a system of increased surveillance in their day-to-day life or a "papers please" society in which immigration agents burst into ordinary workplaces demanding to see ID.
We.simply have to accept that many people are here to stay and think about how we manage this. The multicultural approach focused on "community relations" has failed. But the idea that we can simply turn back the clock by forcibly removing 1M people is very fanciful.
Possibly an amnesty from deportation should be offered to women and children illegal migrants, and possibly to men over a certain age (45, 50). I mean, they will be a burden but they are not committing rapes, and it may lower the opposition to deportation.
The children need to go too. They will grow up and become troublesome, just like their parents.
This article amounts to a revolutionary takeover of the apparatus of the state, absolutely unacceptable and undemocratic. Measures this extreme are unconstitutional and illegal unless taken openly through parliament and with a clear mandate through a manifesto commitment at the general election. This is truly dangerous
Such an important point in Section 3: Willing the Ends, Protesting the Means. The general view on immigration is incoherent and inconsistent.
The Pew Research Center (USA) who study unauthorised populations in Europe and North America, estimate that over half of the UK illegal population have been here for more than five years, which is unique in Europe.
It is from this that social resistance will come. No-one minds if the bunch of Middle Eastern guys hanging around on the street corner get bundled into a van if they’re illegal, but when it comes to that nice chemist on the corner who has always been there, or your daughter’s school friends disappearing, things will start to look different.
There always so much noise about who we want to exclude from society but none about who we want to include. We need proper citizenship laws to say who we are, not Commonwealth and all that nonsense. “UK Citizen” ID cards would stop foreigners using public services and make it clear who it is we want to include.
Surely any bill dealing with migration law should be smuggled into something like a budget so it wouldn’t be noticed? Labour have already done this many times before.
I think its quite easy optics in a sense. Have someone in the Home Office start leaking the costs of housing migrants, specific sexual offence's, etc to the papers on the regular. Even the BBC recently ran a report on asylum fraud that raised “normie” hackles.
The migration bill that matters, suspending asylum, ECHR, Human Rights Act etc. will be noticed all over the world. It can probably only be done with a large right-wing majority in parliament, who may have to abolish the House of Lords to do it…an added bonus.
I just don't think that should have to be true. Look at Joe Biden's inflation reduction bill that was actually effectively about Renewable power.
The right in this country needs to learn to take the Danish approach. You shouldn't really even talk about the remigration that you're doing. You should just do it in the background!
Yes I get your point. The Danish government had to talk about it a bit though, as it was their election platform. But yes the UK does obsess about rules too much.
I don’t think the UK public would accept the incentive policy that Denmark has though, under any circumstances.
Surely any bill dealing with migration law should be smuggled into something like a budget so it wouldn’t be noticed? Labour have already done this many times before.
The Berlin airlift is very instructive.
But the destinations of the Berlin airlift accepted them coming, gave them permission to land. This is not the case with the countries of of origin of around half a million people illegally in the UK