For using the word “invasion,” Ms. Braverman was excommunicated. Her critics were given plenty of space, particularly by the BBC, to attack her “inflammatory language”. Obviously, word choice on sensitive issues matters, but if official power suppresses the truth, that in itself is inflammatory. Was the word “invasion” wrong? Talking about invasion does not necessarily mean insulting the invader. We know that Julius Caesar invaded Britain 2,000 years ago (landing on much the same beaches as the smugglers now choose). We think the worst for him? Media reports sometimes speak of football fans “invading the pitch”. Sometimes it involves violence, but often these invasions are peaceful celebrations and the word carries no stigma. However, there are two points to all the intrusions. One is that it is against the rules. The other is that they involve a lot of people. I live near the south east coast of Britain where the boats come in. We have invaded all the calm days this year. Most of us don’t like it. Few accuse the arrivals of ill intent. We can empathize with their desire for a better life. What bothers us is that their travels are illegal and they are profiting from criminals. At 40,000 people this year (almost the entire population of Folkestone), their numbers are too large to ignore. It is amusing to see the contrast between the local BBC, which understands the sentiments on the coast, and the national corporation, which moralises from a great height. Another thing Ms. Braverman said was “let’s stop pretending they’re all refugees in distress.” I felt more uncomfortable with this expression than with the word “invasion,” because it seemed to imply bad motives. However, the Home Secretary pointed out an important truth. Some of the 40,000 – notably Albanians, about 40 percent of the recent arrivals – are not fleeing persecution or war in their country. Indeed, 100 percent of all these boat passengers are not, according to the usual definition of refugees, “seeking safety”: they all departed from France or Belgium, both of which are considered safe. They could have stayed there without fear of persecution or war. They prefer Britain for non-refugee reasons – freer job opportunities, more accessible public services, weaker ID requirements, connections already in the country, the English language. All understandable motivations, none related to asylum. Even if, among the 40,000, there is not a single drug dealer, gang member or Islamic extremist. even if, as is likely, most of those who come are well motivated to work hard and be good citizens, they are a big problem. All are trying to jump the queue of legal immigrants and all need expensive public services: police, housing, education, children’s services, NHS. Collectively, their actions prove that we are not masters of our borders. How could anyone, except those who do not believe in law and borders, not resent this situation? So when we watched too many people being admitted to the asylum center in Manston – a story the BBC found revealing last week and now seems to have forgotten – the majority were less inclined to see it as the result of heartless cruelty by Ms. Braverman than a system that is too overloaded. She said it herself: “Illegal immigration is out of control and too many people are more interested in playing political parlor games and covering up the truth than solving the problem.” We feel disappointed that the abuse that politicians repeatedly complain about is still allowed to continue. It’s not about race, it’s about the effectiveness – or rather, the ineffectiveness – of government. And here the choice of words by governments really bothers us: they talk tough, but act weakly. He did this for 12 years. Now that last week’s media/Whitehall attempt to get rid of Ms Braverman has failed, this inadequacy is at the heart of the argument. It seems appropriate to reconsider its sentence in which the word “invasion” appeared. He said the British people deserved to know which party was “serious” about stopping the invasion. Indeed, but the answer, which will not please the Home Secretary, is that we still don’t know. Indeed, behind the conflict that the opposition prefers to politics, Labor is not that far from the Conservative position. Stephen Kinnock, the shadow immigration secretary, seems quite aggressive about immigration in general and wants to extend a version of the Biometric Residence Permit (BRM) from legal to illegal so they can be better controlled. Rhetorically, Labor is more awake, but the policy difference is not huge. Like Priti Patel before her, Ms Braverman talks about reform, but the government, as a whole, still shows little will to solve the problem. To do this, the government would have to move on several fronts at once and speak in more informed and less angry terms. As is well known, our national independence has been preserved by the existence of the English Channel, because this small stretch of water has made a hostile landing so difficult. Without opposition, the transit is a fairly safe and simple journey for more than half the year, and no human way has yet been devised to prevent it. It therefore takes a lot more effort to initiate trips before they start. Migration expert David Goodhart, in a forthcoming paper for Policy Exchange, wants to refine and expand on the Rwandan idea, arguing that policy should not be outsourced to local foreign officials, but “served” by Britons in agreed processing centres, ideally in countries close to refugee sources. All applicants would have to be processed before setting foot on British soil, so arriving without processing would be futile. It also argues that British aid payments should be linked to a recipient country’s promise to take back those applicants Britain rejects. There is also more talk, including in centrist circles, of a return to mandatory ID cards (with biometrics), without which no one could legally be given a job or receive most public services. If you want government benefits, the government needs to know who you are. Britain’s lack of ID cards when most continental countries have them makes this country a magnet. There are foreign allies to be made here, particularly with new, more right-wing governments in countries like Sweden and Italy. There needs to be more diplomacy with France, with less shouting. As long as what Goodhart calls “void people” are held in this country for a long time – able in many cases to disappear inland or defended by lawyers who specialize in manipulating human rights law – there will be a critical mass of people here. that will fool the authorities. Deportation to processing centers abroad should be automatic and swift. It is not right that people who came here against the law should then be able to use that law against the country they entered.
