How to (actually) 'Stop the Boats'

Where there's a will there's a way

On Tuesday this week, twelve people, including six children and a pregnant woman, tragically drowned while attempting to illegally immigrate to England across the Channel. Two others remain in critical condition. Rescue teams saved 53 , several of whom required immediate medical attention. The incident is the deadliest of its kind since November 2021, when another dinghy capsized, causing the deaths of 27 of the 30 people on board.

Officials confirmed the boat was ‘ripped’ - possibly sunk deliberately in a bid to get to Britain more quickly, the passengers having previously shouted away a French patrol vessel trying to intercept them earlier in the voyage.

At least one survivor, an Eritrean man, Sami Berhane, claimed the boat was sabotaged on purpose - “There were two Ethiopian men on the boat and both of them had lifejackets, but we did not have them. When we saw the English boat, we started celebrating and shouting with happiness, but one of those men seemed to pull out a knife and started cutting the rubber of the boat. It did not take long before the water started coming in and everybody started panicking. The boat soon went on its side and everyone was in the water.”

In addition, preliminary reports from the ongoing investigation indicate the wooden planks lining the deck were removed prior to embarkation, better to pack more people into the vessel and improve cost-efficiency for the human traffickers. Indeed, the dinghy was reportedly carrying around seventy people.

Hold on a second, I hear you ask, seventy people? I thought we were talking about ‘small boats’ here.

Well, unbeknownst to many of the general public, the size and capacity has been steadily increasing over the years, and is now approaching that of FastCat passenger ferries to the Isle of Wight. At this rate we’ll soon be forced to start describing these vessels as ‘medium boats.’

The increased competition and (ironically) pressure being brought to bear on the people smugglers has led them to pack ever more human beings into each boat before launch, to keep their profit margins in the stratosphere. The overcrowding has even produced a new phenomenon of illegal immigrants perishing due to suffocation, such as when Dina Al Shammari, 21, from Kuwait, died when she was crushed on a boat carrying around sixty people back in July.

Something often not discussed is that ultimately this is a business - and a very successful one at that. Each illegal immigrant pays anywhere between £1,000 to £5,000 per person for a space on these boats. The primary upfront cost for the gangs is the dinghy itself, purchased with ridiculous ease for around a grand a pop. Let us meet in the middle and say it’s an average of £3,000 for each of the seventy passengers. That still comes out at well over £200,000 profit for every dinghy they push out to sea.

Since 2018, an estimated 110,000 people have illegally entered England this way, and those are just the ones we know about. Thus, the money generated for the human traffickers can be measured in the hundreds of millions. Though the cost to the UK taxpayer is undoubtedly far higher, both directly and indirectly.

Our government has already forked over tens of millions to the French in a vain attempt at getting them to enforce their own laws. The only result being a few half-hearted photo-shoots of French border agents slashing dinghies on the beach. In general however, it would appear the French are more than happy to continue waving Bon Voyage whenever they set sail.

And who’s to blame them? Many left-wingers claim it is only natural the ‘migrants’ would want to flee France due to how badly they’re treated - but even the barest investigation reveals that when they say ‘badly’ what they really mean is ‘fairly’.

In France, anyone requesting asylum has to prove they come from a dangerous country, i.e. active warzone, recent natural disaster, etc. They are then tested by a relevant expert who is familiar with that country and speaks the language. If they cannot speak the language, it's an automatic rejection. If they fail to describe where they were born or lived, it’s an automatic rejection. If they do not complete all the relevant tests and checks as requested within six months, it’s an automatic rejection.

If they attempt to cheat or lie in any way, they are failed on the spot and then fingerprinted so they can never apply again, before being sent on their way (alas, like us, practically no one is actually deported).

Those awaiting processing are not put up in hotels anymore, and before it was just the most basic accommodation - F1, for anybody familiar with this nasty chain of French motels. They are given the bare minimum to survive in food stamps (no cash) to spend at certain shops e.g. Lidl, and they cannot use it for alcohol or tobacco.

Tests are carried out for those claiming to be minors. Any false claim is an instant refusal. There are no free mobile phones, no free internet nor free cigarettes like in the UK. They have no right to work in France until they have been accepted as a legitimate refugee, and have all their official paperwork in order. Anyone that employs them without it faces very heavy fines. The same for accommodation, purchasing big items, etc. No paperwork and life is very difficult.

If you claim benefits then you cannot run a side-hustle delivering food or working in Turkish barbers shops. Minimal effort is made to accommodate non-French speakers, or those who cannot read French. Learn it quickly or you’ll be significantly disadvantaged.

Compare this with the UK, where a cornucopia of rights and benefits are given instantly and written in many different languages, with free interpreters offered to the the many who are illiterate; while access to fancy, expensive human rights lawyers are provided courtesy of the British taxpayer for the endless rounds of applications and appeals.

Healthcare in France is based on the ability to pay, and there is no ‘free at the point of use’ for anyone who happens to walk into an A&E. This is an under-appreciated pull factor in England, as many have significant health issues and successful asylum applicants (over 90%) are often entitled to bring across their elderly parents and grandparents from the third world to live here forever as well.

France wants them to leave, and if Les Rosbifs are stupid enough to give them everything on a platter, then that's on them.

Much has been made about Labour’s scrapping of the Rwanda scheme, but for once I think they made the correct decision. Even if Sunak got everything he wanted, and there were no further legal challenges whatsoever, the actual plan was that for every illegal immigrant sent to Rwanda, they sent us back a Rwandan ‘refugee’.

Further, the Rwandan government made clear from the outset they were only willing to take a maximum of 200 people in total (the same number arriving on our shores every day) in return for hundreds of millions in taxpayers cash. They also flatly (and fairly) refused to accept anyone with a criminal record or history of terrorist activities, who presumably got to stay in Britain. How Sunak planned to identify such individuals is anyone’s guess.

Thus, even if perfectly implemented, the scheme would have only ever encompassed those precious few illegal immigrants who were honest (or stupid) enough, not to burn all their documents on a Calais beach before boarding a dinghy.

Even when the Rwanda plan was first announced, Richard Harrington, then-Refugees Minister, appeared on Iain Dale’s LBC radio show, and seemed baffled about any prospective plans to offshore the processing of asylum-seekers, having apparently not been informed of the scheme by Boris prior to his interview.

Embarrassing as this was at the time, one would be tempted to ask why the refugees minister would know anything about it. These people coming across the channel are not refugees by any definition I've ever encountered. A refugee is someone with a legitimate risk of harm or death if they returned to the country they came from, last time I checked France are not committing genocide against anyone, and even if they were sent back to their respective countries of origin, the vast majority of them are heterosexual, Sunni Muslim men coming from Sunni Muslim countries where heterosexuality of often legally enforced.

The fact that once many of them, once securely enmeshed in our welfare system, feel perfectly comfortable in popping back to Somalia or The Gambia for a family wedding/birthday/funeral, before waltzing back to Britain and resuming their complementary bed and board, should tell you a refugee is the last thing these people are.

I refuse to use the lazy, misleading term ‘migrant’ either, as though these individuals may be emigrating as well as immigrating to England. No, the most accurate and precise definition is ‘illegal immigrant’ - the government and mainstream media might be terrified of those two words, but that is simply what they are. A genuine refugee does not go window shopping for the country with the most generous benefits.

The BBC may delight in seeking out and photographing the handful of women and children amongst their number, but for everyone else the legions of fighting-age men, often from an openly hostile culture, represents an invasion force. That the Tories did little more than wring their hands throughout this existential threat, for no other reason that it makes awkward conversation at their regular London dinner parties, should tell you all you need to know about their integrity.

I predict Labour will, if possible, be even worse. I would love to see Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, who recently called for a summit in the wake of the recent drownings, invite some of these fit, young, Muslim ‘refugees’ into her own home and see how well she got on with them, paying for their every need. How her husband, Ed Balls, and young daughters feel at having them hanging around the house, talking in strange languages and generally acting in a hostile way to any interference.

After all, that's what she's asking us plebs to do. It's very telling that the biggest advocates of mass immigration are the ones least affected by it. Then again, if the left didn't have double standards then they would have no standards at all.

Yet ultimately, the small boats are a farcical diversion in the grand scheme of things, the real horror comes from legal immigration not illegal. 1.2 million people immigrated to Britain last year, perfectly legally, and even more the year before that; the vast majority of whom came from, as Trump would put it - 'shithole countries.'

And by Britain I effectively mean England - and by England I effectively mean London and Birmingham. That's more than the entire population of my beloved home county of Hertfordshire, in a single year... Just let that sink in.

Ultimately it's about incentive. Where there’s a will there’s a way. You can 'smash the gangs' all you like but more will take their place in an instant. Supply and demand is a potent force, and so long as one dangles a bushel of golden carrots from the White Cliffs of Dover, promising anyone who makes it here, by hook or by crook, free housing, free food, free education, free healthcare and literally free pocket money for the rest of their lives, then the rewards will always massively outweigh the risks.

Bear in mind, even including the recent tragedy, the actual chances of dying while crossing the channel remains somewhere around 0.1% - not a bad roll of the dice to completely transform one’s lot for the better. Our own ancestors took risks orders of magnitude higher journeying to the New World in pursuit of a better life, and they left one of the planet’s safest and most prosperous nations at the time.

The only true answer is either increasing the risks or decreasing the rewards, so that the cost/benefit analysis tips back the other way. As I said, where there’s a will there’s a way. Hungary are signed up to the same treaties as we are, but they built a border wall in weeks, and shoo'd illegals off at gunpoint.

Yet so long as we insist on sticking to the fine-print of every letter of every law, no matter how horrifically self-destructive it may be, the only solution is Australia's. That is, make it clear that anyone attempting to enter our country illegally will never, ever be allowed to stay. Like France, we give them nothing until they can prove they are squeaky clean, and unlike France, deport anyone trying to game the system.

Successful applicants can then be settled on a peaceful offshore island in the Outer Hebrides with basic amenities. If they truly are just refugees seeking asylum, then that should be perfectly acceptable for them.