Starmer’s Immigration Policy Mirrors Tory Failures on Refugees

Why Starmer’s £75M Crackdown on Smuggling Gangs Won’t Stop Channel Crossings Only Safe Routes Can

Prime Minister Starmer says we must stop smuggling gangs “before they act.” His solution? Throw another £75 million at the problem. A familiar tune, isn’t it?

Labour, like the Tories before them, seem intent on perpetuating the same failed policies that have led to the tragic loss of life in the English Channel. More money for border security, more rhetoric about cracking down on smugglers – but where are the concrete proposals to actually stop people risking everything to reach our shores?

The truth is, Starmer’s announcement is little more than political theatre. He promises to “treat people smugglers like terrorists,” deploying counter-terrorism tactics, as if the gangs behind these deadly crossings are anything like organised jihadists, let’s be really honest there’s more chance of a terrorist coming over on a boat than it being someone who puts them on one. It’s a false equivalence designed to sound tough, not solve the crisis.

And what about the former immigration chief, Kevin Saunders, who rightly points out the limitations of this approach? The harsh reality is that the majority of smugglers operate beyond our borders, putting them largely out of reach of even our most aggressive law enforcement efforts. Jailing a few small-time operators won’t deter the criminal networks driving this trade.

And while Starmer talks tough about fighting criminal gangs, he remains silent about the real profiteers of this crisis – those getting rich off human misery right here at home. Consider Graham King, the former caravan park owner turned asylum accommodation mogul. His company, Clearsprings Ready Homes, received an astounding £1.74 billion last year from the Home Office, catapulting him onto Britain’s Rich List with an estimated worth of £750 million. His contract runs until 2029, virtually guaranteeing his ascent to become Britain’s first immigration industry billionaire.

This is the dark secret of Britain’s asylum system: it’s not just a humanitarian failure – it’s a racket. In 2023 alone, £4.3 billion of the UK foreign aid budget – more than four times the amount spent on overseas development aid – was diverted into this industrial complex of detention centres, unsuitable hotels, and private contractors. While refugees languish in limbo, private companies profit from their delayed applications and prolonged detention.

King filled a gap in a broken system. The cruel irony is that this money could fund a comprehensive network of overseas processing centres and safe routes many times over. Instead, it’s being funnelled into the pockets of government contractors who have every incentive to maintain the status quo. When housing asylum seekers becomes more profitable than helping them, is it any wonder the system remains broken?

No, the only way to truly break the smugglers’ business model is to remove their product – the desperate people willing to risk their lives on flimsy boats. And that means creating legal, safe routes for asylum seekers to reach Britain.

The Cruel Hypocrisy of Britain’s Two-Tier Refugee System

Labour refuses safe routes… pic.twitter.com/P0O72pXUc4

— Labour Heartlands (@Labourheartland) November 5, 2024

Britain’s Two-Tier Refugee System – Have you ever noticed how some refugees are more welcome than others? It’s not a comfortable truth, but it’s one that demands our attention as Yvette Cooper performs the latest act in Labour’s ongoing theatre of cruelty.

When questioned about new safe routes for asylum seekers, our Shadow Home Secretary offers the political equivalent of a shrug, muttering about criminal gangs while promising to make “existing ways” work better. This would be merely disappointing if it weren’t so nakedly hypocritical.

Consider this stark reality: we don’t see Ukrainians or Hong Kong nationals risking their lives in the Channel’s treacherous waters. We don’t find them huddled in dangerous dinghies, prey to smuggling gangs and the elements. Why? The answer is devastatingly simple – they have safe, legal routes into Britain.

This isn’t accident; it’s architecture. When Britain wanted to welcome Hong Kong citizens, we created the BNO visa scheme. When Ukraine’s civil war escalated into a Russian invasion, we established multiple legal pathways. The machinery of state can move with remarkable efficiency when there’s political will.

Yet when it comes to refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, or other global crisis points, we’re told that new safe routes are impossible, impractical, or would somehow encourage criminal gangs. This is nonsense on stilts, and Cooper knows it.

The evidence stares us in the face: safe routes don’t encourage criminality – they destroy the smugglers’ business model. Every refugee who can apply legally is one less desperate soul forced to risk death at sea. Every formal pathway created is a nail in the coffin of the trafficking gangs.

Labour’s position mirrors the Tories’ moral failure, just with a gentler tone. They wring their hands about drownings in the Channel while deliberately maintaining the very system that makes such tragedies inevitable. It’s like expressing concern about people jumping from a burning building while refusing to install a fire escape.

The defenders of this system will argue about “pull factors” and “finite capacity.” But these arguments collapse under their own contradictions. If Britain can process tens of thousands of applications from Hong Kong and Ukraine, why not from other crisis regions? The answer isn’t about capacity – it’s about political choice.

But one thing is for sure; processing refuges is far better than allowing thousands of undocumented people to cross the channel. Safe routes allow only refugees entry. Anyone else crossing on a dingy represents a clear and present danger to the security of the UK.

What makes this especially galling is Labour’s pretence of offering change. Cooper speaks of “effective” management of existing routes while knowing full well that these routes are deliberately insufficient. It’s the politics of gesture – appearing to care while carefully maintaining the status quo.

The truth is uncomfortable but clear: Britain operates a two-tier refugee system. One tier offers dignity and safety to those we deem politically acceptable. The other forces desperate people into the hands of criminals and the mercy of the sea.

So what would an honest approach look like? Here’s a practical, step-by-step plan:

1. Establish refugee application centres in key transit countries like Greece, Italy, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. This gives asylum seekers a clear, regulated pathway to make their claims before embarking on dangerous journeys.
2. Create transparent, efficient procedures for processing these applications. The UK has demonstrated the capacity to do this for refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong – there’s no reason the same can’t be done for those fleeing other crisis zones.
3. Implement a fair quota system that distributes responsibility equitably across regions, in cooperation with our European partners. This shared burden approach is crucial for maintaining public support.
4. Once these safe, legal routes are firmly established, work with international allies to make irregular entry a criminal offence. Crucially, this must be coupled with the creation of proper application centres – without viable alternatives, criminalization is merely cruel.
5. Legislate that asylum claims made outside these recognised routes are automatically invalid. This closes off the “bad faith” avenues that anti-immigration advocates often cite as justification for deterrence policies.

The beauty of this approach is that it tackles the problem at both ends. First, we remove the incentive for people to risk their lives on dangerous crossings. Then, we close off the irregular entry paths that feed the criminal smuggling networks.

It’s a humane, pragmatic solution that respects both the rule of law and our moral obligations. Refugees don’t drown in the Channel when they have access to safe options. And by working with our partners, we diminish the power of the smuggling gangs that thrive on their desperation.

Starmer’s announcement is nothing but empty rhetoric, a pale imitation of the Tories’ own failed policies. If he’s serious about solving this crisis, he needs to show real leadership and put forward a comprehensive plan that addresses the root causes, not just the symptoms.

The choice is clear: continue down the path of deterrence and delay, or embrace a solution that upholds our values, secures our borders, and saves lives. For all his tough talk, Starmer has shown he lacks the courage to take that step. The blood of future Channel tragedies will be on his hands and as it stands, every susesfull crossing will be a vote for Reform…

Paul Knaggs