Reader TTS

The problem with Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda policy is not that it won’t work. Or that some parts of it are flat-out immoral. Or that it’s divisive. Or that it’s a colossal waste of time and money

(£240m and counting), when Britain faces enough real dangers to sink an armada of small boats. No. The worst thing about the policy and the Government’s broader attempts to cut immigration

is that they have no strategic purpose — no answer to the question “why?”. They are not tethered to an overarching national objective. What are our economic targets? How much immigration do

we need to achieve them? How should we manage that process? In this, like so much else, there is no grip and even less depth. The new batch of policies to reduce record immigration numbers

are largely cosmetic or if you prefer performative. It’s a last-ditch effort by an administration with its back to the wall to appease voters who think there’s too much immigration and MPs

who contend that immigration is an existential issue for the Tory party. It’s spin drafted on a napkin over a good lunch. Yet Sunak, against all reason, has chosen to fight on this war-torn

hill. This week he faces the prospect of being pummelled from both the left and the right of his fractious party, trying to persuade them to agree to a policy – sending asylum seekers to

Rwanda – which neither his new Home Secretary nor his new Foreign Secretary really want. Sunak will survive this crisis. Another Tory leadership contest, another leader (five since 2016)

would be suicide.  He’ll just be further diminished, his authority bleeding out until he finally summons up the courage to call an election. The PM could have declared an achievable

objective: “I’ll bring the number of asylum seekers crossing the Channel down by a lot.” Or: “There isn’t a silver bullet, but I’m going to make a big dent in the numbers.” In which case he

could have taken credit for a respectable fall from 45,000 asylum seekers in 2022 to 27,000 this year. Instead, driven from pillar to post by a warring party facing electoral catastrophe and

desperate to appear in charge, he has painted himself into a corner. He is promising to “Stop the Boats” — a pledge which the country has inevitably taken to mean all boats. The pledge is

foolish for several reasons. First, because it can’t be done. He can’t build a barrier across the Channel. The wars, the destitution and the poverty that drives people to come here won’t

stop. People in the south won’t stop wanting a better life. Welcome to the 21st century. The war in Ukraine, the desolation in Afghanistan, the calamity in Gaza will keep swelling the number

of refugees. The worldwide refugee population, including people who are internally displaced, has reached an astonishing 110 million. It’s a huge challenge, not least for countries that lie

close to centres of crisis. Voters across Europe and the US are, not unreasonably, concerned. Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, France and Germany have all witnessed a backlash against

liberal immigration policies. This has been accompanied by the rising popularity of far-right parties with explicitly, in some cases racist, anti-immigrant policies. In the UK, politicians

angling for a shot at the Tory leadership title after the next general election are competing for Anti-immigrant of the Year award. Suella Braverman, sacked as Home Secretary, claims that

failure to stop the boats will spell electoral oblivion for the Tories. Robert Jenrick, who has been all-but-campaigning to be the next leader of the party, resigned last week as the

minister in charge of immigration at the Home Office, whispering darkly about how immigrants threaten Britain’s social cohesion. Enoch Powell redux. Then there’s the Government’s most recent

“love only for the rich” plans. A British citizen who wants to sponsor their foreign spouse to live with them in the UK will need to earn nearly £39,000 a year. Thousands of British

families already here may have to choose whether to split or go into exile. Ask yourself: how likely is a health worker (starting salary £23,000) coming to work in an already desperately

short-staffed NHS or a care sector likely to take up the offer? This seems especially ill-thought through. It’s also far from obvious that the Government’s emphasis on immigration is the

vote-winner that it thinks it is. Voters have other things on their minds: the cost of living, faltering public services, a health service in trouble, the aftermath of Covid and, before

that, austerity. On average people in the UK are (still) up to £11,000 worse off, adjusting for inflation, than they were in 2008, according to the Resolution Foundation. “Nobody who’s alive

and working in the British economy today has ever seen anything like this. This is definitely not what normal looks like. This is what failure looks like,” Torsten Bell, the chief executive

of the Foundation told the BBC. How to manage immigration is a huge issue. It’s also political dynamite. But talk of Britain being “addicted” to immigration is way off the mark. It makes

for good soundbites. It’s a good accelerant for those, like Braverman, who see advantage in fuelling social division. But the way the debate is playing out is almost infantile. Of course

there is a trade-off between the number of immigrants a country can cope with and its need for an adequate labour force to service its economy, its infrastructure, its care sector and

hospitality sectors. The housing shortage is a problem. But that’s largely down to governments not building enough houses. You can’t blame immigrants for Britain’s poor housing record.

Without net migration there would be no growth. Until Britain can come to grips with its poor productivity we will need migrants just to stay where we are. Stopping the boats would be

universally welcomed. Putting human traffickers who fund a lavish lifestyle by preying on the hopes of the desperate would get my vote. But in comparison with legal migration, these numbers

are small. Besides, only a concerted international effort can hope to come to grips with the problem of boat people. And Britain, sadly, doesn’t have that many bridges standing. What is

needed is a long, hard look, devoid of emotion and free of political finagling, at where immigration fits into a national strategy and how best to achieve that. Rishi Sunak is not the man to

do that. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever,

and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation._