Braverman explained her immigration policy was meant for the well-being of the people fleeing their lands of birth. It is a bit like the assassin asking the victim where he should be shot.
Published: 14th March 2023
AFP
By C P Surendran
Last week, Gary Lineker, once a wealthy professional UK footballer and now a wealthier BBC host of the Match of the Day, tweeted in response to UK home secretary Suella Braverman’s bill against illegal immigration: “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?” Lineker was fired by the BBC, anticipating displeasure from the Tory government. Unlike a desperate country like India, many of Lineker’s BBC colleagues have walked out in support. Partly as a result, he’s reported to be back.
The BBC likes to describe itself as fearless, impartial and holding power to account. The power here is Braverman, a Buddhist incidentally, whose compassion is often indistinguishable from cruelty. Last week, she said of illegal immigrants: “They will not stop coming here until the world knows that if you enter Britain illegally you will be detained and swiftly removed.” In defence of her immigration policy, she explained that it was finally meant for the well-being of the people fleeing their lands of birth. It is a bit like the assassin asking the victim where he should be shot.
Many progressive UK celebrities, rich, white, and awash in good sentiments, have supported Lineker. So, is Liberal Britain really for friendlier immigration laws, or are they just bothered about the language used? The language, naturally. Because, if one removed the comparison that Lineker made with Nazi Germany and which offended the government, would the boat people be welcomed with roses by Liberal Britain
No. A recent Financial Times report quotes the YouGov/Global Progress survey, which says 58% of respondents found it “very important” to have “clear, consistently applied rules about who can come to our country”. And 44% said “limiting numbers” was “very important”. It is another way of saying that the relatively Liberal 58% agrees with the stringent 48%, provided the pills are sugar-coated. The truth is no one wants a poor and scruffy black, brown, or yellow stranger dripping the salt of the sea they crossed stumbling along the clean streets of a rich European country.
Rich because they once colonised the black, brown, or yellow lands. As I said, Liberal Britain is fundamentally in agreement with Conservative Britain. Their problem is not the plight of the immigrant. It is the BBC. Or free speech. Whose star exponent for the day is Lineker—worth about 29 million pounds. We are talking about a rich man’s rights in a rich country, not about a poor man at sea.
Suella Braverman’s main point is that illegal immigrants are straining the system to the tune of billions of pounds. Immigrant hopefuls to Britain come mostly from Ukraine, Hong Kong, and Afghanistan—places with a British geopolitical or strategic interest. More problematic are illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. Rwanda, a former Belgian colony, is special in that Britain recently entered into an agreement with that country’s government to pay them to take back the deported asylum seekers. According to reports, some 28,000 potential immigrants crossed the channel to England last year, among them many Rwandans. In the early 90s, when lakhs died in the civil war in Rwanda, two beers could get you one grenade, a western diplomat said. The whites, some of whom no doubt own grenade companies, made a fortune. (You can’t keep a white man from money. It is in his blood. As is free speech. One feeds the other, perhaps.)
The immigration policy debate in Britain and the pale, painless version of the idea of free speech have now become inseparable from Lineker’s BBC job—which he can easily do without. How does a very rich man’s—even if he is a good soul—right to tweet overshadow the terror and trauma of, say, a boat child’s experience?
The same culture of vanilla goodness flavours, for instance, another western Liberal obsession: global warming. The West has moved into the post-rich phase where development ethics can be clinically discussed. All the coal has already been carried to Newcastle, and they are now free to move on to the virtues of non-carbon emitting technologies. Poor countries like India will take decades to get anywhere near western standards of living. But the earth-hugging, polar bear-loving West would like the rest of the imperfect world to cut carbon emissions, go for cleaner and more expensive development models, and put up with the poverty and social unrest resulting from the fraught transition.
It’s not just the hollowness of the BBC as free speech champions (home or abroad, everyone finally works for the Boss, whoever he, she, or it is), or the puffery of the perfumed Liberals that the immigration debate in Britain exposes. It also brings to the fore the historical obligation that former colonial powers Britain, France, or Belgium have toward their former colonies—and their unwillingness to meet it.
This is not just a subject for the Oxford Union debates or panel discussions in literature festivals, where everyone talks about reparations (which, if at all, will go to the respective government in power, not necessarily to the people) to loud applause. It demands nothing less than an opening of the borders across the developed and developing world: if capital is almost border-free, there is no reason why labour cannot be.
The present UK debate on the boat people is increasingly an extension of the old discourse of superficies. It is not Lineker’s access to free speech that is in question: his life is not in threat, he faces no uncertain future. It is not the exposure of the BBC’s hapless self. It is about the rights of the once-colonised poor to create muddy pools of seawater on the white shores of Albion. Albions everywhere.
(cpsurendran@gmail.com)
C P Surendran
Poet, novelist, and screenplay writer. His latest novel is One Love and the Many Lives of Osip B
Former prime minister suggests plan to tackle people smuggling will not work and says it could tarnish UK’s reputation ‘on the world stage’
ByCharles Hymas,
Theresa May has criticised the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill for “shutting the door” in the faces of genuine victims of persecution and modern slavery.
Speaking at the second reading of the Bill on Monday evening, the former prime minister also warned that the legislation would not work as the people smugglers and migrants would find another way to get into Britain.
“Whenever you close a route for migrants, the migrants and the people smugglers find another way. Anybody who thinks that this Bill will deal with the issue of illegal migration once and for all is wrong,” she told MPs.
She was among a number of senior Tory backbenchers who voiced concern over the Bill, which places a legal duty on the Home Secretary to deport migrants who enter the UK illegally to their home country or a safe third country like Rwanda to claim asylum there.
Mrs May said the “blanket dismissal” of anyone fleeing persecution would mean genuine victims like a young woman escaping Iran would “have the door shut in her face” despite Britain’s tradition of welcoming them “regardless of whether they come through a safe and legal route”.
“By definition, someone fleeing for their life will more often than not be unable to access a legal route. I don’t think it’s enough to say we will meet our requirements by sending people to claim asylum in Rwanda,” she said.
“And this matters because of the reputation of the UK on the world stage. And that matters because the UK’s ability to play a role internationally is based on our reputation, not because we are British, but because of what we stand for.”
She warned that plans to refuse modern slavery claims by those who arrived illegally would be “shutting the door on victims while being trafficked into slavery in the UK”.
She said ministers had failed to provide evidence to justify its claims that small boat migrants were abusing the Modern Slavery Act, which she introduced during her time as home secretary.
And she questioned whether the plans would work given the risks of legal challenge and difficulties of detaining and deporting thousands of migrants.
‘Ineffective authoritarianism’
Sir Iain Duncan Smith, former Tory leader, also urged the Government not to disapply modern slavery laws but rather to speed up the processing of applications.
“Be very careful about the modern day slavery legislation and protect it,” he told MPs.
Sir Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, urged the Government to rethink plans to create powers to detain and deport children, families and women.
“There’s nothing worse than ineffective authoritarianism, and that’s the danger of provisions like that,” he said.
He was backed by Sir Bob Neill, chair of the Commons justice committee, and Tory MP Simon Hoare who said he would vote for the Bill but with “a clear understanding that we wish to see amendments to it as it progresses through Parliament in particular in relation to women who are trafficked and to children”.
Chris Skidmore, the former education and business minister, had said he could not support the Bill, as he was “not prepared to break international law or the human rights conventions.” Caroline Nokes, the former immigration minister, declared her intention to oppose the Bill on Sunday.
Earlier, Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, had defended the plans, insisting it was “perfectly respectable” for her, as a child of immigrants, to say that immigration has been “overwhelmingly good” for the UK but to also say “we’ve had too much of it in recent years.”
Responding to Mrs May's comments, Rishi Sunak said he was confident the bill is the "best way to grip this problem".
"I've also always been clear that there is no overnight easy one simple solution to what is a complicated problem. It will take lots of different interventions," he said.
The House of Commons voted 312 to 250 to give the Bill a second reading.
No Conservative MPs voted against it, while a handful - including Theresa May, Chris Skidmore and Caroline Nokes - abstained.
Tory MP repeats claim 100 million asylum seekers could come to UK
The figure has been proven to be grossly misleading, with the Refugee Council saying the figure "simply doesn't reflect the reality."
A Conservative MP has reiterated Suella Braverman’s claim that 100 million asylum seekers could come to the UK without an immigration crackdown.
Scott Benton, the MP for Blackpool South, took a stand in parliament during the second reading of the government’s Illegal Immigration Bill.
He said: “We simply can’t accept 100s of millions of people. This country is nearly full.”
Last week, the home secretary was accused of “inflammatory language” after she used the figure and claimed the “law-abiding patriotic majority” has said had enough of people arriving on small boats.
Braverman also said it would “betray” British voters not to tackle the “waves of illegal migrants breaching our border” as she unveiled plans for new laws to stop Channel crossings.
She added: “There are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws. Let’s be clear. They are coming here.”
The Refugee Council said Braverman’s language was “unhelpful” – pointing out that it was wrong to suggest that there were 100 million asylum seekers around the world.
While the UNHRC has estimated that there at more than 100 million forcibly displaced people around the world, but only 26 million have left their own country.
“It’s an unhelpful suggestion that millions could come to the UK,” said Jon Featonby, chief policy analyst at the Refugee Council. “It simply doesn’t reflect that reality that the vast majority displaced from their homes stay within the country.”
The expert added: “It is vital as the debate continues it is informed by fact and reality rather than assumptions that don’t reflect lived experience.”
Related: Gary Lineker to return to hosting Match of the Day
Illegal Migration Bill passes first hurdle as MPs seek changes
The Bill's first reading in the House of Commons is met with criticism from Conservative MPs
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/thenational/6XJDRW7E3BD6H57RPGNG3ULIZY.jpg)
The Illegal Migration Bill has cleared its first reading in the Commons, although some Conservative MPs have called for amendments to protect trafficked women, children and modern slavery victims.
The controversial asylum proposals aim to stop people claiming asylum in the UK if they arrive through unauthorised means, although it has been denounced by the UN’s refugee agency as an “asylum ban”.
The House of Commons voted 312 to 250 to give the Bill a second reading.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman said the legislation was needed as people arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel have “overwhelmed our asylum system”.
Ms Braverman said there had been “too much” immigration in recent years.
She said she had been subjected to the “most grotesque slurs” for saying “simple truths” about the effects of migration on the country.
But Conservative former prime minister Theresa May warned that modern slavery victims will be “collateral damage” and have the door shut on them by measures within the Bill.
Mrs May said she was expecting to hold further talks with Downing Street to resolve the issues and noted how, when home secretary, she took action to respond to people jumping in the backs of lorries and cars to get into the UK.
“But what should be clear from this is whenever you close a route, the migrants and the people smugglers find another way, and anybody who thinks that this Bill will deal with the issue of illegal migration once and for all is wrong," she said.
The Bill would enable powers to detain migrants for 28 days without recourse for bail or judicial review, and then indefinitely for as long as there is a “reasonable prospect” of removal.
Challenges based on modern slavery laws would be barred, and any other legal attempt to stay would be heard overseas — after the migrants are removed.
Labour former minister George Howarth said the situation for asylum seekers in Knowsley has “deteriorated” since a protest outside their hotel, with some being assaulted.
In a protest last month outside a hotel housing asylum seekers in Knowsley, Merseyside, a police van was vandalised and fireworks thrown.
Mr Howarth said “we should all be ashamed” of the situation, as he hit out at the government’s Illegal Migration Bill in the Commons.
“I want to agree with the Home Secretary on one thing. And that is when she said we should choose our words carefully. It’s just a pity she didn’t do so herself," he said.
“There is a hotel in Knowsley with 180-plus asylum seekers. I won’t talk about that in detail because I had an urgent question on it a few weeks ago.
“But what I will say is since then the situation has deteriorated to the extent that some of the refugees have been verbally abused in the street, and others have been assaulted.
“And they have fled because the countries they come from were unsafe, only to find themselves in an unsafe position in this country. And I think we should all be ashamed.
“It’s not just happening in Knowsley, it’s happening all over the country.”
Conservative former justice secretary Robert Buckland warned that the tone of some in his own party is “not appropriate” and said there was a danger of “ineffective authoritarianism” from parts of the Bill.
Mr Buckland expressed “great concern” at the prospect of detaining children.
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, writing on Twitter, said: “The Tories' Migration Bill is a con that will make chaos worse.”
But Conservative former minister John Hayes told the Commons: “Of course Britain should provide a safe haven for people in need, in genuine need.
"But it is a deceit to pretend the asylum system is not being gamed and the British people taken for a ride.”
There were heated exchanges involving both sides of the Commons, with some heckled for their language.
Green Party MP Caroline Lucas criticised the “immoral, deeply cruel and divisive” proposal, and ripped up a copy of the Bill at the end of her speech.
Conservative MP Marco Longhi, a member of the home affairs committee, said people were travelling from “the other side of Africa or from other godforsaken country all the way to Calais”.
Labour tabled an amendment that sought to block the Bill but it was defeated by 249 votes to 312.
After the votes, Ms Braverman said in a statement: “Tonight’s vote proves what we already knew — the Labour Party cannot be trusted to stop the boats and the gangs that profit.
“Labour not only has no plan to stop the boats, they have no desire to either.”
UK government unveils 'robust' bill to
stop migrant Channel crossings - in
pictures:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/thenational/SAJX4B3TUR7WH5RUL5CTH5U2E4.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/thenational/5MWV4BX7KFQECVAD7OAEP6226Y.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/thenational/A2G4I6PLUBE4MLIR6FMDRAGUMY.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/thenational/AZ4XZZLCBHWEOKYBYYX7IU7TTY.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/thenational/4GTSZTY3U4CZUNBCTVMBIAVVOU.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/thenational/IPZKH2R5ZUJGTSNKYY6RA5RZ5A.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/thenational/YJF2LV53FCD5EUTOA4PTFQ3HTE.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/thenational/B756DVNZVIMEFB52REKQ6VVBWQ.jpg)
Ms Braverman said the UK's asylum system has been 'overwhelmed', with almost £7 million ($8.4 million) a day being spent on hotels to house people while their claims are processed. PA
No comments:
Post a Comment