😠 Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

• Purpose of the Bill: The Bill aims to strengthen UK border security, restore order to the immigration and asylum systems, and introduce new powers to tackle criminal gangs involved in human smuggling.

• Border Security Command: The Bill will establish the Border Security Command on a statutory basis to enhance leadership and accountability at UK borders. It will also enable better coordination among various agencies like Border Force and the National Crime Agency.

• New Offenses and Powers: New counter-terror-style powers will be introduced to combat organized immigration crime, including tougher penalties for those involved in supplying materials for illegal entry and the ability to seize mobile phones from small boat arrivals to trace criminal gangs.

• Repeal of Previous Legislation: The Bill seeks to repeal sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which the government views as unworkable and ineffective.

• International Cooperation: The government has been enhancing cooperation with countries like France, Germany, and others to disrupt smuggling networks, which operate across multiple borders.

• Criticism and Opposition: The Conservative opposition, led by the shadow Home Secretary, criticizes the Bill for lacking a clear deterrent against illegal migration and for repealing previous deterrent measures like the Rwanda scheme. They argue that the Bill will not effectively reduce illegal migration and oppose it.

• Government’s Defence: The Home Secretary claims that the government is taking practical action to dismantle criminal networks, increase deportations, and clear asylum backlogs left by the previous administration, which they say had failed to control the borders.

• Additional Concerns: Some MPs expressed concerns about the Bill’s effectiveness, the need for safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, and the potential for new laws to inadvertently criminalize migrants fleeing danger.

• Focus on Immigration and Asylum: The Bill does not address legal migration issues but aims to handle illegal migration through stricter enforcement and better border management.

The session demonstrated a high level of disagreement, as evidenced by the varied perspectives and criticisms from across the political spectrum. The key points of contention revolved around the effectiveness and approach of the proposed Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the disagreements noted during the session:

1. Repeal of Previous Legislation: There was significant disagreement over the decision to repeal sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. Conservative MPs, such as Chris Philp, argued that these measures served as deterrents and were crucial for managing immigration effectively. They criticized the Labour government for removing these laws, claiming that it would lead to increased illegal migration.

   • Example: Chris Philp, the shadow Home Secretary, emphasized that the Bill ‘cancels the obligation on the Government to remove people who have arrived illegally,’ labeling it as a ‘border surrender Bill.’

2. Effectiveness of New Measures: The proposed new measures, such as the Border Security Command and additional powers to combat smuggling gangs, were met with skepticism. Opposition members questioned the actual impact of these measures, suggesting they were insufficient and largely duplicative of existing legislation.

   • Example: Ben Obese-Jecty criticized the lack of clear strategic priorities and tangible results from the Border Security Command, stating that no gangs had been ‘smashed’ since its establishment.

3. Focus on Deterrence: There was a divide on the necessity and ethics of a deterrent-based approach to immigration control. Conservative MPs argued strongly in favor of a robust deterrent system, citing the success of similar policies in other countries like Australia. In contrast, Labour and other members emphasized tackling the root causes and protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation.

   • Example: Sir Ashley Fox articulated that the Bill lacked a deterrent strategy, which he believed was essential for preventing illegal migration, claiming that the absence of such measures led to a 30% increase in illegal crossings post-election.

4. Human Rights and Legal Routes: Different views were expressed on the importance of safeguarding human rights and creating safe and legal routes for asylum seekers. Some members, particularly from the Liberal Democrats and Green Party, criticized the Bill for not addressing these issues adequately and for risking the criminalization of asylum seekers.

   • Example: Carla Denyer from the Green Party advocated for humane policies and safe routes, expressing concern over the Bill’s potential to criminalize refugees unintentionally.

5. Local and Economic Impact: MPs highlighted varying concerns about the local and economic impacts of migration policies. Some focused on the pressure on public services, while others pointed out the lack of comprehensive solutions for regions facing population decline or economic challenges.

   • Example: Pete Wishart from the SNP emphasized the need for a Scottish visa to address population stagnation, a measure not considered in the Bill.

In summary, the disagreements were not just about policy details but also about broader philosophical approaches to managing immigration and asylum. The Conservative opposition was particularly vocal in resisting the Bill due to its perceived weaknesses in deterring illegal migration, whereas the government and other supporters emphasized restructuring and strengthening current enforcement mechanisms.