The Commons: France, Britain, and A New Migration Crisis
Gareth Fuller / PA Images
In August alone, more than 650 “migrants and asylum-seekers” have made the journey across the English Channel. The passageway is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world and hence, one of the most dangerous for small boat crossings. This rise in migrant crossings has raised questions around what Britain’s plan should be moving forward. The prominent rhetoric pushed by Parliament in the last few week concerns legality, allegations of criminal people-smugglers or gang activity across the Channel, and how the UK should collaborate with France, the origin point of these migrant boats.
Home Secretary Priti Patel has set the precedent on the UK’s response to the peaking numbers. A large part of her concern is around the criminality of the situation. In a July 26th press release, she drew public attention to “organised immigration crime networks,” that is “People smuggling gangs [that] treat migrants as a commodity to be profited from, with no thought for their safety and security.” There is concern for migrant safety in her words, but that concern may be overshadowed by her greater fears of illegal criminal activity occurring in the Channel and on British soil. In effort to address the situation, she appointed a Clandestine Channel Threat Commander, a role with the primary responsibility of making a Channel crossing “unviable.”
Patel has also addressed how the UK plans to collaborate with France, the origin of these small boat crossings. In a July meeting with Monsieur Gerald Darmanin, French Minister of the Interior, the two signed an agreement to create “a new joint police intelligence unit to combat migrant traffickers,” though so far, the efficacy of this Franco-British Operational Research Unit is unclear. The unit was set to organise intelligence between the two nations in an effort to dismantle the ‘people-smuggling gangs’ supposedly responsible for the rise in migrant crossings. As seen in other of Patel’s rhetoric, she legitimizes action against migrant crossing and criminal activity with a concern for the lives of the migrants themselves. Both her and Monsieur Gerald Darmanin emphasized that “migrants should not risk their lives to reach the UK.”
Whilst Franco-British collaboration may seem functional, the relationship is still simmering with tension. In being questioned as to why migrant crossings have continued to rise, after having said that they would “become an ‘infrequent phenomenon,’” she moved to blame France for the increase – and she’s not the only Brit to do so. Minister for Immigration Compliance, Chris Philp, “pressed France to intensify efforts to halt the ‘completely unacceptable’ numbers of migrants” making their way across the Channel. A far cry from any collaborative language, Philp made clear that France must take responsibility for their role in allowing this crisis to arise. Both Patel and Philp have also expressed that these migrants should have no reason to “flee” France; they question the motivation for these crossings all together.
On the other side, some French officials have become frustrated with the UK’s easy criticism of their leadership. As reported by Associated Press, Mayor Natacha Bouchart of the French port of Calais made clear that “‘We in Calais no longer want to be permanent hostages enduring the lectures of British leaders.” In essence, the French would rather not be chastised by British, those they willing collaborate with. Furthermore, after the British Ministry of Defense took the “highly unusual” step of deploying a RAF plane over the channel and spoke of sending a fleet of Royal Navy ships into the waterway, France made clear that this would constitute “declaration of maritime war.” There’s no doubt the relationship remains tense.
For many, one of the lurking questions of this issue is whether or not these crossings are actually illegal – as Patel and other government officials have said. In a recent Q&A by the Guardian, journalist Diane Taylor reported that technically, Yes – the way many people are crossing the Channel is illegal. The caveat is as follows: It is illegal to smuggle people into the UK, and “in many cases, people arriving in the UK would have paid a people-smuggler” to get them across the Channel, thus “they will not be meeting the requirements for an authorised crossing.” The concerns Home Secretary Patel has around legality are legitimate in this way; These ‘gangs’ indeed participate in illegal activity. However, some have taken issue with Patel’s conflation of the criminality of those smugglers with that of the migrants themselves. For many, this is the only way they can get to across the waterway. With regard to UN policy, “people cannot be penalised for entering the country to claim asylum if they are ‘coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened,’” but in this case, as the boats are coming from French soil, it is hard to claim this manner of asylum.
Though this may be the case, for many, concerns around legality are too central to the conversation in Britain. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees stated on August 14 that “the numbers of people crossing the Channel remained ‘low and manageable’ and that ‘saving lives should be the first priority.’” In their eyes, Priti Patel’s emphasis on policing the waterway as opposed to addressing the root cause of the crossings is failure on the part of the British government. Various government officials have been accused of “scapegoating people in desperate circumstances,” instead of actually addressing why these migrants are crossing in the first place. Patel has attempted to skirt this scapegoating accusation by emphasizing the “heinous” exploitation of these migrants by criminals who hope to “profit from misery.” By attacking the criminal gangs as opposed to directly condemning the migrants themselves, Patel seeks to maintain a publicly acceptable rhetoric of policing crime, not innocent migrants.
Though, contrary to what Patel might hope, her language would make it seem that she is more focused on policing the crossings themselves, as opposed to why they are rising – she’s focusing on the effect, not the root cause. The Somali-British poet Warsan Shire put it best: “No one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land.” Many worry that Priti Patel hasn’t fully contended with this reality: She can patrol the waters of the Channel, but without addressing why people are crossing in the first place, they will keep coming. Rosie Rooney, of Safe Passage International, said that “those getting in dinghies, including hundreds of unaccompanied children, are not, as the PM has suggested, ‘criminals’ and they are not ‘illegal’. They are fleeing war and persecution in the hope that this country will help them. The least stupid decision that the government could make would be to stop its inhumane policies and offer those seeking asylum a safe and legal way to do so.”
There is no clear path for Britain to take on this issue – any move will create friction. Whether with France or with a global community championing the refugee cause, the UK’s future with regard to policing Channel crossings is of immense diplomatic and humanitarian importance.