A photograph of a migrant giving a middle-finger salute while crossing the English Channel has become a symbol of a "disastrous approach to immigration," according to Daniel Hannan in the Daily Mail. This gesture, described as "uncharitable, entitled and ungrateful," reflects a "broken system, wide open to abuse, geared up to hand over goodies unconditionally," Hannan argues.
The accompanying report highlighted that under a new Employment Rights Act, illegal immigrants can sue firms that employ them. This development, Hannan contends, undermines the principle of free contract and the essence of citizenship, which involves both rights and responsibilities. The Equality and Human Rights Commission's guidance suggests employers must protect all employees, including those without valid work permits, from harassment, which is defined as being told "unpleasant things."
Hannan cites a case where a Malaysian migrant without legal work status in the UK was awarded over £5,000 by an employment tribunal for discrimination. This situation, he suggests, breaks the concept of the "original compact" theorized by John Locke, which posits an agreement between government and citizens regarding laws, property rights, and consequences for violations. In this model, rights and privileges are tied to citizenship, tax contributions, and adherence to laws. When these entitlements are extended to individuals who have entered and worked illegally, the distinction between members and non-members of the community is blurred.
The author criticizes the current immigration policy, particularly concerning cross-Channel migrants, as the opposite of a "good way" to manage immigration. A beneficial approach, in his view, would involve selecting migrants based on skills and potential net contributions, while carefully screening out those likely to be a burden or engage in criminal behavior. This would also prioritize integration by avoiding the formation of ethnic enclaves and fostering pride and patriotism among new citizens.
Instead, Hannan asserts, the system facilitates illegal entry through law-breaking and evasion, aided by lawyers and some charities. He suggests that maritime law's requirement to rescue distressed vessels is exploited, effectively creating a "taxi service" for gangs of young men from "violent and backward places." He attributes the lack of policy control to activist judges who, he claims, prioritize preventing deportations over national interests.
While acknowledging that politicians from all parties aim to stop small boat crossings due to electoral consequences, Hannan believes the only effective solution is to withdraw from international conventions that courts use as justification for their decisions, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on Refugees. He predicts this will happen eventually, with political parties potentially adopting stances similar to those of Reform and some Conservative proposals.
Hannan concludes by advocating for the abolition of the concept of refugee status, proposing instead that the Home Secretary be granted discretionary power to admit a limited number of individuals annually, with Parliament having the ability to adjust this figure. He argues that while this approach may be perceived as tough on applicants, the current system is ultimately detrimental to both migrants and natives.