Europe must toughen up to control migration

As Mrs Merkel has learnt, it’s a liberal myth that you can have strong borders without willing the means

It is hard leading a shaky coalition government, following poor election results, and with your personal support dwindling. Forced by your own ministers into compromises you do not believe in, and reduced to proposing policies that will be rejected by other EU member states, it can be embarrassing.

Yet Angela Merkel fights on as Germany’s Chancellor.

Europe’s migration crisis – sparked by Merkel’s government three years ago – has quickened the populist advance across the continent. The Hungarian government is busy vilifying immigrants and minorities. The Italian Prime Minister talks about drawing up lists of Romany gipsies. For the first time since the Second World War, Nazis sit in Germany’s Reichstag. And even in the great liberal victory won by Emmanuel Macron, one third of the electorate voted for the French National Front.

Immigration is not the only factor in this worrying trend, but it is an important one.

In 2015, when the migration crisis began, more than 1.8 million people were detected crossing Europe’s borders illegally. Italy has had more than 471,000 people land on its shores as the crisis has gone on. Germany received 1.1 million asylum applications in 2015 alone.

Those who think the crisis is abating are mistaken. While the numbers attempting to reach Europe are not as high as last year, and are far lower than in 2015, they are still a worry.

Last week, more than 500 migrants arrived in Greece; nearly 900 reached Italy; and almost 1,200 arrived in Spain. And the authorities must now house, educate and integrate the many people who reached Europe in the last three years. By 2020 the German government will have spent an estimated £74billion dealing with the domestic costs of the crisis.

This is the background against which Mrs Merkel was forced to strike a deal with her Interior Minister on Monday. Horst Seehofer, the Leader of the Bavarian Christian Social Union, had threatened to resign and bring down Merkel’s coalition if she did not agree a tougher immigration policy.

Under the terms of their agreement, migrants who reach Germany from other EU member states will be placed in transit camps, and – subject to bilateral agreements between Germany and other countries – they will be returned to the first member state they reached.

The trouble is that most member states say they will not sign any such agreements. Merkel knows that if Germany tries to return refugees to other EU countries, the Austrians and Italians might respond by reintroducing border checks, sounding even more loudly the death knell for Schengen, the EU’S system of open borders between member states. And the SPD – the socialist party that forms the remainder of Merkel’s grand coalition – might oppose her deal anyway.

Nonetheless, the agreement teaches us three things. First, Merkel will always act to save her own skin. Second, Germany will always dictate terms to other countries when it wants to defend its interests. And third, mainstream politicians might – finally – be learning lessons that should not really need teaching.

To maintain social cohesion, you need to control immigration. To control immigration, you need strong borders. And to have strong borders, you need to be prepared to adopt tough policies.

Since the Windrush scandal in the UK, liberals have often argued that the public wills the ends but not the means required to control immigration. But polls show consistent support for reducing immigration, and strong backing for the “hostile environment” policies that combat illegal immigration.

In any case, what is the morality of the supposedly liberal approach to the migration crisis? What good does encouraging migrants to undertake dangerous boat journeys do? The UN says about 10,000 people have died or gone missing crossing the Mediterranean since 2016.

What about putting people’s lives into the hands of criminal gangs? EU data says many migrants have fled Syria, but others come from countries including Albania, Eritrea, Nigeria, Pakistan and Vietnam. Many are economic migrants who have reached Europe aided by people traffickers.

And why should we continue an asylum model that favours the strong over the weak, the young over the old, and men over women? Three quarters of asylum seekers in Britain are men and the majority are in their early twenties.

Too often, with today’s system, the vulnerable get left behind.

The immigration debate is changing. In Europe, mainstream politicians are advocating “regional disembarkation platforms”, where asylum claims are processed outside the EU. This is a model that has worked in Australia, but it will only succeed if migrants are barred from claiming asylum in Europe itself.

Time will tell if Europe’s leaders will be tough enough to do that. But they need to be. If the migration crisis taught us anything, it is that virtue signalling is not a policy: the only policy with virtue is one that works.