The French aren’t to blame for Britain’s failure to deport illegal Channel migrants
sir – The Government seems to blame France for all the illegal immigrants crossing the Channel to come to Britain (“UK: French have surrendered to traffickers”, report, November 12).
Surely anyone can see that the blame rests wholly with Westminster, as there is no chance of these people ever being deported.
Yes, we have a good track record of helping those in need, but this is becoming ridiculous. The strain on our systems and the huge financial cost are going to bring us to breaking point. The Government must own this problem.
Susan Scott
Huntingdon
sir – You report: “France accused of Brexit ‘spite’ as 1,000 cross in a day” (November 12).
In light of this, can someone please explain the difference between Presidents Lukashenko and Macron? Alan Douglas
Whithorn, Wigtownshire
sir – The chaotic loss of control of cross-channel illegal migration has one source.
As my friend James Bissett, the Canadian former ambassador and head of the International Organisation for Migration in Moscow, often said: “If you take them, they will come.” Britain is taking migrants and not returning them. They will keep coming. Rodney Atkinson
Stocksfield, Northumberland
sir – Human behaviour is governed by incentive. As long as those who successfully make the perilous Channel crossing are likely to be rewarded, jumping the queue and being allowed to remain in Britain, so they will keep flooding to northern France and fuelling the humantrafficking industry.
We must empathise with these actions – even by those who are economic migrants. Many of us would do the same given their circumstances.
It is up to the international community to remove that incentive. It must start with the policy that any who attempt to enter the country illegally are immediately returned to their last safe departure point (which must agree to accept them) and go to the back of the queue. But in return, we must devise a fairer system for remote asylum application and for apportioning refugees across safe countries.
We must recognise that this will likely mean we end up accepting more migrants than the chance of our geographic location, far from conflict and insulated by water, currently allows. However, they will be those most in need, judged fairly, not those who are simply strong enough or can gather funds to pay for illegal entry. Jonnie Bradshaw
Wallingford, Oxfordshire
sir – As a former Director (Ports) of the UK Immigration Service, I pose the following two questions.
First, when the French prevent migrants from reaching Britain, why do they release them to try again in future, rather than take action against them? Being undocumented would normally require them to apply for asylum in France.
Secondly, what reason is there for deploying Border Force cutters mid-channel? They are neither preventing nor deterring migrants (quite the opposite, in fact, as they often pick them up and taxi them to Britain).
My request to Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, via my MP, for a statement on the strategic purpose of this got the response: “We are doing our best.” A friend – a retired very senior border control official – who asked a similar question received a two-page response which did not answer the question either.
Peter Higgins
West Wickham, Kent
sir – Now that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Border Force are meeting migrants halfway across the Channel and bringing them safely here, it surely doesn’t take more than half a brain to understand why more and more are coming.
Raymond Whittle
Marlborough, Wiltshire