It’s not churches’ job to demonise politicians over migration policy

Many of the people attempting to arrive on these shores in small boats come via at least one safe country. There can be little doubt that some are genuinely fleeing torture and imprisonment but, equally, there are many who are simply economic migrants, wish to join extended family here or are young men avoiding conscription. Those coming in this way, having paid smugglers considerable sums of money, are generally not among the poorest refugees. The poorest often find refuge in countries nearest to their own.

Whatever their reasons for migrating, churches and Christians of course have an obligation to provide for their material, spiritual and social needs, since the Bible tells us to love the stranger. Churches also have the right, even the duty, to contribute to the debate about migration, especially its moral aspects – and any sensible government should be attentive to such contributions. They cannot, however, second-guess the Government on specific policies that must take account of multiple factors, including the impact of immigration on educational, medical and social services, as well as on social cohesion and public order.

These policies can certainly, like others, be criticised, but religious leaders should refrain from demonising politicians unless it is crystal clear that they are not acting out of concern for the public good. In the world of realpolitik, difficult decisions have to be made in balancing the claims of one group against another. In this case, the exponential increase in the numbers of those coming in small boats is putting intolerable pressure on counties such as Kent to provide, for example, for unaccompanied children and, in times of austerity, on the public purse generally.

In Australia, policies dealing with a similar problem, although open to criticism, do seem to have deterred people from making these dangerous voyages across the Banda and Arafura seas. The case for offshore processing of those arriving here is strong because of the difficulty in removing anyone, once they have reached these shores.

Rwanda has a terrible past with the genocide of its Tutsi population but it has since rebuilt itself as relatively stable and prospering nation, though not without some human rights and regional concerns. There could be a number of possibilities for those whose claims may be assessed there. Those found to have a valid case can be given refuge there. Both the UK and the international community must ensure that their fundamental rights are respected and that they are treated humanely. For my part, I do not discount the possibility of some claims to settle in the UK being upheld during assessment in Rwanda.

It is high time also for there to be a new international agreement about asylum seekers and refugees. Europe and the UK do not have a moral monopoly in accepting everyone wishing to come here. Other richer nations should also take their due share, including those in the Arab League and the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation.

For its part, British foreign policy should be focused on promoting an end to regional conflicts, as well as on the development and prosperity of poorer nations so that people should want to remain at home, while being free to travel for business, education and leisure.

Michael Nazir-ali is a former Anglican bishop of Rochester and now belongs to the Ordinariate in the Catholic Church