Asylum

“You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.” So goes the bartenders’ refrain to customers at closing time. The Trump administration is issuing that same call to millions of illegal immigrants, beginning with the most violent (and those caught staying with them). You can’t stay here. It’s a wildly popular stance, but it is running into predictable problems. The first is that rounding up the millions here illegally is costly, time-consuming and sometimes dangerous. That problem was vastly increased by Joe Biden’s deliberate decision to open the southern border, allow millions of people to cross it illegally and then lie to the public and Congress about what his administration was doing.

New York mayor Eric Adams is discouraging asylum seekers from coming to the Big Apple by emphasizing the city's expensive cost of living.  The mayor’s office released flyers Wednesday asking asylum seekers to consider cities other than New York when choosing where to settle in the country. The flyers, which will be handed out to migrants at the border, warn that “cost of food, transportation, and other necessities in NYC is the highest in the United States.” They also say there is no guarantee of “shelter and services to new arrivals.”  In addition to the flyers, Adams announced a new mayoral directive Wednesday that requires single, adult migrants to reapply to stay in the city’s shelter system after sixty days if they cannot find alternative housing.

With the likelihood of a deal on the Northern Ireland Protocol fading this week, a new issue has emerged to enrage the Tory right: fresh plans to cut tackle the asylum backlog. Asylum seekers will no longer be subjected to face-to-face interviews, with more than 12,000 migrants from five countries having their claims assessed on paper instead. These five countries – Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Eritrea and Yemen – have the highest asylum success rate. Asylum seekers will have 20 days to fill in and return the fast-track official forms. Officials expect 95 per cent of applicants to be given leave to remain for at least five years, although those who fail to complete the ten-page form ‘without reasonable explanation’ could have their claims withdrawn.

Numbers can be boring. So let's look at Mr. Jimenez from Ecuador and Mr. Singh from India, alongside some numbers, to keep it interesting. Both want to come to the US, one for illegal work, one to take his family to New York on a vacation. Mr. Jimenez will enter across the Southern Border near El Paso. In 2022 there were 330,037 legal immigrants to the US, or "new potential lawful permanent residents" (LPRs) entering the country. Meanwhile, more than 2.75 million "migrant encounters" occurred along the southwest border since Joe Biden took office. In the Rio Grande Valley sector alone, roughly 10,000 encounters with illegal immigrants occur every week.

It's always easier to break something than to build it. Joe Biden broke the immigration control system that he'd inherited from Donald Trump and that had been built up over several administrations of both parties. Rebuilding it after Biden's vandalism will take time. Even if Republicans win the majority in both houses of Congress in November, it will take a change in administration before any real reconstruction can begin. With more than 2 million "encounters" with illegal border-crossers over the past year, more than any year in history, restoring order may seem like an insuperable task. But as we saw right after Trump's election and during the first months of his presidency, a simple expression of will can have a huge influence on prospective illegal aliens and their smugglers.

Asylum is often seen as a simple morality tale—the generous spirited are in favour of it, the hard-hearted against. And we certainly read plenty of high moral dudgeon directed at the Home Office’s pedestrian response to the Ukraine refugee crisis. Much of that criticism was deserved. The lack of preparedness and then the inability to adapt quickly under pressure and allow in anyone with a Ukrainian passport, especially those with relatives here, while sorting out the bureaucracy once they arrived, was indeed dismaying.

When immigration minister Chris Philp announced last summer that he was in the process of agreeing a 'new operational plan' with his French counterparts to stop the cross-Channel traffic in irregular migrants, it seemed as though the government was finally getting a grip on the crisis. In a statement to camera he declared:  'We had a very constructive meeting with our French colleagues in Paris this morning. We have reaffirmed our unshakeable shared commitment to making sure this route of crossing the Channel is made unviable…we have worked on a joint operational plan, with the objective in mind of completely cutting this route. We’re going to work at pace in the coming days to make that plan a reality.

Every Home Secretary is forced to confront the cold political realities of the office. What they set out to deliver – strengthening countermeasures in the aftermath of a terror attack, say, or taking steps to tackle a spike in violent crime – tends to be supported by swathes of the public at large. But though they can enjoy that currency of quiet public support, Home Secretaries of both major parties must then do battle 'inside the Beltway' with a vociferous legal and human rights establishment – and other vested interests ­– which seek to dilute their policy responses to the challenge of the day. To use a term of art, it is often a 'hostile environment' for holders of that least understood great office of State.