One might be forgiven for thinking that Britain – despite our formal and legal commitments – don’t really want to accept any asylum seekers at all. Of course, we say we welcome people in danger. Of course we do. We couldn’t have anybody thinking we don’t actually want any. It’s just that our words claiming to be willing to accept genuine asylum seekers is undermined by repeated policies that seem to militate against those claims.

There is, of course, the much ballyhooed Tory policy of just sending anyone who comes apart from specially setup routes to Rwanda. Never mind that Rwanda isn’t actually a safe country, they changed the law so that it now definitely is! Never mind that there are only special routes for people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong and so if you are in danger in any other country you can’t come. Never mind that special routes – even if they existed – aren’t always practicable and people often don’t have months to wait for British bureaucracy to run its course while people are looking to throw you in prison and torture you. Let’s also overlook that this means a) almost everyone coming is going to Rwanda and b) if you are processed in Rwanda and even found to be genuine once there, you still have no right to return to the UK, it almost feels as though we aren’t in any way open to asylum seekers.

In a lurch a bit further to the right, the Reform UK deputy leader has gone a step further. In fact, a couple of steps further. For the Tories suggest they should let the boats arrive and then deport those who get here. Reform UK’s deputy leader has suggested we should simply pick everyone up off the boats before they arrive and take them back to France. Or, at least, most of them. He went a bit further and suggests those who wouldn’t get on British boat taking them back to France should be left to drown. Yes, you read that correctly. Asylum seekers should either be returned to France or left to drown. Under no circumstances should they be permitted in the UK. At least he’s not hiding it I guess.

I have written a number of times on this blog about why the Rwanda plan is not really workable (see here and here for example). If you prefer, you can listen to Tim Farron talk about why it is unworkable. It is hard to believe the deputy leader of Reform UK’s plan is really seen as a credible option by anybody. Even Reform UK themselves have since distanced themselves from the comments and (entirely rightly) suggested they will not stand by and watch people drown. But it does feel a little like the cat is out the bag and a desperate PR effort to pretend otherwise.

Labour have outlined some plans of their own. They have proposed more money for fast-track court hearings to clear backlogs and more border security. Only, fast-track court hearings have been proposed before and let’s just say that caused it own problems. They were deemed unfair because there was not enough time for applicants to gather the necessary and requisite evidence to prove their need of asylum. More border security, whilst not wrong in and of itself, isn’t doing anything to address the issue at hand. It won’t necessarily stop the boats coming over in the first place nor does it do anything for those desperate people who are in real need and can’t find any other means to get here. They are speaking a lot about ‘smashing the criminal gangs’, which might get you some column inches in The Sun, it doesn’t actually mean very much.

There are solutions to this. There are means of clearing the backlog, creating safe routes, having cases heard by British courts and still not arguing for open borders. I have made some suggestions here. The main issue here is political will. We could provide safe crossing, we could hear cases in the UK, we could deport those who fail and we could grant asylum to those we fail to hear within 6 months, which would be our own failure, weighting the decision to get on the safe crossing in favour of the asylum seekers and thus encouraging them to take it. But there are those for whom these would cause howls and claims of ‘open borders’ that are as spurious as they are disingenuous. Nothing is stopping us doing these things, welcoming those who need help and removing those who do not. But saying ‘smash the gangs’ and threatening to remove people before we have even heard their case sounds much stronger to a particular section of the electorate who do not understand the reality on the ground.

But perhaps worth noting above all is that nobody is quite willing to say they do not want asylum seekers. They come up with policies that make it all but impossible for them to be here. They come up with policies that fail to actually serve anybody who needs help. But we, of course, want to help those in need. Of course we do. Don’t we?