Politicians are jittery after the Syrian refugee crisis – but the situation in Afghanistan is very different

The aim this time will be to keep the crisis as far from EU borders as possible – there is less for UK politicians to fret about than they think, writes Andrew Grice

In politicians’ minds, asylum and immigration are merged into one (Iranian Red Crescent/AFP)

During the 2016 referendum, Nigel Farage unveiled his infamous “breaking point” poster showing a line of refugees trying to get into Europe to escape the civil war in Syria. That migration crisis was in the minds of UK and EU politicians this week as they wondered anxiously whether history would repeat itself in Afghanistan.

Although the poster was condemned by the official Vote Leave campaign led by Boris Johnson, it was quite happy to play the immigration card. It was shameless but it worked. Johnson and his allies drew a lesson: they would never be outflanked on the right.

This helps explain why the government is allowing only 5,000 Afghans to come to Britain in the first year, with a total of 20,000 over an unspecified long term. In the politicians’ minds, asylum and immigration are merged into one. They sometimes argue that is because it is how the public views the two separate issues. Although it is the job of politicians to lead rather than follow, Johnson and his ministers have made little effort to do so on this front.

Their determination to protect their right flank also explains Johnson’s dismay at Priti Patel’s failure to stem the tide of migrants crossing the Channel in record numbers in small boats. Patel brands this “illegal immigration” even though 98 per cent of those on the boats claim asylum on arrival in the UK.

Her Nationality and Borders Bill going through parliament is designed to deport such people and has rightly been criticised for not providing legal routes for asylum seekers. Patel signalled this week that Afghans crossing the Channel in this way will not be treated differently to others.

Defending the resettlement scheme, she argued the UK “cannot accommodate 20,000 people in one go,” an echo of her heroine Margaret Thatcher’s statement that Britons fear being “swamped”.

Yet David Davis, the former cabinet minister not normally regarded as a member of the metropolitan liberal elite, called for 50,000 Afghans to be allowed in over the next few months. Labour, while urging ministers to go further, refused to put a number on it. Like Johnson’s, Keir Starmer’s eyes are perpetually focused on voters in the red wall.

In principle, the public is warm hearted; six in 10 are proud the UK has protected refugees since it signed the UN convention on the issue 70 years ago. But the latent fears that Vote Leave exploited are still there.

According to YouGov, two-thirds of both Labour and Remain voters believe the UK has a moral duty to take in Afghans escaping the Taliban. But Tory and Leave voters take the opposite view: by 52-37 per cent and 54-33 per cent respectively.

Overall a majority (52 per cent) supports having a resettlement scheme for Afghans. The most popular option is to allow in “a few tens of thousands,” but among Tory voters it is “a few thousand”, which probably influenced the government’s decision.

Though it is hard to avoid them, we are too hung up on the numbers. Sunder Katwala, director of the British Future think tank, wants to eschew headlines about big figures by localising the issue and speaking about between having six and 25 refugees in each constituency. He thinks it’s better to highlight the successes of previous resettlement schemes than to shout “shame” at the government for not doing more, which can alienate middle ground or undecided voters.

Both the EU and UK are haunted by the Syrian refugee crisis. But the situation today is very different; most Afghans who want to leave are trapped there rather than in neighbouring countries like the Syrians who fled to Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The Taliban is unlikely to let them escape.

Crucially, the EU has changed its migration policy since 2015, strengthening its Frontex border agency in the hope of preventing a repeat. Turkey, a key entry route last time, is taking a tougher stance; it has put 750 elite troops on its border with Iran and now has a migration pact with the EU. Greece has also adopted a hardline approach.

Patel, fearing an even bigger problem in the Channel as a result of events in Afghanistan, has urged the EU to do more, but found herself outflanked by a centrist president. In sharp contrast to Angela Merkel’s open borders approach in 2015, Emmanuel Macron promised France a robust plan to “anticipate and protect itself from a wave of migrants” from Afghanistan. He has an election against the National Front coming.

The EU as a whole will take a tougher line than in 2015; there is no sign of the “open vs closed” debate that divided it then. The aim this time will be to keep the crisis as far from EU borders as possible. So there is less for jittery UK politicians to fret about than they think.