The deaths of migrant children in the Channel should shock Boris Johnson and Priti Patel into action

Editorial: There is no reason why the pandemic should mean that the UK’s obligations to those with a fear of persecution in their home country should cease

The PM and his home secretary have taken a hard line on migration (Getty)

The shock of the drowning of two children in the English Channel this week ought to prompt the prime minister and the home secretary to rethink. Obviously, they should do so as a matter of basic humanity, but it is also worth trying to make the hard-hearted argument of pragmatism. 

The present policy is plainly not working from the point of view of a government that wishes to maintain strict immigration control. The Independent would argue that the numbers coming across the Channel in small boats are not huge, but a government that wants to “take back control of our borders” ought to be offended by its failure to prevent the crossings, even if it were not also appalled at the collateral human cost. 

Hence any solution needs to focus on preventing the problem at source. That means trying to reduce the desperation that drives so many to take the terrible risk of crossing, and it means better policing of the French coast to stop people setting off in the first place. 

Of course, there is little that the government could or should do to reduce the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for either asylum seekers or economic migrants. The English language and the presence here of family and friends will always mean that the UK is preferred to other countries by some migrants.

But one of the causes of the recent increase in attempted Channel crossings has been the choking off of other formal and informal routes. In particular, the suspension of the UK resettlement scheme since March means that there is no safe and legal way for most refugees to claim asylum here. 

There is no reason why coronavirus should mean that the UK’s obligations to those with a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country should cease – and there are good reasons why they should continue to be fulfilled. 

Even before the resettlement scheme was suspended, the UK took far fewer than its fair share of refugees. Germany takes six times as many refugees as we do, and Sweden 13 times as many, taking our different populations into account. Most importantly for the pragmatic argument, France takes three times as many refugees as the UK. If we are to expect the French government to police its coast, or to allow the British authorities to police it, in order to prevent small boats from setting off, then we have to ensure that there is some equality in the relationship. 

The best approach, of course, would be for a common policy across Europe towards asylum-seekers. But now that we have left the European Union, we will have to reinvent the wheel of cooperation and solidarity that it embodies. If we want to ask the French people to help solve our immigration problem, then we ought to be willing to take responsibility for a fair share of refugees. 

It would be the right and compassionate thing to do, and it would fulfil our international obligations, but it would also, and this is an argument that might carry more weight with Boris Johnson and Priti Patel, make it easier to reduce the number of Channel crossings.