Eyebrows raised at Priti Patel’s efforts to show sympathy for the channel’s killing | John Kress

[ad_1]

It was only last Monday that Priti Patel was forced to answer an urgent question about people crossing the canal in small boats. Her response was usually aggressive and unapologetic. It has nothing to do with it, everything it does with human smuggling gangs, economic migrants trying to enter the country illegally. And of course the French. Never forget the French. Everything can usually be traced back to the French.

Just three days later, the Home Secretary returned to the House of Commons to make a statement on the 27 men, women and children who drowned after their rubber boat capsized the previous day. This time, she tried to be more measured. A little more human, though sympathy for her doesn’t come easily. She said the deaths came as a shock, though not a surprise. This was a tragedy waiting to happen. Although it has not taken many steps to effectively prevent it. Because again, the fault lies justly and directly with the smuggling gangs and economic migrants trying to manipulate the system. And of course the French. Never forget the French. Everything can usually be traced back to the French.

Preti Vakant’s statement raised some eyebrows. Because she was the one who insisted that she would control the broken system two years ago. Since the problem has worsened, with more and more people making the dangerous crossing from northern France year by year. So much for a credible immigration policy.

Not to mention her proposed citizenship and border bill, which would enable anyone arrested to rescue these people at risk of prosecution, leaked Interior Ministry plans to return small boats to France using nets and wave machines and plans to set up detention centers in Albania and Ascension Island. Love is hardly welcome for people fleeing war, persecution, and environmental disasters.

Labour’s shadow Home Secretary Nick Thomas Symonds tried to choose his words carefully. After expressing his grief over the drownings and blaming people smugglers as much, he wondered if the government might not have been able to do more to prevent a tragedy that all humanitarian agencies had been predicting for over a year. . What happened to the safe road plans? Why did we take in only 480 refugees under the Dubs scheme? Why did we cut off foreign aid? Was the Minister of the Interior aware that the draft citizenship and borders law contradicts international agreements on refugees?

Patel chose to ignore most of this. Other than going fast to the French. She said condescendingly that they are getting a little better at dealing with the refugees, but they desperately need our help. She had offered to set up joint British and French police patrols on mainland Europe, but so far it has been rejected. Everyone knew that the French were not able to do this task on their own, but it would be difficult for her to take command of the French border gendarmerie. Although it may be useful.

Nobody had the guts to tell the Home Secretary that France had taken in far more refugees than the UK. Not least Ian Duncan Smith and David Davis, who were also eager to support the French. “The Home Secretary is pulling every string to prevent it,” Davis said. One hates to think how many people would die if Preity did not have their best interests in mind.

Other conservatives, too, felt that was enough. Edward Lee thought that was enough and that if we really wanted results, we would have outposts and take countermeasures in the canal. And if many more die in the short term, it will eventually be worth it because people will eventually learn their lessons and stop trying to cross. Julian Lewis said respected refugees should learn to wait their turn until they are resettled, and if they try to queue, they deserve everything they get. If they want to live in Britain, they have to learn to act like the British. Even if they died waiting.

John Hayes couldn’t understand why people still wanted to come here. After all, we’ve made it clear that we don’t really want more foreigners by voting for Brexit. Reclaiming control of our borders does not mean allowing any persecuted minority into the country. David Symonds said he was tired of the SNP’s liberal heart bleeding because Scots took almost no refugees while his Hillingdon constituency took in about 10% of those who entered the country.

A number of opposition deputies tried to correct the balance. Jeremy Corbyn noted that people were coming because they were desperate. No one would get into an overcrowded rubber boat to try to cross in the freezing cold just for the hell of it. Che Onoreh and Rachel McClell made a case for safer roads with people being able to start their asylum claims from abroad, while Diana Johnson believed the Home Office had made such a mess in trying to weather the crisis that the Cabinet Office would have to take responsibility for immigration.

Preity is vacant just ignore. She reserved the right to treat immigrants – she still believes most asylum seekers are in the making – as she likes. And if that involves pushing boats back and making the UK as unattractive as possible, then so be it. She also agreed that the BBC’s language in calling out the dead migrants was wrong. In her opinion, the word scoungers would have been much more appropriate.

Quiet Farewell by John Chris (Guardian Faber, £9.99). To support The Guardian and Observer, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply

[ad_2]