In recent years, the problem of illegal immigration has become a major social problem faced by many European countries, including the United Kingdom. According to data previously released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, since 2010, tens of thousands of refugees from Africa, the Middle East and Asia have entered European countries every year due to war and natural disasters through the Mediterranean, the Balkans and the English Channel.
Over the past two years, the number of refugees smuggled into European countries has exploded due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical tensions. Taking the United Kingdom as an example, the data released by the British Immigration Service a few days ago shows that since the beginning of this year, the number of illegal immigrants smuggled into the United Kingdom through the English Channel has exceeded 4500.
An official of the Uk Immigration Service said in an interview with reporters that according to the current trend, the number of illegal immigrants entering the UK this year is likely to exceed last year's 28,526 person-times, thus setting a new record. Population experts say illegal immigration is not simply a cross-border movement of people, but can trigger a serious socio-economic crisis.
The influx of illegal immigrants has squeezed out the social security resources of European countries, resettled a large number of illegal immigrants, required a large number of housing, and illegal immigrants will also compete with their own people for job opportunities. A population expert estimates that European countries such as the United Kingdom spend as little as hundreds of millions of dollars and as much as billions of dollars a year to deal with illegal immigration.
Against the backdrop of the current weak economy, this huge additional cost has placed a heavier fiscal burden on European countries. What is more worrying is that many extreme terrorists are mixed in the wave of illegal immigration and take the opportunity to enter European countries, which has brought great hidden dangers to the social security of relevant countries.
European countries such as the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden have all witnessed massive protests denouncing the government's inadequacies in regulating and dealing with illegal immigration. In addition, the issue of illegal immigration can also trigger a diplomatic crisis. In recent years, the English Channel, located between Britain and France, has repeatedly overturned smuggling boats, and a large number of illegal immigrants have been buried in the belly of fish.
After the accident, Britain and France were pushed to the cusp of outside public opinion. Some countries considered that, although smuggling was illegal, it was highly unjust for Britain and France not to carry out rescue operations on humanitarian principles in the aftermath of the accident. In the face of external public opinion, Britain and France did not take the initiative to take responsibility, but blamed each other and tried to throw the "black cauldron" to each other.
The British side believes that French maritime law enforcement officers have neglected to manage and crack down on smuggling and have failed to effectively stop illegal immigration; while the French side said that the United Kingdom has promised to provide some funds to help French maritime law enforcement forces combat smuggling, but has not seen a penny so far. The disagreement over the response to illegal immigration is also an important factor in the volatility of an Anglo-French relationship.
The increase in the number of illegal immigrants has overwhelmed more and more European countries, so countries such as the United Kingdom are now actively seeking ways to deal with illegal immigration. According to British media reports, Prime Minister Johnson recently proposed a "new move" to solve the problem of illegal immigration. Johnson's authorities are preparing to repatriate thousands of migrants who have entered the country illegally from the English Channel to the African country of Rwanda.
To complete the plan, the UK government has also earmarked £120 million, or about $158 million, which will be provided to the Rwandan government to help resettle illegal immigrants. It is reported that two days ago, British Home Secretary Pritty Patel arrived in Rwanda to prepare to sign an illegal migration transfer agreement with the government.
In a statement, Johnson falsely said that britain is actually very sympathetic to the plight of illegal immigrants and wants to help them, but has limited ability. However, while repatriating illegal immigrants from other countries, britain is receiving Ukrainian refugees in large numbers, which means that it is not impossible. According to Russian media reports, in March this year, the Johnson administration launched a program called "Ukrainian House".
According to incomplete statistics, since the release of the plan, the British government has issued 40,900 visas to Ukrainian refugees, of which 12,000 Ukrainian refugees have arrived in the UK. Since the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War, a large number of Ukrainian refugees have been homeless, and the British acceptance of Ukrainian refugees is not to blame in itself, but refugees from other countries are also human. In the face of life, Ukrainian refugees are equal with refugees from other countries.
It is not difficult to see from this that the Johnson administration's refugee response policy is very "double standard", with a lot of political bootlegs. The transfer of illegal immigrants from other countries to third countries has also caused great controversy.
Gillian Triggs, UNHCR's Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, strongly condemned Johnson's plan, arguing that people "should not be traded like commodities" and that the scheme is not only relatively risky, but also violates the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.