Getting tough on illegal immigration is morally right  | thearticle

What with the failed arrest of two illegal immigrants hidden away in the heart of Glasgow, and the now notorious photo of Priti Patel at the arrest of an alleged people trafficker, we’re

seeing the topic of illegal immigration thrust into the limelight once more. In an age where thoughtless Instagram infographics with pastel backgrounds seemingly act as political gospel for

many young people, it is unsurprising that two entirely morally sound events have stirred up such public outrage from the Left. Those obsessed with such moralistic outrage seem to always

come to the same conclusion in all matters of immigration: immigration is a complete and total good, legal or otherwise. Never mind the deeply damaging impact that illegal immigration has on

those most vulnerable internationally.  But they’re wrong. If we’re actually going to help the immigrants most in need — those asylum seekers fleeing violence, those at the mercy of

dangerous traffickers— a tough stance on illegal immigration is absolutely necessary. For those asylum seekers fleeing violence, those migrants in search of a better life, those at the mercy

of dangerous traffickers — being soft on illegal immigration hurts them all. The public needs to understand that.  In Glasgow, thousands came out onto the streets to stop the proper

carriage of justice, siding with those who they saw as upstanding members of their community over the rule of law to which we are all compelled to hold supreme. The Home Office has since

confirmed that the two men will be deported in due course, to the outrage of the SNP and Glaswegian politicians who have used the events to serve their own anti-Home Office agenda. The focus

on the Government’s immigration policy likely sparked such widespread interest and outrage over Priti Patel’s seemingly now regular photo appearances at Home Office raids and arrests, with

the Twittersphere exploding as she stood staunchly by as an alleged people trafficker was escorted from his home in handcuffs. Labour MPs and globalists alike condemned the Home Secretary

for her tough stance on people trafficking as soon as the picture was published, seemingly siding with a man likely to be a seasoned, dangerous criminal who has made a life out of exploiting

some of the most vulnerable people on the planet over a Home Office which is trying to protect them.  This public sympathy for those facing the long arm of the law is due to the combination

of a poorly framed perspective, an intrinsic sympathy for the apparent underdog and an anti-Conservative sentiment on social media. Nevertheless, this position is dangerous and damaging for

those fleeing war, death and destruction rather than the moral stance they frame it to be. Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime: it is, in essence, the trading of one person’s life

for another’s, often one in a more vulnerable position. Skipping the queue and taking up illegal residence in the UK means that, over time, the UK will have less capability to provide

refuge to those who need it, and many will continue to sit in squalour and poverty in dangerous refugee camps. There is nothing compassionate or moral about encouraging that state of

affairs. Ultimately, the only way to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected first and foremost is to be tough on illegal immigration, and ensure that those around the world who

consider attempting it know they are likely to be caught and to join the queue for a better life rather than skipping to the front. This is the only moral option.  The exact same principle

exists when it comes to people-trafficking, and many of the boats that make the dangerous trip across the Channel to our shores. The images of drowned children, bedraggled and desperate

people trying to make such a dangerous crossing are undeniably heart-wrenching and often tragic. Yet it is often forgotten in the public sphere that these distressing cases are entirely the

responsibility of exploitative people-traffickers and hardened criminals, not the UK Government. The reason that they attempt the crossing, often from relative safety in France, is that

people-traffickers know there is a reasonable chance of success, and if not, they will still get their payday. Being soft on illegal immigration encourages this behavour. Until the day that

Immigration Enforcement ensures that there is no chance of such a dangerous journey being a success, criminals will continue to exploit vulnerable people for their last shred of money and

dignity, and innocent people will continue to die. Those protesting and campaigning for soft immigration enforcement facilitate this state of affairs. The only moral position is to be tough

on the people trafficking which enables illegal immigration. The public needs to remember that.  A concerted effort should be made by the Home Office and Government to remind the public of

that reality. Some 300 people have died attempting to cross the Channel in the past two decades. That blood is on the hands of traffickers and those who inadvertently make their job easier

through supporting soft immigration enforcement. The number of illegal immigrants in the UK is suspected to have risen by a million people in the past two decades — that is a million

vulnerable people who may have been left to their death in refugee camps from war torn states, as the UK’s already bloated welfare state is stretched to its limits. These are the numbers

that matter. The only way to protect the vulnerable is to be both tough on illegal immigration, and ensure that the avenues by which to pursue asylum stay accessible as a result. The latter

simply cannot exist without the former. The moral course of action seems clear.  A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an

important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation._