Justin Welby can’t see that modern societies need borders to survive

Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has declared the Government’s new immigration policy – in which some asylum seekers will be given refuge in Rwanda – an affront to Christianity. “The principle must stand the judgment of God,” he warned in his Easter sermon, “and it cannot.”

There is much to query in this most political of religious interventions. Most obvious is that there is more than one moral perspective in judging what to do about the tens of thousands of people undertaking dangerous journeys across the Channel to claim asylum in Britain.

Should we tolerate – as we have so far – the organised criminals who facilitate this grim trade in human beings? Should our response be to make legal what is illegal, and open official routes for asylum seekers, already in safe European countries, to come here? Should we welcome anybody who can make it, with all the consequences that might bring for housing, public services, community cohesion and our ability to found future resettlement schemes for people from countries mired in crisis and war?

Just as Mr Welby ignores this obvious complexity, so he ignores similar policies established by governments whose politics he might prefer.

The principle of sending asylum seekers to safe third countries was enshrined in legislation by the last Labour government, in laws passed in 1999, 2002 and 2004. In practice, the list of countries was limited to other European Union member states, but Labour also sought deals with Tanzania and South Africa to take failed asylum seekers. Mr Welby did not protest about sending them to Bulgaria, so what is different with Rwanda, a country, in the Archbishop’s words, “that seeks to do well”?

Neither did he acknowledge in his sermon that the new asylum policy has similarities with the deal between the EU and Turkey, and the American policy, resumed by the Biden administration, known as “Remain in Mexico”. He failed to acknowledge that Denmark’s social democrat government also wants to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

The Archbishop did not address the double standard that suggests Britain has a moral obligation to take asylum seekers from France – including those whose claims have been rejected there – while also arguing that it is immoral and a dereliction of duty for Britain to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, a country the UN refugee agency calls “a safe haven for refugees fleeing conflict and persecution”.

Whatever the Archbishop believes, offshoring asylum seekers who come to Britain illegally, while establishing dedicated resettlement programmes for those most in need of support, is sensible policy. The deal with Rwanda – which critics always predicted would be impossible to strike – is a real achievement for Priti Patel.

Some 28,526 people crossed the Channel in small boats last year to enter Britain illegally, and the numbers are only likely to grow this year. Government critics say the migrants are genuine refugees, but the line between asylum and economic migration is blurred. Even those who might be granted asylum are engaging in what the EU calls “asylum shopping”, for they are leaving France, a safe country, to come to Britain. The majority are young men, fit enough to travel and rich enough to pay people smugglers.

Once here, the migrants know they are almost guaranteed to stay. They destroy their identity documents and are coached by their smugglers in what to say to the authorities. Their lawyers use human rights laws to draw out the process, making appeals based on often spurious claims. As the official numbers show, it is almost impossible to remove them even when their applications fail.

Those who quietly favour mass migration, from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Labour frontbench, will never admit it, but there is not a single immigration route – legal or illegal – where they want to introduce stronger controls or reduce numbers. But for economic, cultural, social and practical reasons there must be an upper limit to immigration. That means limits on the numbers overall, an orderly system, and no tolerance of illegal immigration and the organised crime that facilitates it.

For the asylum system it means stopping illegal journeys while offering sanctuary through dedicated resettlement programmes, such as those for Syria and Hong Kong. This is what the new policy aims to do. But will it work?

There are two main question marks. The first is scale. The Government says the scheme will apply to “some” asylum seekers and the funds available are limited. We do not know how many will stay in Britain and how many will go to Rwanda. In Australia, where offshoring has worked well, the law says nobody who enters the country illegally will be allowed to settle. To serve as a real deterrent the policy in Britain will need to apply to all, or almost all, those coming here illegally.

The second question is legal. Australia, like Britain, is subject to the Refugee Convention. But Britain is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, and incorporates the Convention into law through the Human Rights Act. The generous interpretation of these rights is one of the biggest reasons we struggle to remove illegal immigrants and foreign criminals. The Convention will be the foundation of legal attacks on the new policy, and if those attacks succeed, ministers will need to secure derogations or leave the jurisdiction of the European Court altogether.

This is the truth of the matter. The problem with the new asylum policy is not that it is an inhumane departure from civilised standards, as Mr Welby and the Labour Party maintain. There is nothing humane about turning a blind eye to humans being trafficked across the Channel, and is it not compassionate to waste limited resources on economic migrants when we should be helping the truly vulnerable.

The challenge will be to make the policy work. And for that to happen, ministers will need to go further. The critics will cry even louder, but having started this battle the Government must fight to its end. Compassion need not mean naivety, and toughness need not mean cruelty. A modern society cannot survive open borders.