Supporters of the Rwanda deportation scheme fail to understand the lessons of Australia
‘It underscores why you need a deterrent.” So claimed Rishi Sunak in response to the Channel tragedy last week that led to the deaths of five migrants off the coast of France, hours after the “Safety of Rwanda Bill”, Sunak’s “deterrent”, passed its final parliamentary hurdle.
“Deterrence” has become the magic word to ease through every immigration policy, however cynical, cruel or unworkable. There is only one problem. When it comes to immigration, deterrence does not deter. “The available evidence suggests that the deterrent effect of asylum policies tends to be small,” observes Oxford University’s Migration Observatory. However tough they may seem, concluded a study from the development thinktank ODI, “deterrent policies… have virtually no effect on people’s behaviour”. Those seeking to cross the Channel “have already travelled thousands of miles and spent thousands of pounds getting to that point”; they are “unlikely to drastically rethink their ‘migration project’, regardless of how strict the UK’s border controls become”.
