Surrender on illegal migrants: Britain cannot deport thousands of failed asylum seekers because there is nowhere to send them, admits Home Office minister

Britain is powerless to boot out thousands of illegal immigrants, a minister admitted last night.

In a stark indictment of the UK’s porous borders, Richard Harrington said many could not be deported because they had ‘no place to go’.

By refusing to disclose their nationality – often burning their passports – they can exploit human rights laws that bar the expulsion of failed asylum seekers of unknown origin.

Mr Harrington, who is a Home Office minister, spoke out after MPs criticised the Government for failing to send back illegals. ‘Where would they be deported to, most of them?’ he said. ‘This deportation sounds easy, it sounds a common sense thing to do. But the truth is most of these illegal migrants have got no place to be deported to.’

Tory MPs said the UK had become a ‘soft touch’ and efforts to tackle illegal immigration were at an ‘all-time low’.

Home Office data shows the number kicked out had almost halved from 21,425 in 2004 to just 12,056 last year. The Conservative revolt comes amid mounting anger at David Cameron’s failure to seize back control of Britain’s borders in his EU negotiations ahead of June’s referendum.

Christopher Chope, whose private member’s bill would make it a criminal offence to be an illegal immigrant after June, insisted migrants were given a ‘perverse incentive’ to head to the UK. The Tory MP said they were given a ‘slap on the wrist’ by ‘soft touch’ officials.

‘Public anxiety about illegal immigration is at an all-time high and the effectiveness of the Government in tackling it, in my submission, is at an all-time low,’ he added.

‘If we got tough with illegal migrants in our country then the people smugglers would divert them away from the United Kingdom, because the way people smugglers operate is they are always going to try to use the weakest points of entry.’

Mr Harrington also blamed the Dublin Convention, an EU rule under which migrants are supposed to claim asylum in the first member state they set foot in, for the UK’s inability to deport illegal immigrants.

It is often difficult to establish exactly where an individual first arrived in the EU and, in 2014, Britain sent only 49 asylum seekers back to France – despite thousands making their way here via Calais. 

Migrants are also spared being sent back to homelands judged unsafe.

Challenging Mr Harrington on the convention, Sir Edward Leigh, a Tory Eurosceptic, said: ‘What people can’t understand is where someone has palpably come through perfectly safe countries – Spain, France, Italy – and they’ve arrived here and they’re caught, why can’t they be sent back to France and claim asylum there?’

Figures yesterday showed that a record 1.25 million asylum seekers arrived in the EU last year – more than double the figure from 2014.

The figures from Eurostat, the EU’s official statistical agency, showed that 38,400 lodged claims in the UK – a 19 per cent increase on the year before.

Campaigners and MPs warned the figures were the tip of the iceberg because they cover only official claims and do not take account of migrants who have not claimed asylum.

Many do not immediately seek sanctuary when they arrive in Europe – either waiting until they reach wealthy northern Europe or working illegally in the black market. Analysts estimate more than a million foreigners are living unlawfully in the UK.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We have legislated to make it harder for people to lodge spurious appeals and through the Immigration Act 2014 we have made it easier to remove people who should not be in the UK through the introduction of “deport now, appeal later” provisions. 

'The Immigration Bill, currently going through Parliament, will extend these provisions to apply to all human rights claims by migrants, except where removal pending appeal would be in breach of their human rights.’


The United States has a similar problem.  You wouldn't believe how many Juan Valdezes, Erik Estradas, and Placido Domingos that ICE takes into custody every year - or maybe you would.

Illegals seem to think that if the authorities don't know who they really are and where they really come from, they have to be let go.

At least here in the United States they get a big shock when they try that.  They are either deported to Mexico if they are obviously Latino because that's the country they were arrested coming into the United States from.  

Mexico objects to this policy claiming many non-Mexican Latinos are being dumped on them.  Well if they did their jobs properly and stopped illegals on their side of the border then they wouldn't have as big a problem.

Also, the United States CANNOT by law allow unknown persons of unknown origin to remain free in the United States.  All such persons are detained in camps and other such facilities - for a time.  But Obama's immigration policies require that those whose origins are unknown but are deemed to be not a threat to national security have to be released into the United States.  Unaccompanied children are kept in custody until a relative - legal or illegal is located who will take responsibility for them.

I say illegal immigrants should be held in detention until it can be determined their country of origin.  If they want to play the false name game and refuse to disclose their nationalities, then they can rot in detention until they do.

That is not being heartless and cruel.  As the law states, we CANNOT allow unknown persons of unknown origin to run around loose in the country.  God only knows who they are and where they are from and if they are criminals or terrorists.  The fact alone that their identities/origins are unknown make them a threat to national security.

I mean are we supposed to take them at their words that they are not criminals or terrorists? After all, a criminal or terrorist would have to be a complete moron to admit they were a criminal or terrorist, so of course they are going to lie about it.

Dan 88!