By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following threats of visa penalties from the UK Home Secretary, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have agreed to accept the return of their foreign offenders and illegal migrants. This cooperation comes after the Home Secretary explicitly stated that countries refusing to accept their citizens would face consequences. The UK government had previously warned that it would cease issuing visas to individuals from these nations if their governments did not enhance their collaboration on removals.
Read the original article here
Three African nations have recently agreed to accept the return of their citizens from the UK, a significant development that comes after the British government threatened sanctions. This agreement, involving Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, marks a notable shift in what has often been a protracted and complex diplomatic issue. The impetus for this agreement appears to have been the UK’s clear stance, including the potential for visa bans, which seemingly provided the necessary leverage to overcome previous hesitations from these countries.
The effectiveness of applying pressure through sanctions or visa restrictions in international relations is once again highlighted by this situation. It suggests that when a nation is firm and willing to impose consequences, negotiations that previously stalled can move forward with surprising speed. This approach, while seemingly straightforward, appears to have been underutilized in addressing similar issues in the past, leading to the current situation being viewed by many as long overdue.
However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that this agreement, while positive, represents what many consider the “low-hanging fruit” of migrant return negotiations. The numbers of individuals from Namibia, Angola, and the DRC who have arrived in the UK through irregular means or overstayed their visas are understood to be relatively small. Therefore, this measure, while a welcome start, is unlikely to have a substantial measurable impact on overall illegal migration figures into the UK.
For the UK’s migrant return policy to become truly impactful, the leverage would need to be applied to countries with larger volumes of irregular migrants. Nations like Nigeria and potentially South Africa and Ghana are often cited in this regard. Engaging these larger nations in similar return agreements would represent a more significant step in addressing the broader challenges associated with illegal immigration and visa overstays.
A particularly interesting aspect of this development is how quickly a firm stance can alter diplomatic dynamics. The threat of sanctions and visa bans appears to have been a potent tool, cutting through the usual bureaucratic and diplomatic gridlock that often characterizes these negotiations. It raises questions about why such a forceful approach wasn’t prioritized or utilized more extensively earlier, given its apparent effectiveness.
The question of what happens when individuals arrive and then destroy their identification, such as passports, is a recurring challenge in these return discussions. If a country refuses to accept its citizens back, even when their identity is established, it creates a significant hurdle for the deporting nation. This situation can also be viewed as a national security concern for the host country, as it potentially allows individuals who may pose a risk to remain within its borders.
There’s a perception that the current government, or perhaps a broader political will that was lacking previously, has finally decided to tackle this issue with more determination. This is seen by some as a departure from past administrations, which they argue were less inclined to address the problem of mass immigration effectively. The current move is perceived as a demonstration of common sense and a willingness to implement solutions, which some feel has been a rare commodity in political discourse surrounding immigration.
The narrative surrounding immigration policies can often become polarized, with discussions often falling into extremes of being purely pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant. Many feel that a more nuanced and balanced approach is needed, one that acknowledges the contributions of the vast majority of immigrants who integrate and contribute positively to society, while also addressing the issues posed by a small minority who may commit crimes or refuse to integrate.
The proposed concept of a “two-strike rule” for illegal immigrants is one idea that suggests a more targeted approach. This would involve deportation after two minor offenses or one major crime, while allowing refugees who haven’t committed crimes to remain and contribute. This perspective highlights the frustration with the perceived binary nature of the debate and the desire for a middle ground that is both compassionate and practical.
The resistance from certain countries to accepting returned citizens, even when they possess valid documentation, is a point of contention. The suggestion that some nations are actively hindering deportations, possibly to protect individuals or for other political reasons, is a significant concern. When a country refuses to accept its own nationals back, it essentially places the burden and responsibility onto the host nation.
The case of individuals denaturalized and having their citizenship revoked, then being expected to be held elsewhere, raises complex questions about national responsibility. If a person was a citizen of a country, the argument goes, it should be that country’s responsibility to manage their presence, whether that involves detention or other measures, rather than expecting another nation to take them in indefinitely.
There are also observations about perceived double standards in how different countries are treated regarding immigration enforcement. The comparison is sometimes drawn between actions taken by the UK and the US, with accusations of racism being leveled against the latter when implementing similar policies. This points to the highly politicized nature of immigration debates and how perceptions can vary significantly based on the actors involved.
The notion that the UK’s recent agreement is simply a pragmatic response to a genuine problem, and that the international community should not be overly concerned with how it might reflect on other nations, is also put forth. The focus, in this view, should remain on the core issue of countries accepting their own citizens and the potential consequences for those who refuse.
The idea that the UK’s approach is being driven by political desperation, particularly as an election approaches, is another interpretation. Some believe that past governments, including the Conservatives, have strategically used the issue of immigration to stoke public sentiment without enacting substantial solutions, while the current Labour government is perceived as making a genuine attempt to resolve the problem.
The inclusion of South Africa in discussions about irregular migration from Africa has surprised some, given its perception as more of a destination country. This raises the need for clearer data and understanding of the migration flows from different African nations to the UK. While some legal migration from countries like Ghana and Nigeria is acknowledged, the focus of these return agreements is on those present irregularly.
Ultimately, the agreement with Namibia, Angola, and the DRC represents a concrete step forward in the UK’s efforts to manage irregular migration and facilitate the return of its own citizens. While the immediate impact may be limited, it sets a precedent and demonstrates a willingness to use diplomatic pressure to achieve tangible outcomes in a complex and often contentious area of international policy. The success of this approach will likely be further tested as the UK seeks to extend similar agreements to countries with larger numbers of irregular migrants.