NotKindle.com ( No Worries ) . 100% FREE

that matters. If people with genuine claims believe they will receive a fair hearing, that matters. If the British public believes that final decisions are actually enforced, that matters. Credibility changes behaviour. ## The final test At the end of every year, Britain should be able to answer five questions. **Are fewer people crossing irregularly?** **Are asylum decisions being made faster?** **Are final refusals resulting in more effective returns?** **Are criminal smuggling networks being disrupted?** **Does the public have greater confidence in the system?** If the answer to those questions is yes, the policy is moving in the right direction. If the answer is no, something needs to change. That is not complicated. It is simply accountability. And perhaps that is what has been missing from the immigration debate for too long. Not another argument. Not another slogan. Not another political promise. **A system that is measured by results.** The next question is perhaps the most important one of all: **Can Britain actually achieve this while remaining a compassionate country?** # Chapter Seventeen ## Can Britain Be Firm and Compassionate? There is a strange idea in the immigration debate that Britain has to choose between two things. Either Britain controls its borders. Or Britain is compassionate. That is a false choice. A country can do both. In fact, a decent immigration system should do both. ## Compassion needs rules Imagine a person fleeing genuine persecution. They arrive in Britain and ask for protection. The country should have a system capable of listening to that person and deciding their case fairly. That is compassion. But now imagine another person who has no legal basis for remaining in Britain after their case has been properly considered. A system that simply refuses to enforce its own decision is not necessarily compassionate. It may simply be ineffective. Compassion and control are not opposites. They can work together. ## Britain has always helped people Britain has a long history of accepting people who needed protection. People have come here because of wars, persecution and political oppression. Some have eventually become doctors, teachers, business owners, scientists and neighbours. They have contributed to British life. That is something Britain can be proud of. But a history of helping people does not mean Britain has no limits. Every country has limits. The question is where those limits should be. ## The difference between a person and a policy This is another distinction that needs to be made. It is possible to oppose an immigration policy without opposing the people affected by it. A person who arrives in a small boat is still a human being. They may have made a decision we disagree with. They may have paid a criminal organisation. They may have broken immigration rules. But none of that gives another person the right to abuse or attack them. The Government can enforce immigration law. The police can enforce criminal law. The courts can make legal decisions. That is what a civilised society is supposed to do. ## Firmness can actually protect people There is another reason for taking a firm approach. The small-boat trade is dangerous. People smugglers make money from putting human beings into unsafe boats. If Britain can reduce that business, fewer people may risk their lives crossing the Channel. That is not cruelty. It is prevention. The strongest way to stop people being exploited by smugglers may be to make the smuggling business much less attractive. ## Genuine protection should mean something There is also a moral reason for making the system work properly. If people with genuine protection needs are waiting