NotKindle.com ( No Worries ) . 100% FREE

an entire population because of the actions of its government. It means Britain should use the diplomatic tools available to it to make return agreements effective. ## What about countries that refuse? This is where governments face a difficult choice. Suppose Britain has identified someone as a citizen of another country. Britain wants to return them. The other government refuses to accept them. What then? The person remains in Britain. The Government may continue trying to establish identity or negotiate a return. And meanwhile, the British taxpayer may continue paying for the consequences. This is one of the reasons why immigration policy cannot be separated from foreign policy. A country may have a perfectly good system for deciding who should leave. But if other countries refuse to cooperate, the final stage becomes extremely difficult. ## Should Britain use its financial influence? This is a question worth asking. Britain gives money and assistance to countries around the world. It also has trade relationships, diplomatic relationships and security partnerships. Should some of that influence be used to encourage cooperation on returns? There is a serious argument for doing so. If a country wants the benefits of a close relationship with Britain, it is reasonable to ask whether that relationship should include cooperation on identifying and accepting its own citizens. But there is also a danger. Foreign aid can provide humanitarian assistance to ordinary people who have done nothing wrong. Punishing an entire population because its government refuses to cooperate could create another problem without solving the first one. So the objective should be targeted pressure on governments and criminal networks, not punishment of innocent people. ## What about countries where returning someone may be dangerous? This is another area where simple answers do not work. Britain cannot simply return somebody to a place where doing so would put them at serious risk if the law prevents that return. This is one of the reasons asylum and human-rights rules exist. The public may disagree with some of those rules. They may believe they are too generous. They may believe they prevent governments from controlling their own borders. Those are legitimate political arguments. But if Britain wants to change those rules, it needs to do so through lawful political and democratic processes. It cannot simply pretend the rules do not exist. ## The principle of consequence There is, however, a principle that should be at the heart of any effective system. **A final decision must have a consequence.** If somebody is granted protection, Britain should say so clearly. If somebody is refused and has another legal basis to stay, that should be clear. If somebody is refused and has no right to remain, there should be a realistic route towards departure. That does not mean every removal will happen immediately. It means the system should be designed to make removal the normal outcome where there is no legal obstacle. Without that principle, the system becomes difficult for ordinary people to understand. ## What could Britain do? There are several possible approaches. Britain could negotiate more effective return agreements. It could improve cooperation with countries of origin. It could invest more heavily in identifying people whose claims have failed. It could speed up the documentation process. It could use diplomatic and economic influence more effectively. And it could make the consequences of a failed claim much clearer from the beginning. None of these measures is a magic solution. But together they could make the final stage of the immigration system much more effective. And that brings us back to the beginning. If people know that