Lee Anderson, a member of the British Parliament, recently remarked that deploying troops to manage illegal immigration at the southern borders isn’t the ideal use of military resources.
He emphasized that the primary role of the military is to safeguard national borders, expressing surprise that this responsibility hadn’t been more effectively utilized.
The Labour Government in the UK has been on the defensive this week, especially after Donald Trump shared his insights from handling immigration issues at his own borders. He suggested that Prime Minister Keir Starmer should consider deploying troops to address the immigration challenge more directly.
Anderson indicated that, perhaps, it might be simpler to prevent immigrants from arriving rather than dealing with them once they’re already here. He noted, “I think your situation is quite similar. I believe the Prime Minister might come around to this view, and I’ll certainly advocate for it.”
He continued, stating that there’s a significant number of individuals who have entered the UK, making it tough to manage, especially given the “bad hand” they’ve been dealt. Millions have arrived, and he feels strongly about the need to remove them.
The Labour government has been vocal about the need for border control, although their stance on mass migration hasn’t been particularly forceful. Since Trump’s remarks, they’ve tried to downplay their impact. At the time, Starmer quickly countered Trump’s suggestions, asserting that there are “no silver bullets,” despite examples from countries like Australia that seem to challenge that idea.
Business Minister Peter Kyle mentioned to Sky News that military involvement is possible if necessary, but deploying them would be ineffective. He noted that the Border Force is already tasked with managing migrants crossing the English Channel, suggesting that the current system is meant to handle the situation. He also pointed out the “Returns contract” attributed to Starmer, which only facilitated the return of one migrant to France on a recent Thursday.
Initially frustrated when asked about this, Kyle eventually conceded that “nothing has been ruled out.” Nonetheless, he reiterated, “We want the military to protect us, but the focus should be on a functional system that can address these challenges, rather than relying solely on the military.”
Lee Anderson, known for his socially conservative stance, suggested a more drastic approach similar to what was seen post-Brexit.
He asserted:
“In the U.S., troops were deployed and illegal crossings ceased. We must push to remove those unlawfully here and halt the ongoing influx.”
He added, “If military assistance is necessary, then it should be obtained.”
Using troops to secure the UK borders doesn’t seem particularly contentious. Recent reports indicated that a substantial 69% of the British public supports deploying the Royal Navy to intercept traffickers’ boats. Only 18% opposed such measures.
Many citizens believe that the UK’s extensive welfare offerings attract immigrants, with half of respondents viewing the UK as a “soft touch.” In contrast, only 37% feel that migrants are truly fleeing conflict when arriving in the UK.
This stance is aligned with what Anderson has termed his advocacy for the Nigel Farage-led reform in Britain. As noted in July:
Reform leaders have promoted strategies similar to those of former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, focusing on preventing illegal migration by redirecting boats and processing asylum seekers in third-party nations instead of on Australian shores.
Currently, UK policies permit most illegal migrants (predominantly men of military age) to apply for asylum immediately, resulting in significant taxpayer costs for accommodation across the nation.
