"They are not genuine asylum-seekers, they are economic migrants"

 While hoping that the new administration in Kabul is true to its word, and that human rights will be respected under a Taliban government, one must accept that, based on history, many - perhaps most - of those attempting to flee the country have a genuine fear of retribution. I would therefore disagree with those who, like John Redwood, regard most refugees as people who want to take advantage of the UK. In case, the UK is only one of migrants' preferred destinations, Germany and the Scandinavian nations having consistently taken more immigrants than the UK.

We Liberal Democrats do little to discourage the general impression that we have an "open door" policy regarding immigrants. Statements like "they have risked their lives getting here, they deserve to stay" owe more to social Darwinism than humanitarian feeling. Then there are the many testimonials from refugees or their offspring who have made it to the top of a professional tree. I do support the party policy of allowing refugees to support themselves by paid work even while their status is being investigated. It would not only offset the costs to the state but also afford some dignity to those who were able to continue their profession while in this country. However, the advantage to the state of filling gaps in the NHS or social services should not sway an assessment of the reality of an incomer's fears if he or she were returned home. Also, by allowing them to settle here, we are depriving a (probably) third-world nation of a professional trained at that nation's expense. 

But the majority of voters does not comprise professionals. Most of them are in jobs, or seek employment, where there are many more applicants than vacancies. They know that, given the opportunity, employers of manual labour will take on unofficial migrants, by-passing minimum wage legislation, knowing that the workers dare not complain and that legal enforcement is practically non-existent. The reluctance of voters in those areas of high unemployment to support any migrant policy is therefore understandable.

I agree with Mr Redwood on one point. We have been bad, and so far as I can see continue to be bad, at assessing refugees' cases. The answer is to move much of the process closer to the source of migration, using the expertise of FO staff and intelligence on the ground and to provide safe corridors to the UK for successful applicants, thus removing the reliance on criminal gangs and hazardous sea journeys. The expertise of the division handling those who still arrive undocumented on our shores must be increased, even if this means paying a premium for foreign language skills. Enforcement of employment legislation on (especially) building sites needs to be taken seriously. And finally, the UK should stop interfering in the affairs of other countries unless we can be sure that what we leave behind is better than what we went in to correct.