As Britain continues to wrestle with the ongoing migration crisis across the English Channel, a growing number of voices are calling for a shift in strategy, from expensive border enforcement to financial deterrence.
While it’s well known that the UK pays France nearly half a billion pounds to bolster border security, this figure is dwarfed by the annual £5.4 billion spent on asylum support, resettlement, and migrant accommodation. Critics argue that the system is overwhelmed, and enforcement alone is failing to stem the tide.
A frequent complaint among policymakers and the public is that many migrants crossing in small boats are driven by economic opportunity rather than fleeing persecution. One source recounted speaking with a migrant who openly admitted, on official Home Office forms, that he arrived in Britain with friends purely for financial reasons—only to later abscond from the hotel where he was being housed.
Identifying economic migrants, however, is rarely straightforward—many will not openly state their true motivations. But one proposed solution gaining traction is a bold financial move: taxing remittances, reports the Daily Express. According to the latest official figures, migrants in the UK sent £9.3 billion abroad in 2023.
However, the World Bank estimates the actual figure could be up to three times higher when accounting for informal channels. Introducing a substantial tax on money transferred out of the country via services like Western Union or Remitly could serve two purposes.
First, it might deter migrants from undertaking dangerous journeys to Britain if they know their hard-earned wages will be heavily taxed. Second, for those willing to pay, the resulting revenue could help fund enforcement operations—or be redirected toward underfunded services such as the NHS.
But such a plan would only work, advocates argue, if accompanied by a robust crackdown on illegal employment. That includes targeting black market labour and holding companies accountable, particularly those at the top of the supply chain.
One suggestion is to hold senior executives of firms found employing illegal workers criminally liable, rather than simply punishing small subcontractors. For example, if a construction site is discovered to be using undocumented labour, the developers—not just the staffing agency- would face jail time.
These guilty firms could also face steep financial penalties, which would help fund a whistleblower reward system offering £500 per verified illegal worker, along with legal immunity for informants. In short, critics urge Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves to “follow the money”—and then, they say, “hit them in the pocket.”
