THE government is facing extreme difficulties in getting its “stop the boats” Bill through Parliament. Its formal title is the Illegal Migration Bill, but since ministers have decided that the mode of transport you use by itself makes your application illegal, no-one is taken in by their nonsense.

The Bill is not meant to be policy in the sense of a workable plan to cut the number of people arriving on dangerous small boats. Ministers claim that harsh treatment, rejection of all applications made in this way and the threat of deportation will all have a deterrent effect.

This is based on no evidence at all. It completely ignores the levels of desperation that drive people to leave their homes to make this journey on the open seas. It ignores too the fact that most applications are granted.

It also leads to bizarre and disgusting decisions, such as the order to paint over a Disney mural in a centre used to house child refugees, because it might make them feel too at home.

It is not a plan — instead, it is continuous and quite vile propaganda, allowing a permanent distraction from the effects of disastrous government policies. “Stopping the boats” has become a theme central to this government’s overall stance precisely because it has nothing to offer the vast majority of voters except further falls in living standards.

Despite this incessant campaign, the public is not buying the Tories’ toxic brew. Two-thirds of voters do not even place the broadest headings of immigration and asylum in their top three concerns. The economy and then health are way out in the lead, as they have been for the last two years.

This is clearly a “core vote” strategy by a Tory Party way behind in the opinion polls and looking to limit the damage in next year’s general election.

This political cynicism becomes even more apparent in light of the very large numbers of migrants who are legally arriving in the country.

A record high of 606,000 migrants arrived legally in this country in 2022 — yet ministers and their supporters want to claim that it is the far lower numbers of asylum-seekers who are responsible for all society’s ills.

Because anti-migrant forces dominate our media and politics, it is worth taking a little time to correct some of the myths.

In an advanced industrialised economy like Britain, the overwhelming majority of migration takes place within the country. There is a general drift towards jobs for those that do the migrating, which is mainly young people. There is a separate and much smaller trend of people moving with retirement.

In both cases, these very large movements of people, way above the levels of net international migration, can cause difficulties for both locations, the place of former residence and the location of the new home.

Issues of overcrowded and unaffordable housing are widely acknowledged in places like London and south-east England.

Much less discussed are the serious issues for towns, regions and countries where the population is declining, often because of a lack of good jobs.

The consensus in Scotland is much more pro-immigration than in England, for example, precisely because of emigration and the effects of population stagnation or decline.

In both cases, the answer is investment. Investment in good jobs where there is a shortage and investment in housing where better-paid jobs are more plentiful. And in both cases investment in good levels of public services and transport.

Economically, there is no difference between someone who moves from one region to another compared to someone who moves from one country to another.

In both cases, the potential pitfalls and opportunities can be addressed by increased investment. Yet we seem to have now a political consensus even more hostile to public investment.

It is this failure to invest which causes most of the difficulties associated with immigration, which reactionaries use to stir up hostility toward migrants themselves. Those reactionaries include this government and its predecessors.

This reactionary politics can lead to farcical contradictions — prominent Tory Brexiteer George Eustice recently called for more migration from the EU.

There is a widespread fear in ruling circles that labour shortages are so acute that pay will be forced up despite all the strenuous efforts of big business and the government.

For those of us who argued that the Tory Brexiteers were never mainly focused on migration, this should come as no surprise. Shedding EU workers with Brexit and then rehiring them should be seen as a fundamental change in the terms and conditions of workers.

In effect, full citizens of the EU with full workers’ rights will be replaced by workers with temporary work visas, whose right to reside here is linked to their employment.

It is very hard to organise or mobilise workers if they can be threatened with deportation. This is what many of the Tory Brexiteers wanted all along.

All of this, both the much higher levels of legal migration and calls for further increases, is taking place against a backdrop of the government-sponsored demonisation of asylum-seekers. There is no legal obligation to increase net migration, simply a business logic.

Yet there is a legal obligation to admit asylum-seekers. And ministers know they are breaching those obligations. Usually, parliamentary Bills have written assurances on their face that they comply with existing international laws. There is no such reassurance on the face of this Bill.

This is why both the courts and Lords have provided such stiff opposition to the legislation. They know it is an illegal, immoral and unworkable ploy.

The government claims it has a democratic mandate for its plans — that this is what people voted for in 2019 (and three prime ministers ago).

Perhaps they have not read their own manifesto. On this issue, the manifesto says, “We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of returning home if is safe to do so.”

That is it. Not another mention of either topic in the rest of the manifesto. If anything, this is a mandate for humane, reasonable and legal treatment of refugees, not their vilification, mistreatment and threats of deportation to Rwanda.

The Lords should not be intimidated by talk of the “will of the people.” It is a government of chancers once again making completely false claims.

The labour movement has every interest in opposing this Bill. It should always oppose injustice and discrimination and refuse to get caught in divide-and-rule tactics. We should also demand this policy be scrapped by an incoming Labour government for the same reasons.

Diane Abbott is MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.