Conservative MP Lee Anderson has issued a five-word statement that destroyed his opponent after a debate about illegal migrants.
Mr Anderson, the former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, was engaging in a debate on GB News about whether migrants who cross the English Channel should have the right to work.
Mr Anderson explained on the channel that he talked to several migrants attempting to cross the English Channel last year and he claimed they told him they were heading to the UK for economic reasons. Mr Anderson said he believed that if they were genuinely seeking persecution they would have stopped in the first safe country and not travelled to the UK.
“I went to Calais last year and I spoke to the migrants in the camp, the young men from Eritrea, Sudan, and the first thing they said to me was ‘El Dorado, we’re going to that country for the money, we’re not fleeing persecution’.
“I was there, I listened to these people talk to me and the rest of the Home Affairs Select Committee. They were coming for economic reasons, nothing to do with being persecuted in their own country.
“What I’m suggesting is that if you’re genuinely fleeing persecution then you will stop in the first safe country, you would not risk your life on a small boat, risk death in that channel, the most dangerous shipping lane in the world if you were a genuine asylum seeker. You would not do that.”
Following the debate, Mr Anderson wrote his simple five-word putdown on X/Twitter, claiming: “France is a safe country.”
Mr Anderson’s comments come weeks after he resigned as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party along with Brendan Clarke-Smith to rebel against Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda Bill. The changed legislation aimed to reignite the Rwanda Plan that forms a key part of the government’s agenda to tackle illegal immigration.
Mr Anderson has long been an outspoken critic of illegal migration and urged the party to be more rigorous and thorough in how it deals with the issue.
Soon after his resignation Mr Anderson said: “I don’t think I could carry on in my role when I fundamentally disagree with the bill. I can’t be in a position to vote for something I don’t believe in.”
However, following the vote, he has changed his mind. Speaking to the Telegraph, he admitted he should have voted for the legislation. He said: “It was a reminder that actually I was letting my colleagues down and I’m not going to give you the satisfaction, that sort of stuff.
“I did wrong. Well I say I did wrong, I acted on a point of principle. I had to resign. I had no choice. I bear no malice or anything, it’s just I know the rules.”
