If you had survived years of conflict in Syria or South Sudan, seen multiple family members perish, made a desperate, life-threatening dash for Europe that ended in a camp in northern France, but had a father or a sister in the UK, would you risk your life to try to join them? Our home secretary, Sajid Javid, is certain he would not. At least, that was the implication of the question he posed on a visit to Dover last week. “If you are a genuine asylum seeker why have you not sought asylum in the first safe country that you arrived in,” he asked.

And with that, Javid laid bare his utter lack of humanity and compassion. Asylum seekers deserve nothing more than the removal of an immediate threat to their life. Who cares about their human needs and desires for family, for work, for hope? Who cares if they are forced to live in a French camp in perilous conditions for months on end, or spend years unable to work, subsisting on a pitiful allowance in the UK? They should be grateful to be alive, and expect no more.

Perhaps this is why Javid felt justified in labelling those who’ve attempted crossing the English Channel in perilous rubber dinghies “illegal immigrants”, although it is perfectly legal for anyone fleeing conflict to find a way to Britain and claim asylum. Indeed, around three-quarters of Iranian asylum claims – the nationality of many of those on the boats – have been successful. Or why he appeared to threaten to do “everything we can” to ensure people crossing the Channel are not successful in their asylum claims, which experts warned would be in breach of international law. Or why he felt it necessary to cut short a family holiday, declare a “major incident” and mount a cross-Whitehall fight for a navy warship to patrol the Channel, which the chair of the public accounts committee called “an incredibly expensive sledgehammer to crack a nut”. His moves appear less motivated by saving lives in the Channel – numbers attempting the crossing were ticking upwards weeks before Javid went on holiday – and more by his Tory leadership ambitions.

Of course, one life lost in the Channel would be a desperate tragedy. But Javid has blown the relatively small numbers crossing the Channel – fewer than 300 people made it to Britain via this route last year, compared with over 55,000 people who reached Spain by crossing the Mediterranean – into an existential crisis for the UK, for his own political ends. It is just the latest episode in which a long line of ministers – Labour and Conservative – have proved all too willing to make vulnerable asylum seekers the poster children for their tough approach on immigration, playing politics with vulnerable people’s lives.

The result is that Britain’s asylum system is nothing short of disgraceful, imposing enforced destitution on people fleeing war. Asylum claims can take up to 15 years to process, and a quarter of decisions are overturned on appeal. But while their claims are under consideration, asylum seekers are not allowed to work and pay taxes; they are forced to subsist on an allowance of less than £5.50 a day. They are housed in terrible accommodation often riddled with damp and vermin, operated by outsourcing giants such as Serco and G4S, isolated from any support services and denied the English language lessons that would help them integrate. Yes, they may be alive but years of living in these conditions can profoundly affect the physical and mental health of adults and children who have already suffered significant trauma. Britain receives far fewer asylum applications relative to its population than most other European countries.

The government has failed to do enough to provide safe routes to Britain for refugees in line with our moral obligations as one of the richest countries of the world. The scheme to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees over four years, announced in 2015, was welcome. But why not more, and why not refugees from other conflict-ridden countries? As this scheme draws to a close, ministers are yet to announce what will come next, leaving councils in limbo. The rules on family reunion for refugees in the UK are inhumanely restrictive: unaccompanied refugee children are not even allowed to sponsor their parents to come to the UK. Just 20 unaccompanied children have been resettled in the UK from the rest of Europe under the Dubs scheme – despite the hope of campaigners that it would lead to 3,000 unaccompanied children being welcomed to Britain, and despite more than 20,000 unaccompanied children arriving in Europe in 2017.

There are also massive failings across Europe. How things have shifted since 2015, when Angela Merkel flung open Germany’s doors to refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq for six months, declaring “Wir schaffen das” – “we can do this”. No other country followed: the rest of Europe simply free rode on Germany’s openness.

The approach has evolved from one of saving lives in the Mediterranean to stopping people from making the crossing altogether. The death rate for people attempting the crossing has risen dramatically from one in 42 to one in 18 in just a year, even as the numbers crossing have fallen. And as the result of unsavoury pacts with countries with terrible human rights records themselves – Turkey, and even Libya – the price Europe has paid to prevent crossings is more people being exploited, raped and tortured just across its borders.

A pan-European approach based on all member states pulling their weight has never looked more distant. Greece, Spain and Italy are processing many more asylum claims than their richer northern neighbours under the Dublin regulation, which stipulates that refugees should be processed by the first EU country they set foot in. Some countries in eastern and central Europe refuse to accept any refugees.

Meanwhile, Europe is being put to shame by the much poorer countries that neighbour conflict regions. Out of 6 million Syrian refugees, more than 5 million are resident in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. Almost nine in 10 displaced people around the world are hosted by developing countries. And some of these countries are taking far more humane and generous approaches. Uganda, home to more than a million refugees, allows them the right to work and freedom of movement. Research has shown both refugees and host communities have benefited.

So, enough of cabinet battles for navy ships, of talk of existential crises, of trying to make Britain as hostile as possible for people traumatised by war. As a nation, we may have different views on immigration, but surely we can all agree that Britain has a moral duty to provide safe harbour to more people fleeing conflicts. Surely our leaders can forge a kinder asylum system that reflects the values of Britain, not the values of the far right?