Rishi Sunak’s government with Suella Braverman as Home Secretary have just introduced a new ‘Illegal Migration Bill’. This contentious new law aims to stop small boats crossing the channel. Braverman said the law places a legal duty on the government to detain and deport all those who arrive ‘irregularly’ and ‘illegally’ via small boats in the Channel. The bill will further introduce an annual cap, decided by parliament, on the number of refugees the UK will offer asylum to through legal routes. The consequences of the proposed bill will, in this form, deny protection to many asylum seekers seeking safety and protection. This legislation seeks out an asylum ban while offering refugees deportations to Rwanda or their home country.
Rishi Sunak on Twitter outlined that under the new bill, those who come to the UK ‘illegally’ will not be protected by its modern slavery laws. This means that, for example, if someone were to be trafficked and brought into the UK illegally they would not be helped by the UK’s modern slavery laws. This has been criticised in parliament as leaving the most vulnerable in society unprotected and breaching human rights.
People are risking their lives crossing the Channel to seek asylum because they have no other choice. The overinflated fear mongering that has been exacerbated by the media and foreign policy has led to the closure of safe and legal routes. An example of this is the ending of the resettlement scheme for Syrians, and another scheme which allowed lone refugee children to reunite with family in the UK. The scapegoating of refugees has meant that foreign policy decisions have led to a broken refugee system.
Despite Braverman’s initial claims, she was eventually forced to admit that the new bill was ‘more than 50% likely’ to break human rights laws. The UNHCR has expressed concern that the bill is in breach of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which recognises the right of refugees fleeing persecution to benefit from the rights and protections in signatory countries. The reality is that this bill will almost certainly be contested in UK courts and will most likely be found to be incompatible with international law. This could be used as the driving force to get the UK out of the European Convention of Human Rights. This has already featured in political discourse as Braverman and Sunak have expressed their desires for the UK to leave the ECHR and join Russia and Belarus.
The reality is seeking asylum is not illegal. Under the UNHCR, everyone has a right to seek asylum in another country. Currently, there is no visa that allows people from outside the UK to claim asylum which can make it harder to seek asylum through a ‘legal’ route. If Sunak and Braverman have such an issue with ‘irregular’ migration this is simply because of the Conservative government making it almost impossible to be done safely and ‘legally’. Refugee rights campaigners have outlined that there are not legal routes for everyone, and call for an accessible in-country asylum system.
Ex-Prime Minister Theresa May criticised the bill as it would be ‘shutting the door on victims while being trafficked into slavery here in the UK’. She has suggested that there is no evidence to support the rhetoric that ‘illegal’ migrants are abusing the modern slavery laws and most modern slavery claims are found to be valid. A former Tory immigration minister has further condemned Sunak’s bill taking a similar stance that it will criminalise pregnant women, children and families seeking refuge. Caroline Nokes is particularly critical of the Bill commitment to ban and deport anyone who is found to illegally enter the UK. Nokes fails to see what this Bill will do to reduce crossings as not much came of the previous Nationality and Borders Bill. This is followed as Braverman admits the bill could break international law.’
This proposed plan means any adult or child arriving to the UK on small boats or the back of a lorry would be denied the right to claim asylum even if they are coming from a war zone or are facing human right abuses which are valid claims in line with the 1951 Refugee convention.
This bill is only one part of a bigger picture, Europe’s far right praises the UK’s illegal migration bill. Eric Zemmour, the French far-right politician who ran for the presidency last year, said the UK’s Prime Minister has chosen to ‘protect his people against submersions by migrants’. Right wing politicians in Germany also say that their country should follow this approach, foreshadowing potential geo-political implications for immigration policies in Western Europe.
A spokesperson for the organisation Liberty has further criticised the bill as they believe human rights are universal and should not be up to the government. This Bill will not stop people from fleeing their homes and seeking refuge. Instead, it will traumatise asylum seekers through detaining and deportation. Instead of focusing on the cost-of-living crisis, the state of the NHS and strikes in the public, the government is making the underhanded move to vilify those who are already most marginalised.
There have been further developments with the Bill as Braverman excludes journalists from the BBC and The Guardian on her publicly funded visit to Rwanda. Index on Censorship has criticised this decision to exclude media organisations who may be critical of recent immigration policies. The Home Secretary has since been excused of favourable coverage on the Rwanda migration plan and the Guardian has written to the Home Office for an explanation.
Stanford Biti came to the UK in March 2006 to claim asylum as a refugee from Harare, Zimbabwe, after facing persecution from the national regime. He said he is “angry, disappointed and deeply concerned” by the Government’s proposed Bill. This new bill means that someone in his situation would not be provided with help. His story reiterates the argument that the government should instead focus on providing accessible and safe routes for those seeking asylum, instead of tapping into a nationalist rhetoric that undermines international human rights.
“UK government consultation on Somalia – Chatham House” by Foreign and Commonwealth Office is licensed under CC BY 2.0.