In March, the British home secretary, Priti Patel, revealed new immigration rules that those seeking refugee status protection in the UK must do so using a ‘legal resettlement’ path - such as the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement scheme - in order to gain indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Meanwhile, those that pay smugglers to enter the UK can only attain temporary permission to remain and will be regularly assessed for deportation from the UK.
A key issue with the proposed plan is that the UK is party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prohibits countries from penalizing persons who seek asylum in a country through unofficial points of entry.
Patel announced the new policies as part of a crack down on ‘serious organized criminal gangs’ and people smugglers. In reality, the policies will endanger those seeking asylum in the UK, making it more difficult to receive support and risk ‘rapid removal’. The plan is still undergoing a six week consultation in which members of the public can review and feedback on the proposals in a Home Office questionnaire.
Almost 200 organizations have signed a joint condemnation of the consultation. Describing it as “vague, unworkable, cruel and potentially unlawful”, they have called to attention its limited time frame, inaccessibility and neglect for the personal experiences of those seeking safety. The questionnaire is only available in English and Welsh and predominantly accessed online - excluding a significant proportion of refugees.
The new immigration system relies upon the willingness of EU member states to receive asylum seekers that are rejected by the UK and returned to the first safe country they arrived in. However, a new agreement has not yet been reached.
Following Brexit, the UK is no longer bound to the terms of the Dublin III regulations which helped determine which EU country was responsible for an asylum claim. Under the accord, member states can request for other member states to take responsibility for asylum claims. Without backing from the European Union, Patel’s threats of ‘rapid removal’ of certain refugees and asylum seekers are somewhat flawed. In the meantime, the futures of those seeking sanctuary in the UK remain uncertain.
A recent report by the Independent reveals the lack of support amongst key EU countries including France, Belgium and Germany. Sammy Mahdi, Belgium’s asylum and migration secretary told the Independent, “the UK chose to leave the EU and therefore cannot continue to count on our European solidarity. We cannot be expected simply to agree on the return of these migrants”.
The plans have received widespread criticism from political leaders and human rights activists alike, echoing concerns over the home secretary’s treatment of asylum seekers in the UK. Others have stated the shortsightedness of the home office in its failure to address other pressing matters like climate change, impacting migration due to resource scarcity and disasters, as Nikita Malik of a London-based think tank wrote, calling out the short-sightedness of the UK in narrowing its perspective of asylum-seekers, when in fact climate change and conflict are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, in February at the UN Security Council, it was the UK that convened a high level open debate on climate and security, attended by Boris Johnson himself, where migration and refugees were widely discussed issues, resulting from both conflict and the threat-multiplying effects of climate change.
The changes to UK immigration policy come alongside evidence of ‘dehumanizing’ treatment of refugees inside UK asylum accommodation. A report by the Refugee Council revealed that conditions are ‘unacceptable and unsustainable’. Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, urged cabinet ministers to provide appropriate support in order to meet the basic needs of refugees and asylum seekers. He added that:
“people who have fled war and persecution often arrive in the UK with just the clothes on their back, in urgent need of healthcare, nutritious food and other essentials such as toiletries”.
In recent months, particular attention has been drawn to the dire conditions at Napier Barracks in Kent, where hundreds of asylum seekers are still being housed in ‘filthy’ and ‘run down’ buildings.
An unpublished report by David Bolt, the UK’s outgoing chief inspector of borders and immigration, condemned the Home Office for its “fundamental failures of leadership and planning” which have led to “dangerous shortcomings in the nature of the accommodation”. Since the camp opened in September last year, around 200 of the 380 residents have contracted COVID-19, yet more people are due to be placed in these dangerously poor conditions in the coming weeks. Reports have also raised serious concerns about the effects this is having on the mental health of asylum seekers being held in these asylum facilities for long periods of time.