For decades, the United Kingdom has been a destination for asylum seekers, driven by a multitude of factors such as conflict, persecution, and economic hardship around the world. However, it has long been a subject of contention within the Conservative Party. The seeds of their frustration can be traced back to 2005 when the party launched their then-controversial campaign with the slogan, “It’s not racist to impose limits on immigration.” In a 2007 Conservative conference speech, David Cameron made a significant pledge, stating, “We need policies aimed at reducing the level of net migration.” Over a decade later, it is safe to assume that “taking back control of our borders” was a top concern for Brexit voters.
Fast forward to today, and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s foremost priority is to “stop the boats.” But contrary to the Conservative Party’s stance on immigration is that` the UK, like many other countries, is obligated under international law to provide protection to those fleeing persecution. Said law is the 1951 Refugee Convention. Also known as the Geneva Convention, is an international treaty that outlines the rights and protections afforded to individuals who qualify as refugees. The original treaty afforded these rights to only EU citizens, but the 1967 Protocol extended the treaty universally to protect all persons fleeing conflict and persecution.
Further contrary to Rishi’s pledge to ‘stop the boats’, is that the treaty recognises refugees may have to enter a country of asylum irregularly. So how does the Conservative Party intend to overcome these obstacles? Enter the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Passing royal ascent some weeks ago, the bill is set to prevent asylum seekers, who typically risk their lives by crossing the channel on small boats, from claiming asylum in the UK.
So, what does this mean for refugees claiming asylum today? Well, at this stage, not a lot if you’re a citizen outside the European Economic Area. This is because the Bill currently allows the Home Secretary to return asylum seekers entering the UK irregularly to their home countries if they are from one of 32 countries. 27 of which are EU member states, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, or Albania. Anyone else would have to be removed to a safe third country like ‘Rwanda’, where they are set to stay while their claims are processed. So far, this power has not been exercised. The new legislation allows the Government to change the date the Home Secretary will be under duty to remove asylum seekers who have entered irregularly.
You’ve more than likely heard about the contentious Rwanda Treaty. For a quick recap, The Court of Appeal found that Rwanda did not meet the ‘safe third country’ status and is currently being heard at the Supreme Court where a judgement is expected before Christmas. It likely the Government may change the date to remove asylum seekers to align with the Rwanda judgement, should the Supreme Court decide in the Home Secretary’s favour.
When I think about The Refugee Convention, I can appreciate from first-hand experience why such an agreement was ever arranged. It has been over 18 months since Russia invaded the country, I once called home and Ukrainians were welcomed with open arms. Ukrainians seeking refuge here is parallel to those fleeing Syria, and Afghanistan, many of whom I deal with on a daily basis. No one chooses to be uprooted from their homes or want to leave their loved ones (often elderly relatives) in the massacre that continues to unfold. I believe all refugees deserve the same compassion.
