Agora - content

The open forum for foreign policy

Migration

The UK must uphold asylum seekers’ rights with its new immigration system

The UK risks failing to uphold its international legal commitments to asylum seekers with its post-Brexit immigration regime. Pursuing an ‘Australian-style’ system will only make this worse.

The UK and international asylum law

The UK is party to several international treaties which afford rights to individuals seeking asylum in foreign countries. These legal instruments grant the right to seek asylum when escaping persecution in another country. Additionally, when fleeing ones own country due to a well-founded fear of persecution, those seeking asylum may legally enter foreign countries without any documentation. States cannot impose penalties on individuals who do this.

It is therefore not illegal to cross the English Channel by boat without documentation under certain circumstances, despite the claims of several media outlets and the Prime Minister. When discussing migrants crossing the Channel, he stated that “[w]e will send you back […] you are an illegal migrant and […] the law will treat you as such”.

Whilst their asylum claim is being processed, asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK and must rely on £37.75 per week, provided by the state. This often results in such individuals living in poor-quality housing and sharing a room with several others. These conditions arguably contravene the right to adequate housing, which includes a right to non-discriminatory access to adequate housing and the right to choose one’s own residence.

Moving to Australia?

Despite the harshness of these conditions, those seen in Australia’s offshore detention centres are much worse.

The UK Government has to some extent sought to replicate Australia’s approach to asylum, even mirroring tactics they have used to try and deter asylum seekers from attempting to enter the country. Following Australia’s offshoring policies, which involve holding asylum seekers in costly detention centres on islands off mainland Australia, the Home Secretary Priti Patel suggested building detention centres on St Helena and Ascension Island to house unauthorised arrivals into Britain by boat. Although rejected for logistical reasons, this consideration of using overseas British territory to hold asylum seekers suggests the UK is moving towards much harsher treatment of these individuals.

Under the Dublin III Regulation, the UK has so far been able to legally expel many asylum seekers. Following Brexit, the Government has replaced this law with its own legislation to enable it to return asylum seekers to a “safe third country” if they have travelled through one on their way to the UK. Whilst Article 28 of Dublin III states that asylum seekers should not be detained prior to removal to the safe third country unless deemed a flight risk, the UK has detained many asylum seekers and has no laws on maximum detention periods as restrictions on detention are not mentioned in the revised regulations. Evidence suggests that this practice will remain, raising questions around the UK’s respect for the right to not be arbitrarily detained.

As Priti Patel implements a new post-Brexit immigration system, rhetoric around ‘taking back control of our borders’ and ‘tackling illegal migration and asylum claims’ has become commonplace. This clearly mirrors Australia’s tactics, where asylum-seeking is framed as synonymous to illegal immigration in need of a harsh reaction. The Government has been open about wanting to send this message to those attempting to exploit the system.

Additionally, new immigration commitment to support “the most vulnerable” refugees – such as children, women and those already subjected to torture – implies a hierarchy of asylum seekers, where only those at the top will have their rights recognised. This could result in the UK disregarding its obligations to asylum seekers it deems to be less vulnerable, in clear contravention of the Refugee Convention and Protocol.

Doing what’s right, not what’s popular

Both Australia and the UK continue to fail to uphold the human rights of asylum seekers attempting to enter their countries. They manage this by finding loopholes within the laws on refugees, however they ultimately cannot avoid the fact that they are violating people’s human rights in doing this.

It remains unclear what Australia’s – and soon, potentially, the UK’s – reasoning is for opting for costly offshore detention centres over housing individuals on the mainland for less. They may argue this is for deterrence, but there is no evidence deterrence works. Attempting to outdo the harshness of the conditions asylum seekers are fleeing from seems a questionable goal for any democratic government.

The UK should refrain from following Australia’s lead and instead fulfil its obligations to asylum seekers by upholding their basic human rights.

Katy Adams is an MA Human Rights student at University College London

This is the second of two blogs exploring the British government’s desire to mirror Australia’s immigration policies; the first outlined international law for asylum seekers and refugees, discussing Australia’s approach to immigration and their practice of offshoring.

European governments must understand the Middle East’s borders before taking action in the region

In the 20th century, British and French governments in the Middle East laid the foundations for mass displacement. Today, their policies continue to shape the region, but fall short of resolving this issue.

Today’s map of the Middle East was shaped by European powers. In 1916, Britain and France divided it up in the Sykes-Picot agreement, laying claims over lands thousands of miles away. Borders were created without consideration for local ethnic groups or pre-existing territorial powers, changing the geo-political landscape and causing discontent amongst populations who were separated from their local groups and organised into different states.

This paved the way for subsequent instability in the Middle East. The UK and France should recognise the role they have played in destabilising their former mandates and take action to help end conflict and provide safe countries for returning migrants.

Complicated British-Israeli-Palestine relations

The Sykes-Picot agreement also created historical ties between Britain and Palestine. After the Second World War and the horrors of the Holocaust, there was considered to be an urgent need for a Jewish homeland. In 1947, the UN General Assembly approved Resolution 181 for the partition of Palestine, which was predominantly Arab, but gave the minority Jewish population over 50% of the land. Following Israel’s founding in 1948 and the Arab-Israeli war, the Israelis received 78% of the Palestinian Mandate.

This triggered mass displacement for the Palestinians and further territorial disputes. Britain kept a close eye on these affairs, sponsoring the UN Security Council Resolution 242 to bring an end to Israel’s 1967 war with its Arab neighbours.

Today, British-Israeli relations remain amicable. Last year marked 70 years of diplomatic relations between the two states, with Israel being one of the first countries to sign a trade continuity agreement with the UK. British diplomatic relations with Israel tend to avoid strong criticism of Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Nevertheless, in January 2021, the UK government expressed concern at Israel’s decision to build new settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, as this exceeds Israel’s 78% share of the Palestinian territories. The UK, in line with most of the international community, maintains that the former territory is Palestinian. It does not recognise Palestine as a state, but continues to advocate for a two-state solution. This raises the uncomfortable question of where these two states should draw their borders.

French lessons?

The French government also continues to have a vested interest in Middle East affairs, as evidenced by its actions in Syria. French withdrawal from that country in 1946 resulted in decades of violence, with the al-Assad family’s torture and killing of peaceful protestors sparking the 2011 civil war and mass displacement.

Along with members of an international coalition, France has attempted to end the conflict, committing over €1bn towards Syrian civilians between 2019-21. Much of that money has gone to neighbouring countries Lebanon and Jordan which are hosting fleeing Syrian refugees. France participates in military operations under Operation Chammal and founded the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons in 2018. It also advocates for peace negotiations, to protect civilians and bring about an end to the root causes of continuous mass displacement.

Although the Israel-Palestine conflict is different to that in Syria, France’s foreign policy is an example of what more the UK could do in the Middle East. For instance, it could provide more aid money for the Palestinians and be a more vocal advocate for finding a peaceful solution. Aiding peace in the Middle East would help the UK government in its desire for the country to be seen as a global player as well as providing much-needed stability for millions. Resolving decades of conflict could help resettle those who have fled and allow them to rebuild their lives in a safe environment.

Nearly ten years after it began, there is no sign of the Syrian conflict abating. There is also little indication of peace between Israel and Palestine. Continuous Israeli expansion and violence committed by both sides continue to fuel distrust. As of 2019, there were 5.6m Palestine refugees, according to UNRWA. Many remain in Palestine in desperate conditions and with no opportunity to leave.

It is important that European states prioritise the establishment of stable democratic governance, rather than anything which would exacerbate tensions by encouraging actors to struggle for power. Countries such as the UK and France must tread carefully in advocating peace and crisis resolution.

Lara Brett is studying for an MA in Contemporary European Studies at the University of Bath.

Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers means it’s no model for the UK

There are big question marks over immigrant rights and whether they are upheld internationally. In Australia, the rights of asylum seekers are not being upheld, making it a dangerous example for the UK to follow.

International law

The rights of individuals seeking asylum in foreign countries are outlined in international treaties and countries party to such treaties have legal obligations to ensure these rights are upheld. A refugee is an individual who is outside of their country of origin and has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted” based on their nationality, political opinion, religion, or membership of a particular social group or race, whereas an asylum seeker is an individual waiting for the determination of the result of their application for legal refugee status. When fleeing ones own country due to a well-founded fear of persecution, one may legally enter foreign countries without documentation without fear of penalties being imposed by states.

Whilst awaiting processing, many asylum seekers are held in detention centres which are often overcrowded and insanitary. Such conditions are evident in the offshore detention centres utilised in Australia.

Australia’s approach: out of sight, out of mind

Australia has one of the toughest approaches to border control in the developed world, reinforcing its borders with military personnel. Despite being a country which has signed the Refugee Convention, it introduced Operation Sovereign Borders in 2013. Under this military-led operation, Australian naval ships were ordered to turn back asylum seekers approaching Australian shores by boat.

During the Tampa Affair of August 2001, law-makers passed emergency legislation enabling them to send all asylum seekers who reached Australian shores to either Nauru or the Manus Islands – sovereign island states near Australia – to wait in detention centres for their asylum claims to be heard. This practice, referred to as ‘offshoring’, creates ambiguity over who is responsible for the asylum seekers and makes it increasingly difficult for individuals to claim asylum from abroad.

This practice stopped in Australia between 2008-11 when a Labor government came into power. Yet the ‘immigration crisis’ in 2011 resulted in the then Labor Prime Minister entering into an agreement with Malaysia whereby Australia could disburden itself of some asylum seekers and transfer them to Malaysia. This deal fell through, however, so there was a return to offshoring in Australia, which has continued ever since.

In 2015 the Australian government spent the equivalent of £240m on its Nauru operation (£200,000 per person detained there). It could cost one-twelfth of this amount to allow these individuals to live on mainland Australia whilst awaiting the result of their refugee application, and potentially less still if such individuals had the right to work.

Questions are therefore raised around Australia’s logic of keeping out asylum seekers whilst allowing other types of immigrants in. It seems the only reason reflecting reality – including their villainising of asylum seekers through negative rhetoric used in the media – is a desire to maintain power over the type of people let in. This is most likely to ensure only those who can benefit them, such as tourists and skilled workers, may enter. By making the conditions immigrants stay in as harsh as possible, it seems they hope to deter such individuals from wanting to come at all.

Amnesty International found that one-third of asylum seekers and refugees on Nauru were housed in tents, not allowed smartphones in the centres, and were subjected to curfews and monitoring by guards, often not being provided with basic adequate healthcare. Many children in such centres have suffered significant psychological consequences from being there, as well as a number of abuse allegations against women and children by officials within such centres and neglect more generally by island workers hired by the Australian government. Human rights groups argue that Australia’s detention of asylum seekers in offshore centres has involved human rights abuses, with Amnesty International finding the conditions and detention of individuals in such centres has violated and continues to violate the right not to be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment, as well as the right to not be arbitrarily detained.

Could the UK follow suit?

Australia’s tactics to deter asylum seekers from entering their territory, as well as the treatment of those who do, is arguably incompatible with international human rights laws.

Whilst the current Conservative British government seems to see benefits in following Australia’s example on migration, these must be weighed against the heavy human rights implications this could have upon genuine asylum seekers entering UK territory, as well as upon the value of human rights more generally.

Katy Adams is an MA Human Rights student at University College London.

This is the first of two blogs exploring the British government’s desire to mirror Australia’s immigration policies; the second outlines the current climate of asylum policy in the UK and the implications of following the Australian example.

Britain can transform the plight of climate refugees through its COP26 presidency

With traditional refugee law falling short, Britain should champion the protection of climate refugees as part of global climate change agreements.

An estimated 70,000-80,000 Jewish refugees were accepted into Britain before and during World War Two . At the time, the idea of turning our backs on those fleeing atrocities in continental Europe was reprehensible. The depth of this feeling was so widespread that the United Nations gathered numerous states from across the globe to agree to the 1951 Refugee Convention, a monumental effort to ensure that individuals could flee oppression and find refuge across an international border.

The Convention placed legally binding obligations on states to process the claims of asylum seekers, outlined the rights afforded to refugees, and, most importantly, created the recognised status of a refugee. Britain was among those quick to agree to the Convention.

Almost 70 years since the Convention was signed, the situation is very different. According to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) around 1% of the world’s population are displaced, yet European sentiment towards refugees has seen a significant shift from compassion to assist those forced to migrate towards greater reluctance. This sentiment appears to be dictating the global response to climate refugees and could have devastating impacts as climate change worsens.

Climate Refugees

Although without official definition, a climate refugee can broadly be categorised as an individual who has fled their home nation due to the effects of climate change – such as extreme weather, drought, or rising sea levels – threatening their lives or livelihoods.

Despite decades of warnings from some scholars, the danger to climate refugees remains comparatively overlooked. They are not recognised under the law and they are not entitled to any rights in foreign states. The Refugee Convention was written following World War Two and, since its adoption, has not evolved beyond its focus on wartime. This has led the UNHCR to the stark conclusion that the Convention cannot protect climate refugees.

There have been numerous calls to address these inadequacies, though there remains a lack of appetite to expand the Convention’s current scope of protection. This is less about climate refugees being viewed as undeserving and more to do with a general atmosphere of anti-refugee sentiment. The UNHCR has stated that opening the Convention to encompass climate refugees in the current political climate could actually lead to restricted protection for all refugees. It is worrying that the UNHCR find themselves in this position, given their role as champion for all refugees. Protection must now be found elsewhere, and Britain should lead the drive to provide this.

COP26 is Britain’s opportunity

A major barrier to finding a solution for the future flow of climate refugees is the absence of international willingness. Since the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference (COP21), many governments have exhibited greater hostility towards immigration and refugees, including in key nations such as Australia and the US. Equally, the UK’s 2016 Brexit campaign focused heavily on limiting future immigration. It is possible that, following this mandate, the British government may avoid seeking a global protection mechanism for climate refugees, both to appease their citizens and to retain favour with countries which they are now seeking trade deals with.

Nevertheless, as hosts of the delayed COP26, the UK should recognise that it has one of the key remaining opportunities to address the lack of protection for climate refugees by incorporating it into climate change agreements. Alok Sharma, who recently left his ministerial position to focus on his role as COP26 President, demonstrated in his address to UN nations that he is cognisant of climate change migration. It is now imperative that this be followed up with concrete action.

This action should take the form of an agreement between states whereby climate refugees can be identified, relocated equitably, and conferred with rights enabling them to begin a new life. This provides a response which would ensure climate refugees are protected whilst equally avoiding a burden on any one state.

This could be achieved and is not without precedent. During COP21 there were numerous proposals surrounding a coordination facility for those displaced by climate change; a plan which would have facilitated relocation for climate refugees. This gained traction, although talks were eventually discontinued following Australia’s opposition and the belief that a more efficient alternative could be found. A lack of progress since COP21 suggests that this may not be the case and with the effects of climate change showing no signs of slowing it is now time to resurrect this idea.

The UK government must recognise that, through their own hosting of a COP summit, they have a wonderful opportunity to provide lasting protection for climate refugees.

Tomos Owen works to facilitate refugee integration in Wales, having graduated with a Masters in Human Rights Law from Cardiff University.

Nationalism, populism, and the impact of right-wing discourse on immigration during the COVID-19 pandemic

With border restrictions in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government must avoid nationalist rhetoric as it will harm its most vulnerable populations.

The outbreak of COVID-19 early this year has caused mass border closures. Even now, as governments begin to reopen their borders, controlled migration through approved travel corridors looks to be the ‘new normal’.

Governments are prioritising mitigating the economic repercussions of restricted travel on their own countries. In the wake of such inward-looking policies, it is important to understand how nationalist sentiments can impact the governance of some of the UK’s most vulnerable population: asylum seekers and other refugees.

Nationalism has long been a pervasive factor in UK migration policies. Before Boris Johnson entered the picture, the Parliament had already passed the Immigration Acts of 2014 and 2016. These were introduced to limit non-European Economic Area (EEA) migration into the UK and create a ‘hostile environment’ for undocumented migrants in the country. Non-EEA migrants in the UK were faced with increasingly stringent policies in an effort to deter them from living in the UK. Since migration from the EEA is predominantly white, these policies disproportionately targeted non-white people, thereby creating a framework where the national identity could be manufactured around the white identity. Former Prime Minister Theresa May’s manifesto for the 2017 snap election echoed previous Conservative Party leader, David Cameron’s desire to ‘bear down on immigration from outside the European Union’.

The global nature of this pandemic has been instrumental for nationalist, right-wing voices to amplify their concerns over immigration. Migration Watch UK, an anti-immigration think tank, has announced a controversial policy proposal to ban the entry of those over the age of 50 coming from non-EEA countries into the UK and restrict visas for other age groups.

The right-wing immigration rhetoric: erasing refugees from the picture

Populism and nationalism revolve around defining a person through their shared heritage and the country they were born in. This national identity is then juxtaposed with an ‘other’, someone who does not share the same lineage of a particular demographic. Right-wing nationalism in particular, founded on the ‘us’ vs ‘them’ narrative, privileges the lives of the citizens (‘us’) over immigrants (‘them’).

With COVID-19 resulting in rapid border controls and an inconsistent restriction on international movement; refugees are further defined as ‘others’. The Government is more concerned over the management of its governable population – its citizens – than that of immigrants.

At present, there are 51,906 documented asylum seekers still awaiting a decision on their status as a refugee in the UK. Asylum seekers are often too afraid to access healthcare in fear of their possible refugee status being overturned. They are not legally allowed to work to make a living and have to depend on ill-equipped government systems to sustain themselves.

Refugee migration will continue even as the pandemic rages. While a global pandemic may halt some economic activities, it does not stop wars, natural disasters, or tyrannical regimes from committing human rights violations on their own citizens. Thus, even during a pandemic, the drivers of migration continue. History has shown us time and time again that migration cannot be curbed simply by imposing stricter border controls. In fact, the number of migrants crossing the Channel from France to the UK has risen to more than 1,400 in the month of June from a mere 200 earlier this year.

The UK’s migration management policy needs to see a drastic shift from merely containing refugees to creating structures that can better oversee their governance. Providing a healthcare system that is accessible to refugees and spans both physical and mental health should be a priority for the Government. This global pandemic has shown the myopic nature of nationalist immigration policies but it has also provided us with an opportunity to learn and improve our systems of governing immigration.

Paakhi Bhatnagar studies International Relations at King’s College London.

The pandemic reveals the need for change in UK migration policy

COVID-19 has changed, and will continue to change, migration policy. As we move towards the end of the Brexit transition period and away from the height of the pandemic, the Government should adapt policy to provide stronger social rights for those migrants who have contributed so much to COVID-19 efforts, or else they risk losing them.

The way politics responds to both the COVID-19 pandemic and migration appears to be two sides of the same coin. Both matters transcend borders and are associated with policy responses which call for the tightening of borders. How will the future landscape for new and existing migrants in the UK change?

In the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, this landscape will drastically change. Beyond this, there is potential for the UK government to create an appreciative environment for those migrant workers that the UK and countries across the EU have relied on for the past few months.

Is migration an area of concern for the UK public?

Since the pandemic began, immigration has seemingly slipped from Britain’s policy agenda. Whilst it might feel like an era ago, it has only been a few months since Brexit was at the forefront of British politics, which itself was built on a foundation of hostile migration policies. It is important, therefore, to see how migration has shifted in the list of top issues facing Britain.

According to public surveys by Ipsos MORI in February and April 2020, “immigration/immigrants” was no longer a top 10 issue for the UK public. Just 5% mention this as a key issue, the lowest score for “immigration/immigrants” recorded since December 1999. The change in perception towards this issue is particularly stark when compared to views just before the EU referendum in early 2016, when over half (56%) of those surveyed stated that “immigration/immigrants” is a concern (the highest proportion recorded for this issue).

The beating heart of the country

During the pandemic, the efforts of migrants working in essential industries have been singled out. Notably, Boris Johnson publicly thanked two nurses: “Jenny from New Zealand” and “Luis from Portugal”, who were by his side for 48 hours when he was in a critical condition due to COVID-19. It is even more interesting that he stated an unnecessary piece of information when describing someone’s merits: their respective countries of origin. He described their roles in the NHS and referred to them as being part of the “beating heart of this country” and “the best of this country”.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock also paid tribute to NHS workers “from all over the world” who “came to this country to make a difference”. Indeed, according to a report published by Parliament in July 2019, 13.1% of the NHS workforce are not British, or around 153,000 staff. Losing such a sizable proportion of the NHS workforce would undoubtedly cause the NHS to suffer.

This immigrant-positive rhetoric is a far cry from the Conservative government’s previous announcement of the ‘hostile environment’. Many people from migrant backgrounds may be curious whether and how this will change in the aftermath of the pandemic. Will they still be welcomed in these sectors or is ‘clap for carers’ only temporary? It is questionable whether this rhetoric will manifest into concrete policy changes after the pandemic.

The aftermath of the pandemic

For the UK Government the topic of migration should become a renewed area of focus, but for different reasons to those prior to the pandemic. The pandemic has revealed the very visible contribution of migrant workers, yet many could face the double blow of being classed as ‘low-skilled’ and earning below the minimum salary requirement to work and settle in the UK. These include supermarket workers, caregivers, people working on farms, and those keeping the country moving by driving buses.

Indeed, there was a notorious call for people to fill a shortage of workers on British farms in April 2020. After a call for British workers failed to attract people to the role, the Government was forced to bring in seasonal workers from Eastern Europe using chartered flights. It seems, contrary to previous anti-immigration rhetoric, that there is a deep-rooted need for migrant workers.

Migration policies must change to provide stronger social rights for migrants. They are COVID-19’s unsung heroes, making the ultimate sacrifice to the pandemic and essential services recently. These policies should shift away from attracting solely skilled workers if the UK wants to keep our essential workers after the crisis. This is particularly crucial towards the end of the Brexit transition period when immigration may return to the agenda. If policies stay stagnant or move along their hostile trajectory, the Government risks losing those they have been relying on, something that may be hard for them to admit.

Preeti Pasricha is co-Head of Agora’s Democracy & Governance Programme.