Nationality and Borders Bill: A Failure to Protect Those Seeking Refuge
As July saw 430 migrants cross the English Channel in one day, the British government once again battles with its attitudes towards migrants. The government is looking to introduce a Nationality and Borders Bill in an attempt to limit those illegally entering the country. However, it has faced rightful criticism from the Refugee Council who have called it a “cruel, unjust bill.”
Around 8,461 people crossed the Channel in 2020, and 2021 figures are already reportedly higher than this. This is potentially due to the way the height of the coronavirus pandemic led people to stray away from the journey. A deal has recently been reached with France to collectively hinder migrants traveling to the U.K. in small boats. Many migrants start their journey to the U.K. from French beaches and to prevent this, France has stated that it will increase its police presence.
What is the Nationality and Borders Bill?
The nationality and borders bill is intended to combat illegal immigration into the United Kingdom. On a wider note, it appeals to a large number of those who voted in the Conservative government as they are finally “taking back control of our borders”, a piece of rhetoric that became a driving force for Brexit and Prime Minister Johnson’s victory. It assesses a seeker based on how they entered the U.K. rather than need. Whilst Home Secretary Priti Patel states that the Bill is intended to provide a safer option, in reality, it looks to criminalize those seeking refuge.
According to the government’s website, the Bill has three objectives:
To make the system fairer and more effective so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum
To deter illegal entry into the U.K., breaking the business model of criminal trafficking networks and saving lives
To remove from the U.K. those that have no right to be here.
What does the Bill propose?
If introduced, this bill makes it harder to enter the United Kingdom. Those who try to enter the country from anywhere other than the country of persecution, such as taking routes through Europe, will not be eligible to be entered into the asylum system. Instead, in a cruel approach, they are faced with the threat of a prison sentence of up to four years for ‘entering illegally’.
Even if a person is granted asylum, new rules label it temporary protection. Their claim needs to be renewed often, increasing the chance of getting removed from the country. Such a system will limit a person’s attempt at settling, and calling the country home.
Currently, those who seek asylum are housed in communities. The government wants to branch away from this, instead, they intend to place large groups into accommodation centers. This has already been trialed throughout the pandemic when the government chose to house them in disused military barracks. Cramped, cold and unhygienic, many were exposed to covid-19 and treat as less than human, a move that the courts ruled as unlawful. Choosing to place those who have often fled war or persecution away from society and limiting their integration is an immoral choice that the government should not seek to repeat.
Migrants interact with Border Force. (Reuters)
Why is the Bill controversial?
Apart from the unnecessary potential prison sentences and unliveable accommodation, the Bill breaches the 1951 Refugee Convention. According to the UNHCR, the convention laid the groundwork for international refugee rights and at its core, holds the principle of non-refoulement. Non-refoulement prevents refugees from being returned to a country where “they face serious threats to life or freedom.”
This Bill disallows the most vulnerable from being protected and whilst the dangerous voyage of crossing the English Channel should be restricted in terms of migrant safety, the government’s blocking of the borders has led to the subsequent increase of desperate crossings. A Foreign Affairs Select Committee in 2019 predicted this outcome: “A policy that focuses exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups.”
Why is the route dangerous?
Traveling across the English Channel with a limited amount of resources is a risky one. The route is one of the busiest in the world in terms of shipping. Hundreds have deaths have been reported by the media in the last two decades, however, the exact number is unknown. Families are often a part of this perilous journey with children and babies being too often the victim of drownings. To avoid unnecessary deaths and risks, a safer system needs to be implemented by the government.
Vice-chair or IRR Frances Webber said, “All these deaths are attributable to policies which treat asylum seekers as criminals, separate families, and deny those seeking asylum a speedy legal route to safety and security.”
The government’s rhetoric of calling those who arrive on small boats across the English Channel nothing but “illegal immigrants”, feeds into the hostile migrant culture that already exists throughout the country. Priti Patel’s focus on those arriving on small vessels is inhumane and unnecessary as a large proportionate seek refuge from war, persecution, and unstable environments. As she admits the current system is broken, the government’s proposal of this Bill will do nothing but further, enhance the cracks and increase exploitation.
