Providing people with safety is complex and multifaceted. We must not look to oversimplify solutions to appeal to opponents.
There is a distinct need for a compassionate and functioning asylum system in the UK, and currently quite a lot of differing opinions as to how that can be achieved. This is aside from this government’s own “solutions” which are premised seemingly on the principle of blocking as many people from seeking asylum as possible, and playing “Violate International Law Bingo” at the same time.
A root issue for the migrants’ rights sector, as with all advocacy more of less, is two competing thought processes on how to achieve change. Do you start small, offer compromises from the start and try and influence a gradual change from the bottom up. Alternatively, do you think big, advocate for wholesale and widespread change, and then, where absolutely necessary, whittle down as you go along to achieve something workable? I tend to fall into the latter camp, but there is not really a right or wrong answer. Neither approach, particularly in relation to those seeking asylum in the UK, has worked. One area where we can all agree though, pro and anti-asylum advocates alike, is that there is a need to reduce the number of people needing to make dangerous journeys to seek safety, and that requires workable and practical solutions.
Any policy needs to start from the recognition of some basic facts. First off, despite nearly 100% of media coverage and political rhetoric focusing on them, channel crossings made up fewer than half of all asylum applications in 2022. They are not the sole manner of irregular entry, and, often are the last recourse for those seeking safety. Moreover, more than 90% of those crossing the channel in small boats seek asylum, and roughly three quarters receive it, when finally granted it. This puts the framing into a somewhat different context. Even the Home Office’s own analysis shows that harsher policies aimed at “deterrence” end up pushing people into making even longer and more dangerous journeys. We therefore need policies which recognise that we are talking about people seeking safety, and in recognised need of it.
The next important thing to recognise is that the reasons people seek asylum in a particular country are complex and multi-faceted, more so than it is possible to go into in great detail in one article. For the UK the main reason is that people have ties here, family/language etc. These factors do not change no matter what obstacles you put in someone’s way. The Refugee Convention recognises this fact, which is why it enshrines the principle that nobody seeking asylum should be penalised for the manner of entry in doing so. As a sidenote, a common argument against this is the word “directly” in Article 31 of the Convention. This has been clarified numerous times in both international and UK domestic law as to allow transit across multiple countries when seeking asylum with “good cause”.
Policies designed to reduce the number of people using “irregular means” of entry to seek asylum must recognise therefore that people have good reason to do so, and will continue to do so if safer and simpler alternatives are not made available. Just attempting to deny people the ability to seek asylum does not change the motivations for them coming to the UK to do so. All they inevitably do is force more people underground as they try and build lives for themselves in safety. This in turn puts them at more risk of exploitation, particularly due to the precarious nature of their situations.
A number of proposals have been put forward to do this, but it would be wrong to think that any single proposal will have a significant impact on its own. A common one for example is the idea of some kind of refugee or humanitarian visa. These can provide assistance to some, but also carry a risk of increasing the danger which those seeking asylum face, both of persecution and in other ways. It is impractical, at best, to think that someone seeking asylum can wait in the country they are attempting to flee, not for a decision, but also having to travel back and forth to a relevant embassy or consulate. These movements inevitably risk bringing them to the attention to the state authorities which they are attempting to flee even more. Allowing for visas to be processed in a third country carries its own risks. While waiting for the visa to be processed where are those applying meant to stay? How will they live? Do they become the responsibility of the third country during this period, and if so, how subject are they to the internal restrictions and policies which that country applies?
There is an additional factor, as seen with the fiasco over visas for those fleeing Ukraine, how long does the visa last and does it guarantee asylum. Ukrainians were offered a visa scheme, yet the roll-out was slow and cumbersome, leaving many abandoned at the time. The visa itself is only for three years. It is not the provision of asylum. As the war rolls on the deadline for these visas is approaching all too rapidly, leaving many uncertain as to what the future holds.
Another question is whether there would be a “cap” on the number of these visas which are issued? One suggestion recently has been a pilot scheme of 10,000, but, as seen with the Ukraine scheme, this is unlikely to be close to enough based on current numbers of those seeking asylum in the UK. What is the answer? Are we to say to the 10,001st person that they are automatically denied asylum even if their case is strong?
The same issues apply in turn with the provision of “resettlement routes”. By their very nature these are limited, although they could be far less limited than the paltry number currently offered by the UK. According to UNHCR’s figures, the best we have but still inherently unreliable, out of 5.4 million people seeking asylum last year only 114,300 were resettled by such routes, a little over 2%. These are obviously not a comprehensive means by which to reduce the number of people needing to make dangerous journeys. Coupled with other methods though, as with visas, they could form part of a wider package of policies.
Returns agreements, as repeatedly raised by people on both sides of this debate, really are a no-win situation. They do not address why people come to the UK to seek asylum, so therefore just risk creating a never-ending cycle of them having to find alternative means to reach it. Each time this raises the risks of them falling prey to gangs who will exploit them. Relying on other countries to take on the UK’s obligations to provide protection inevitably risks just kicking the can down the road.
There is another matter here of course. Under what provisions would returns agreements work. If they were to replicate the Dublin Agreement for example then in all likelihood, they would help facilitate more people seeking asylum in the UK than prevent, not something which in my opinion is necessarily a bad thing. The main criteria for deciding which state processed applications under these regulations was family ties, and as this is one of the main reasons why people seek asylum in the UK it would be an irrelevance as a means to reduce people coming here.
Solutions therefore need to focus on protection. An immediate one would be to remove what are known as “carrier liability fines”. These are a significant contributing factor in denying those seeking asylum the ability to travel into the UK by conventional means, such as airlines or via ferries. It is a controversial move though, and one which many organisations have discarded as being too hard to persuade states to accept. There is a difference between making it “safer and simpler” to seek asylum and opening “safe and legal routes”. The former requires comprehensive work to ensure that people can use regular routes without fear of penalty. The latter creates a further restriction on many who are then still forced to make irregular journeys.
None of this addresses what happens once people are in the UK though. Any policies need to look at this as a priority. We have previously used community support schemes to ensure that asylum seekers can be protected within communities, and without the need for hotels, camps or barges. These worked well when we had higher numbers of people seeking asylum 20 odd years ago, but a lack of investment has left them gutted. A system cannot rely on public goodwill, but as seen with the Homes for Ukraine scheme, encouraging public goodwill within a system can be highly beneficial.
A bonus of this plan, particularly during the cost-of-living crisis, is that the money saved from not wasting it on demonstrably unworkable “deterrence, detention and deportation” schemes can be invested into local communities to support everyone and develop the necessary infrastructure. As much as opponents may like to believe otherwise, those seeking asylum still need medical care, often more than they did due to the additional mental and physical health issues caused by their treatment in the current system, education etc. These are costs which are already there, so using the money being wasted on performative policies to help support them helps benefit everyone.
Providing those seeking asylum with the right to work as standard is an additional measure which can benefit everyone. Estimates give that providing it would increase tax revenue by £1.3 billion, reduce government expenditure by £6.7billion and increase GDP by £1.6 billion. Human life is not an economic argument though. Providing people with the right to work helps them rebuild their lives in a safer and more stable manner. It helps to increase their confidence and ensures that they have their own agency.
As a final measure, and this is the essential one, applications for asylum need to be processed faster and more effectively. This is not down to recruiting more staff, it is about removing obstacles to processing those applications. Between March 2016 and March 2022, the number of caseworkers increased from 260 to 614, yet the number of people waiting more than six months for a decision rose from 8,278 to 75,597.
We live in a day and age where three-line slogans form policy, and if complex ideas cannot be explained within 280 characters they are dismissed. The reality is that refugee movements are complex. The reasons people seek asylum in particular places are varied and individual. Policies therefore need to focus on a wide range of ideas, and have to ensure that they place the provision of protection at their heart, instead of the principle of exclusion.
None of this is easy. The common argument that we should only push policies which might appeal to governments is a compelling one. If we as a sector are not prepared to campaign for real solutions which will make a real difference because it is hard then we may as well pack up and go home now. There is always pushback, an unfortunate term in this instance, but it is our responsibility to advocate for policies which work, and protect people, even if that means a hard journey of our own in changing opinion.
*This article has been written without being proofed due to time constraints.
