AYS Special from the UK: The British Nationality and Borders Bill
The recent history of the British political landscape has been characterised by a series of decisions that have contributed to widening socio-economic divisions and inequality. The Nationality and Borders Bill is no exception and has been brought in under the repeated ‘take back control’ mantra. Under the Brexit hangover, and still attempting to prove to the public that borders are the primary answer to the ills of the British people, the Conservative government has committed to the biggest overhaul of the immigration system in its history. Needless to say, this overhaul shows blatant disregard for the rights of people crossing borders and is dedicated instead to finding underhand routes around international human rights legislation. A piece by No Borders Manchester.
At the time of writing, the Nationality and Borders Bill is in the Committee Stage of review, having passed the Second Reading. It passed with 366 votes for and 265 votes against. This comes after an arduous and inaccessible Consultation, which has been condemned by over 200 migrant justice organisations for the failure to take into consideration language differences, and for the inadequate space given for individuals to write about their personal experiences in relation to parts of the plan. This Consultation was leading, biased and entirely ignored, and the Bill was released shortly after the consultation process closed.
The contents of the Bill are vast, complicated and inhumane. 87 pages long, the Bill is predicated on divisions between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ migrants in an attempt to effectively demonise a majority of people crossing borders. This reflects a long-standing British tactic, which criminalises or dehumanises certain groups and scapegoats them for the economic or social concerns of the electorate, therefore shifting blame from politicians and the wealthy. The 1984 English Poor Law which distinguished between the ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving poor’ saw the latter blamed for their experiences of poverty, considered as feckless and work-shy, a burden on their communities and undeserving of any but the harshest of treatment from good hardworking people and the instruments of the state.
This division between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ migrants is seen, for example, in the criminalisation of people seeking asylum. Currently, entry to the UK without permission (for example a VISA, Leave to Remain etc) is a crime. The Nationality and Borders Bill replaces the word ‘entry’ with ‘arrival’, stating now that someone who ‘knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance’ (Part 2, Clause 37) is committing an offence. As a legal term, entry refers to arriving in the UK, disembarking and leaving the immigration control area- this may be flying to the UK and leaving the airport, for example. However, in criminalising ‘arrival’, this Bill attempts to make it an offence just to reach the UK through unauthorised routes. In effect, this policy change will be in direct tension with Article 31 of the 1951 Geneva Convention, which condemns the discrimination against an individual seeking asylum on the basis of their means of entry to a country.
This shift will have far-reaching implications for people crossing borders and seeking asylum. Many people who arrive on British shores do not have access to legal papers, especially after having fled imminent danger. The criminalisation of those arriving in the UK without required papers will likely implicate many people seeking asylum, especially those arriving from across the Channel. Attempts to criminalise this route are long-standing. In May this year, the Home Office lost a retrial where Fouad Kakaei was acquitted of smuggling charges. Kakaei had served 17-months of a 26-month sentence after admitting that he had temporarily steered the boat he had arrived into the UK on because he ‘didn’t want to die at sea’. The Nationality and Borders Bill will legitimise the criminalisation of these activities and could see a rise in the charges and incarceration of people forced to cross the Channel to reach the UK.
This criminalisation also extends from those crossing the borders to people and organisations working with people seeking safety. Currently, it is a criminal offence to help someone seeking asylum to arrive in the UK if the action is motivated by personal gain. If this Bill is implemented it will simply be an offence to help anyone seeking asylum to arrive in the UK. The Bill also raises the maximum sentence for the crime of assisting from 14 years in jail to a life sentence (Clause 38). The only exception to this rule is ‘persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services’ (Immigration Act 1971, Clause 25A). This likely refers to large charities and organisations, working in Calais for example. Nonetheless, this leaves smaller, and often more radical groups or individual activists in a precarious position threatened with life imprisonment for acts of solidarity with people seeking asylum. Whilst it seems like it might be difficult to implement this legislation, ‘the idea that boat arrivals in the Channel are a crisis of criminality which can only be solved with draconian laws and military rhetoric creates a toxic politics of fear and hostility’.
It seems that the UK government is proposing there should only be entry to the country exclusively through resettlement schemes. There are currently three pathways for resettlement in the UK. One is the scheme resettling people from Syria, which having reached its quota, may have concluded. Over the last decade, 70% of people settled in the UK were Syrian nationals, and there are no clear numbers for the other two pathways. Together the two alternative resettlement schemes have been the route of entry for just 30% of people resettled in the UK. The emphasis that this legislation places on resettlement schemes denies the agency of people seeking asylum, forcing people to wait for the development of appropriate resettlement schemes. In 2020, the UNHCR was aware of around 20.7 million refugees, but were only able to resettle less than 1% of these people. Furthermore, the weight attached to resettlement schemes neglects the reality of the urgency of people’s situations, seemingly forgetting that forced displacement often occurs under rushed and dangerous circumstances. It ignores the failure of resettlement schemes in the past, which have been distinctly marred with bureaucracy and have been seriously lengthy processes despite the urgency that many people find themselves in.
Finally, this criminalisation of people seeking asylum, and the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ migrants carries through into domestic housing policy. Clause 11 allows for differential provision of accommodation to people seeking asylum depending on the stage of their claim and their compliance with various conditions’. This will likely result in the expansion of asylum accommodation centres and continues differential treatment. An example of this currently in use is the Napier Barracks, which has been subject to multiple complaints and concerns, described as ‘squalid’ and ‘unlawful’ by the High Court. Despite feeling ‘like a detention centre or prison camp’, they are currently still in use as asylum accommodation. Furthermore, this Bill proposes the offshore processing of claims, allowing for people to be removed from the UK whilst their claims are evaluated. Whilst not included explicitly in the Bill, it has been suggested that the Government is keen to establish offshore facilities, and have been considering using oil rigs, retired ferries, or third countries such as Morocco or Ascension Island to house people seeking asylum whilst claims are processed. Once again, this attempt to criminalise and effectively dehumanise people seeking asylum demonstrates the government’s commitment to the continued and aggressive scapegoating of people crossing borders.
This Government is prioritising the cultivation of an image of being tough on illegal migration over the protection of the human rights of people crossing borders. This article has touched on a few major themes and policy changes throughout the Bill, but it is not a complete overview. Other policy changes, such as the decrease in access to appeals, attempts to deport people to safe third countries, and changes to age assessment all aim toward speedy conclusions, forgoing the complexity of people’s cases and the gravity of human rights. This Bill assumes a highly skeptical stance against people crossing borders. In scapegoating people crossing borders for the effects of government policies, such as austerity and the privatisation of the NHS, this government is playing with the lives of people seeking safety. They are nurturing a xenophobic and violent culture, drawing on the fears of British people and encouraging divisions and hate.
We feel like the only way to counter-act this is going to be through huge community resistance. We are holding workshops across Manchester where we talk about the Bill in more detail and aim toward building a community of resistance both before the Bill is passed and beyond! We are keen to hear from anyone who wants to learn more, or is keen to join in running these workshops with us. Please drop us a message if you have a suitable venue or a community group that you think would be interested in hearing more about the Bill at: nobordersmcr@gmail.com.
Article by No Borders Manchester
Find daily updates and special reports on our Medium page.
If you wish to contribute, either by writing a report or a story, or by joining the info gathering team, please let us know.
We strive to echo correct news from the ground through collaboration and fairness. Every effort has been made to credit organisations and individuals with regard to the supply of information, video, and photo material (in cases where the source wanted to be accredited). Please notify us regarding corrections.
If there’s anything you want to share or comment, contact us through Facebook, Twitter or write to: areyousyrious@gmail.com
