0
0
Political discourse around immigration has been, for a long time, characterised by fear mongering and racist rhetoric. The press and some politicians have attempted (and on many occasions succeeded) to make many Britons feel like their country was under attack, that it was being taken over by illegal invaders who were ‘undermining our way of life’ and bringing danger to our shores. This lack of empathy and compassion within public discourse for those searching for a better life in Britain has clearly manifested itself in policy. This is not surprising, with there being great appetite within some Westminster circles and among much of the wider population for the government to ‘take back control’ of our borders. Boris Johnson’s premiership and those that have followed have been noticeably committed to dealing with this perceived threat that refugees and immigrants pose to our country. A very controversial development in Britain’s immigration policy has been the development of the Rwanda Asylum Plan, which has been in process within Westminster over the last five years. This policy proposes sending some asylum seekers on a one-way ticket to Rwanda, where they will then have to apply for asylum. The government stated its intention was to deter refugees from attempting to reach Britain by dangerous means, such as on small boats crossing the English Channel, but there has been no noticeable improvement in the number of refugees attempting this treacherous journey. In fact, 2022 saw a record number of people attempting to cross the Channel, which very much questions if this proposal has had any impact at all.
Despite this, Sunak has made it clear that his government is dedicated to ‘stopping the boats’. His government has just announced a new Illegal Migration Bill in Parliament, a further attempt to stop people from crossing the Channel in small boats. The idea is that this legislation will take precedence over the international right to claim asylum, and new arrivals will be detained “without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention, until they can be removed”. These undocumented immigrants who do not fulfil any exception criteria will either be sent back to their home country, or to a “safe third country” like Rwanda, where they will then be allowed to start their asylum application. Home Secretary Suella Braverman has also announced that there will be a annual cap on refugees, arguing that this is to “ensure an orderly system”which will not put our public services under immense pressure. The British government has also been in talks with France to reach a bilateral agreement on how to further prevent migrants from crossing between the two countries. £500 million has been promised to the French government over the next three years to fund the recruitment of five hundred new border officers and the construction of a new detention centre. The amount that has been promised in 2023/24 is almost double that which was paid this year, with Sunak assuring that this increased collaboration between the two countries will “ensure that nobody can exploit our systems with impunity.”
It seems clear that this bill is not just about protecting our borders and preventing our services from becoming overrun, but about control. The Conservative government understands well that bringing immigration numbers under control is a vote winner, and tends to be very popular (especially among their support base). Since Sunak launched his ‘Stop The Boats’ slogan, the prevention of small-boat crossings in the Channel has surged to the second most important concern for voters who supported the Conservatives in the 2019 election, just behind the cost-of-living crisis. This perceived invested interest that Sunak’s support base have in seeing this issue dealt with will only seek to galvanise his government’s attempts to push this bill through, and energise Sunak further to fulfil his promise to take back control and ‘Stop The Boats’, despite any ramifications.
However, it would be naive to assume that Sunak’s attempts to get this bill passed will be smooth sailing. There are serious concerns amongst many MPs, international organisations and much of the public over the legality- and morality- of this proposed plan. EU Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson came out and shared her concerns that this bill breaches international law, and revealed that she had warned Home Secretary Suella Braverman of this before the bill was announced. The UN Refugee Agency has also come out against the bill, arguing that it essentially amounts to an ‘asylum ban’. Such a ban would be a grave breach of Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. MPs in Westminster and across the devolved nations have also had mixed reactions to the bill, with Scottish First Minister blasting it as “shameful and immoral”, and many MPs across all parties rallying against it. Even the BBC have become embroiled in a scandal over the topic, with football presenting legend Gary Lineker being asked to apologise or step down after he published a tweet criticising the bill.
Undeniably, Sunak does have a support base for his bill within Parliament, but external pressures as well as internal discontent within Westminster will not make this an easy win. Many things must be considered before this bill can be passed and enacted; How will this work? Will this work? Does this test the limits of international law, or outright breach it? We also need to remember the most important things; does this protect the most vulnerable? Does this protect the right to seek asylum for those fleeing from persecution? Does this bill make those most at risk a priority, or is it motivated purely by self-interest and winning votes?
Average Rating