LAST UPDATE | 7 Mar 2023
THE UK GOVERNMENT has unveiled controversial plans to stop migrants crossing the English Channel illegally on small boats, acknowledging it is stretching international law.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the plan would “take back control” of the borders “once and for all” – reprising a popular pledge from campaigners like him who backed Britain’s Brexit divorce from the EU.
“This new law will send a clear signal that if you come to this country illegally, you will be swiftly removed,” he wrote in the Sun newspaper.
Under the draft law, Home Secretary Suella Braverman will be given a new legal duty to deport all migrants entering illegally, such as across the Channel, trumping their other rights in UK and European human rights law.
Anyone arriving in Britain by crossing the Channel in a small boat – or any other unauthorised means – would no longer be able to claim asylum in the UK.
This toughening of existing rules means instead they would only be eligible for asylum in a “safe” third country, such as Rwanda.
Furthermore, they would receive a lifetime ban on citizenship or re-entry to the UK.
Powers would be granted to detain migrants for 28 days without recourse for bail or judicial review, and then indefinitely for as long as there is a “reasonable prospect” of removal.
If you come to the UK illegally:
— Rishi Sunak (@RishiSunak) March 7, 2023
➡️ You can’t claim asylum
➡️ You can’t benefit from our modern slavery protections
➡️ You can’t make spurious human rights claims
➡️ You can’t stay pic.twitter.com/026oSvKoJZ
Challenges based on modern slavery laws would be barred, and any other legal attempt to stay would be heard overseas – after they are removed.
An annual quota on the number of refugees that can be settled through the limited number of safe and legal routes to asylum would be set.
“This Conservative government … will act now to stop the boats,” Braverman said as she introduced the legislation in parliament.
The right-winger added she was “confident that this bill is compatible with international obligations” – despite conceding in an overnight Daily Telegraph article that it “pushed the boundaries of international law”.
If you come to the UK illegally:
— Rishi Sunak (@RishiSunak) March 7, 2023
➡️ You can’t claim asylum
➡️ You can’t benefit from our modern slavery protections
➡️ You can’t make spurious human rights claims
➡️ You can’t stay pic.twitter.com/026oSvKoJZ
The new rules, which are incorporated under the Illegal Migration Bill, are being introduced less than a year after laws which the government said would be the “most comprehensive reform in decades to fix the broken asylum system” came into force.
The Nationality and Borders Act’s three objectives were to support those in genuine need for asylum, to deter “illegal” entry into the UK, and to remove more easily those with “no right” to be in the country.
Critics have questioned why the latest legal intervention is needed so soon after the recent overhaul of the system and suggests those measures have failed to deter crossings as intended.
"Our approach is robust and novel"
— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) March 7, 2023
Nothing novel here - there have been 43 failed attempts to stop the small boats, and this plan will be no different. And there's nothing 'robust’ about contravening the ECHR.
Sunak’s Conservative government is trailing in the polls and the topic of illegal migrants is playing badly with voters and the right-wing press, particularly when they have crossed “safe” countries in Europe to reach Britain.
But rights groups and opposition parties say the plan is unworkable and unfairly scapegoats vulnerable refugees.
Christina Marriott, executive director of strategy for the British Red Cross, said the UK would be in breach of international asylum conventions.
“We wonder if you are fleeing persecution or war, if you are running from Afghanistan or Syria and are in fear of your life, how are you going to be able to claim asylum in the UK?” she told Sky News.
“If they don’t have a valid asylum claim, then we are in support of people being returned to countries,” she said.
But what we need for that is a really fair and fast asylum system. And that’s what we don’t have at the minute.
More than 45,000 migrants arrived on the shores of southeast England on small boats last year – a 60% annual increase on a route that has grown in popularity every year since 2018.
The perilous nature of the crossings has been underlined by several tragedies in recent years, including in November 2021 when at least 27 people died when their dinghy deflated.
Nearly 3,000 have arrived so far this year, often ending up in expensive hotels at taxpayer expense and the backlog of asylum claims now exceeds 160,000.
The new plan would transfer illegal migrants to disused military barracks temporarily and cap the annual number of refugees settled via safe and legal routes.
The UK government had hoped the threat of a one-way ticket to Rwanda, where migrants would remain if accepted for asylum, would deter the cross-Channel journeys.
But the plan was blocked at the last minute by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which is separate to the EU.
It was then upheld by Britain’s High Court, but remains mired in appeals. No flights to Rwanda have yet taken place.
Braverman is fully prepared for her legislation to face similar snags to the stalled Rwanda policy.
She wrote to MPs to admit her “robust and novel” approach has a more than 50% chance of being incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the letter, seen by the PA news agency, she said she is “confident” the Bill is compatible with international law and said she expects the courts to take into consideration any endorsement by Parliament.
Like many Brexiteers on the Tory right, Braverman has previously called for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR itself.
Some in Westminster see these new rules as a long-game move to pick a fight with European judges and then use withdrawal as a battleground at the next general election.
The legislation is likely to get a rough ride in the House of Lords, as the upper chamber considers whether to amend the legislation. If the Government does not accept the changes, then a lengthy back and forth could delay the implementation.
Additional reporting by PA
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say