Seeking Asylum: the British Government's Attack on Human Rights Law

by Fraser Langley 

Recently, the government outlined plans that are aiming to deter asylum seekers from attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats. The new legislation will result in most people who arrive on small vessels, rather than by official means, will not be allowed to claim asylum in Britain. Contrary to that, they could be detained without bail or judicial review for 28 days before being deported, either to their home country or a safe third country, most likely Rwanda. This legislation will be applied relatively universally, with only a select few having their asylum claims processed within the UK, those being children and people deemed medically unfit to travel. The legislation will also not allow migrants from adopting modern slavery laws to dispute the removal from Britain by claiming they are the victims of human trafficking. The new regulations have been widely criticised, with one of the most prominent criticisms being that the reason so many migrants choose to use illegal routes into the UK is due to the lack of legal and safe routes.

Following the unveiling of the new plans to the Conservatives, there were numerous adverse reactions to them, particularly after the home secretary, Suella Braverman, admitted to the party that there was a ‘more than 50% chance’ that they were likely to violate human rights laws. Naturally, this has caused significant turbulence, both socially and politically, due to the almost farcical essence of these regulations; human rights are not something that can just be ignored due to the fact that the subject of these rights are asylum seekers.

The new bill would also introduce an annual cap of the number of refugees allowed to gain access to the UK, although this is yet to be determined by parliament. This annual cap will only apply to migrants that have been granted access to the UK, through routes that have been deemed safe and legal. However, this has already been condemned, as seemingly there are very few routes that meet this criteria. These new regulations have been called into action after Suella Braverman claimed that the British Taxpayer had become discontented by supposed ‘illegal immigrants undermining British generosity’. This in itself seems slightly ironic, as by alienating these migrants, through categorically labelling them as ‘illegal’, as these migrants have the same human rights as any UK citizen, thus, with concern looming of potential human rights violations, it seems ironic and hypocritical of Braverman to label these migrants as ‘illegal’. Equally, I would argue that it is extensively hazardous to label migrants as illegal and something that is to be condemned by the general populous, as they are also people, who have attempted to gain access to the UK in search of a more prosperous life and crucially for safety, simultaneously potentially leaving behind a turbulent past. This idea perpetuates the stigma surrounding immigrants, and feeds into a system of again alienating these people. 

Undoubtedly, something needs to happen in order to safely house these asylum seekers, whether that is within the UK or not; however these regulations have human rights infringements attached to them, so do not seem to be a solution to this problem. Accordingly, these regulations have arguably created more issues, as they have set out a precedent that the government is ready to break human rights laws just to solve this problem, which further estranges the public from the government, lessening the likelihood of an agreeable solution being established to mitigate problem for all of the UK and for asylum seekers to be safely located.