The Border Security, Asylum & Immigration Bill
Our response to the proposed new legislation presented in Parliament on 30th January.
With the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill due to have its second reading in Parliament on Monday 10th February, our Advocacy Manager, Amy Merone, reflects on what we believe would be a compassionate and effective approach to asylum.
The context
We live in unparalleled times. With humanitarian crises around the world spiralling, the inauguration of a US President who within days froze all USAID spending, the continuing war in Ukraine and the ever growing threat of Russia, and a climate crisis that most of us have failed to fully grasp, it’s little wonder that there are now more than 120 million people who have been forcibly displaced worldwide.
Yet rather than acknowledging and seeking to address the root causes of forced migration, successive governments in the UK have sought to dismantle laws that uphold the right to seek asylum, propose outrageous offshoring plans such as the Rwanda scheme, and foster the narrative that people seeking sanctuary in our communities pose a threat to our safety and way of life.
Furthermore, we see the way in which global tech billionaires are now able to use their monstrous wealth to influence UK politics and how leaders such as Trump can assert their might over poorer countries and people.
The Border Security, Asylum & Immigration Bill
It is in this national and international context that the UK government will publish its Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill and there is little to suggest that we can expect a radically different approach to asylum than that of previous governments. In fact, so far under the Labour Government there has been a continued emphasis on ‘smashing the gangs’ in order to reduce Channel crossings.
The Government has also made clear its intention to increase the number of people it removes from the UK, and has established a returns and enforcement programme to do so. Likewise, it intends to expand the detention estate and, perhaps most worryingly of all, seeks to address migration through a counter-terrorism lens. Even its stated intention to clear the asylum backlog is one seemingly driven by economics, rather than at least a mutual concern for people’s suffering.
So what then would a more compassionate and effective approach to asylum be? Under the previous government, the very right to claim asylum was stripped (under the Illegal Migration Act). While we obviously welcome the decision by this government to restore the right to claim asylum and to clear the backlog (which stands at almost 100,000) that resulted from the legislation to remove the right to claim asylum, people’s cases must be fairly and fully considered.
Legal aid deserts
Legal aid provision has been progressively decimated over the years and we know from our work supporting people in the asylum system that having access to free, high quality legal assistance can make a huge difference in determining whether a person is granted leave to remain. We also know that legal aid cuts have left the North West with the largest deficit in the country between the need for, and provision of, immigration and asylum legal advice. Individuals must have access to legal aid in order to have their cases considered fairly and fully.
While we are clear that organised criminals who exploit people’s desperation and vulnerability by profiteering from Channel crossings ought to be brought to justice, all too often it is instead desperate people seeking asylum who are punished. We saw this with the prosecution and subsequent jailing of Ibrahima Bah, a young man who was forced by people smugglers to steer the boat on which he was a passenger. We have repeatedly said that the absence of safe routes means that individuals have no other choice than to risk their lives in an attempt to find safety.
Lack of safe routes
No such safe routes currently exist for the vast majority of people trying to survive the most catastrophic humanitarian crises. Sudan, for example, now represents the largest and fastest growing displacement crisis in the world. 99% of all individuals who claimed asylum from Sudan (figures from Sept 2024) received a positive decision on their initial asylum claim, demonstrating their clear need for humanitarian protection. Yet despite this, no safe route exists for people escaping the horrors currently unfolding in Sudan.
While bespoke resettlement schemes have existed – most notably for people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong, we have seen no such schemes implemented, for example, for the people of Gaza who have endured 15 months of unimaginable suffering, or for people from any other place they may need refuge from. (For more on safe routes, read this excellent piece by Free Movement). Without safe routes, and without an honest recollection of the role that the UK has itself played over the years in destabilising countries, any attempts to stop Channel crossings will be futile and we will continue to tragically see more people lose their lives at sea.
Getting back to facts in an era of disinformation
We have been led to believe by previous governments, as well as populist voices, that the UK takes in far more people seeking asylum than its European or global neighbours, that the number of people seeking asylum here is ever growing and that they are responsible for the decline in the availability of public resources such as the NHS. This has whipped up anti-asylum rhetoric and undoubtedly played a significant role in the targeting of people seeking asylum during last summer’s riots.
Yet the statistics tell a different story. The vast majority of refugees are hosted by countries neighbouring their own. While 5 million people became displaced between the end of 2023 and June 2024, only 1.2 million claimed asylum in the EU Plus, and the UK received fewer people seeking asylum than Germany, Spain, France or Italy. Public bodies such as the NHS are not at breaking point because of people seeking asylum, but because of chronic under-investment over the years.
Why share these statistics? Because facts matter. Especially in an era of disinformation where the far-right, world leaders and those with unregulated wealth and influence increasingly determine the discourse, and especially when that discourse is becoming ever more focused on demonising people seeking asylum. We must reject this narrative and we must continue to hold those in power to account for the language it uses and the ideas it espouses.
The need for safe, stable housing
We know that we are in the midst of a national housing crisis and that to solve it requires vast sums of investment in new social housing and innovative solutions. For too long, people seeking asylum have been accused of ‘queue jumping’ their way into social housing. This is simply untrue. The majority of people granted refugee status are single and will be identified by local authorities as having no priority need for social housing.
The reality is that local authorities face huge challenges in being able to accommodate people in need of housing – both UK nationals and people with refugee status. Historically social housing would have been the best and often easiest way of finding somewhere safe to live and we do find that it is this kind of housing that the people we support are most likely to know about and therefore seek.
Yet with the right support we have found, for example, through our Refugee Homelessness Prevention Project(operating in several boroughs across Greater Manchester) that people with refugee status do go on to access the private rental market. This is arguably due to the difference it can make when charities like Boaz, that are embedded within the communities they work with, offer one-to-one specialist and practical support to individuals (such as accessing rent deposit schemes, understanding a tenancy agreement) and respectfully listen to their concerns.
This all takes time and we welcome the Government’s recent announcement to extend the move-on period for newly granted people with refugee status from 28 to 56 days. We and others have long argued that 28 days is not nearly enough time to find housing, access employment/apply for Universal Credit and put in place all the other foundations that are needed to lead an independent life. We need more innovative housing initiatives and we need the provision of asylum accommodation to be taken away from profit-driven companies and put back under public body control.
The need for a person-centred approach
The reality is that the majority of people who claim asylum in the UK will go on to regularise their status. What we unfortunately see all too often at Boaz are individuals who have spent far too long in the asylum system who have been diminished by the experience - people who have been unable to work, whose mental and physical health have suffered immensely. Picking up the pieces after so long is not insurmountable, but it is not always far off.
We need more investment in ESOL provision and other initiatives that enable people to integrate, the right to work for people waiting for a decision on their asylum claim, and recognition and respect for the assets that people have and do contribute to our society.
Our fear is that the bill presented in Parliament today will not, at its heart, seek to create a fairer and more compassionate asylum system, but rather expand the powers of the state, diminish the rights of people seeking asylum, and ultimately turn away from addressing any of the root causes of forced migration.
At Boaz we will continue to work with others who are interested in compassion, cohesion and justice, to build a better response to a system that was so clearly set up to disregard and deny people – more often than not people of colour – the right to life in all its fullness.
