The Need for More Legal Routes to the UK

The Story of Abdullah Dilsouz 

Abdullah, a 15-year old boy, was playing cricket with his refugee friends in the Calais refugee camp. Abdullah, after travelling from Afghanistan, was seeking to join his brother in London. However, unfortunately for Abdullah, there was no simple legal way for him to reach the UK. Abdullah’s living conditions were horrible; he was sleeping rough in the freezing winter. He was run over by a refrigeration truck in December 2018, one of three refugee children killed outside the Calais port that month alone. Abdullah died trying to reach his brother and he isn’t the only one trying to reach what is to many a symbol of a better life - the UK.

The Dangerous Voyage to Britannia 

This year, 4,000 people have attempted to cross the English Channel. This does not even include those who were stopped by the French Navy before entering British waters.  The government’s response to the dangerous crossings these migrants were making?  Restrict the viability of these routes, restricting the ability of migrants to exercise their right to apply for asylum. The government has sent the Navy to carry out surveillance and rescue in the channel. While this in itself is not objectionable, the Navy should not be used as a tool to flout international refugee law by pushing these boats back. The government seems to be attempting to make the process of seeking asylum as difficult as possible.

The government has been warned time and again, that not only will making the route to the UK ‘unviable’ for migrants not make any difference to the number of people making these crossings, but it will push these vulnerable people into the hands of criminal gangs and smugglers. As migrants are often desperate to reach the UK, they are easy targets from criminal organisations seeking to make a profit.  This view was confirmed by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in 2019.

The government has been warned time and again, that not only will making the route to the UK ‘unviable’ for migrants not make any difference to the number of people making these crossings, but it will push these vulnerable people into the hands of criminal gangs and smugglers.

The UK government has failed to heed this advice. In the current climate it is not hard to see why. The Conservative Party was elected on a mandate to be 'tough' on immigration; therefore sending the navy and making passage more difficult, sends a ‘tough message’. Furthermore, efforts to prevent refugees and asylum seekers from arriving in the UK can not be separated from the government’s hostile environment policy, wherein they deliberately attempt to make life miserable for those without leave to remain.  This culminated in the Windrush Scandal, which the government has yet to learn from. Decisions should be made based on evidence and all decision-making should be transparent. The government solutions are far from being evidence-based, nor pragmatic. 

Migrants who make this journey are desperate. Many would have happily remained in the countries of their birth had it not been exceptional circumstances such as war, famine or oppressive regimes. Thus, they are willing to take a desperate journey. Nonetheless, having escaped these impediments to their safety, these people are confronted with another: excessive bureaucracy. There is no simple application form to fill to apply for asylum, or a safe route to take. The Home Office (quite ironically) requires migrants to reach the UK before such an application can be lodged. The lack of European coordination in managing the flow of refugees from the Mediterranean results in many migrants being compelled to take dangerous, criminal routes. 

Why don’t migrants take legal routes?

A common cry from those who deem the dinghy boats as warships, and migrants as invaders, is that they should take legal routes to reach the UK. The reality is these ‘legal routes’ are inadequate and are very restrictive. For instance, the family reunification rules allow children under 18 or spouses to join their parents/spouses (see Home Office Guidance for January 2020), provided that person has refugee status. This provision, drawn along binary lines of the nuclear family, is too limited to accommodate the complexity of the situation’s asylum seekers finds themselves in. Abdullah, who only had a sibling in the UK, for example, failed to meet these requirements and was therefore doomed to live between the margins.  As well as this, if the person in the UK now has British Citizenship, their family cannot join them under these rules. Sadly, not even parents can join their refugee children in the UK, who are under 18. The family reunification rules are very insufficient, with siblings, spouses, parents and other relatives being separated from their loved ones.  

The Syrian Resettlement Program, launched by the UN, aims to resettle 20,000 Syrian Refugees in Britain by 2020.  While the government is on the track to meet this target, the program was suspended in March due to the Coronavirus Pandemic. Those who criticise the number of Syrian Refugees being brought in to the UK seem to be oblivious to the figures. Globally there are 25.4 million refugees seeking sanctuary, this program caters for only 0.002% of them. As a developed nation, it is a moral imperative for the UK to provide safe passage to the vulnerable and destitute. Yet this government, through its actions and policies,  has made their journey for a better life, a journey of suffering and misery.  

International cooperation

The Dublin Agreement is the main mechanism used to determine which EU member state a refugee should seek asylum. By centralising a database of migrants arriving in the EU, and requiring them to seek asylum in the nation they register in, it is said to allow for the quick and easy access to asylum procedures in member states.  Nonetheless, the programme invariably places disproportionate responsibility on nations such as Italy, Greece and Spain which border the Mediterranean, while the UK can largely resign its responsibility to provide a safe passage to the asylum. Although the UK is set to leave the protocol, it should aspire to cooperate with other nations in the region and to create new, fairer, more efficient structures to handle asylum seekers and to guarantee safe passage for all those in search of safety.  

Some Final Thoughts

It could not be clearer, that the government must reconsider its existing policy on border control and enforcement. The people in the small boats in the Channel, are not invaders, or scroungers. They are people like you and me seeking to rebuild their lives. They should not be used as a tool for the Conservatives to please and tame the anti-immigrant sentiment in the UK. The government has a duty, to provide safe and legal routes for asylum seekers.