UNHCR Urges UK to Look at Context as it Approaches Asylum Changes

The clamour for a new UK approach to managing asylum has intensified in recent months. Confirmation that the Government will introduce related legislation early next year coincided with reports of a range of options being considered, including moving asylum-seekers offshore.

What seems to have triggered the concern is that arrivals by small boats have risen, to an estimated 8,000 this year.

It is important to qualify this figure though. Over the same period, travel by other routes -- like lorries, train and air -- has fallen dramatically, linked to COVID, bringing a 20% slump in asylum claims in the second and third quarters versus the same period last year.

Britain is also less affected in regional terms. In the year to September 2020, the UK received 38,943 asylum seekers (including dependents) – similar to recent years. That compared to 124,060 in Germany, over 100,000 in each of France and Spain and almost 59,000 in Greece.

Of course, the UK has every right to manage its borders. UNHCR recently visited Border Force and it is doing just that, with rescue-at-sea efforts, registration and reception, and channeling new arrivals through the asylum procedure or return to another safe country.

Measures to combat smuggling rings and prevent, to the extent possible, dangerous journeys, are essential. Small boat crossings are inherently hazardous. But the fact that people are now arriving by this means does not mean the country should revisit its tradition of offering asylum to those genuinely in need; sea arrival does not equate to weaker claims. Equitable and effective access to protection should remain available for those with valid claims regardless of how they arrive.

Despite a counter-narrative taking root, the UK is not soft on asylum. It’s the only European country with no statutory immigration detention limit. It doesn’t allow most asylum seekers to work and its welfare benefits are not notably more generous than neighbouring countries. This is not why some people try to make a life in the UK.

There are no easy fixes to what is a complex global problem ... The UK is, however, far from the epicentre of this challenge.

Still, the Home Secretary’s announcement of an impending “overhaul” of asylum procedures does offer an opportunity to address long-standing challenges that contribute to sometimes excessively long procedures. These increase uncertainty for refugees anxious to start their new lives, reduce the likelihood of successful removal of those found not in need of protection and increase costs.

A better-designed system, properly resourced, will result in fairer and faster procedures, and lower overall costs. It will also limit the possibility of abuse by those without legitimate claims who may benefit from lengthy procedures to establish themselves without authorization. And this can be introduced without establishing legally questionable, morally challenging and massively expensive offshore centres.

We are often asked: why don’t asylum-seekers claim in France, or other safe countries through which they pass? In fact, by and large, they do: many more people do apply in France and other European countries than the UK. The number of asylum-seekers in Calais has fallen in recent years; there is no one-size-fits-all profile. Some are claiming in France, some have been rejected elsewhere in Europe, others are seeking connections with family or community at the end of arduous journeys, potentially with legitimate claims to protection in the UK. Evidently, not everyone will have the same claim to protection in the UK, and that is why there is a procedure to determine who should be allowed to do so.

Demonizing those who feel forced to move – for example labelling all arrivals as “illegal,” “queue jumpers” or “asylum shoppers” stigmatises desperate people, breeds xenophobia and lays the ground for social division.

The 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the UK was a key drafting party, doesn’t oblige asylum-seekers to apply in the first safe country they encounter, but nor does it suggest unfettered choice. The Convention may not be universally loved but its scope and purpose are also not always understood. Nevertheless it has helped save millions of lives over the years.

In the EU, the Dublin Regulation seeks to identify the state responsible for examining claims. While the country of first access is primarily responsible for applications, asylum-seekers may be transferred or have claims processed elsewhere based on other criteria including family or dependency ties. The Dublin Regulations are underpinned by the Eurodac database that allows countries to quickly identify those who may have already sought asylum in a member state.

Dublin’s implementation is not seamless, but despite its faults, it’s the only Europe-wide mechanism for managing claims. The UK will no longer be part of Dublin or Eurodac from January, making transfers harder unless a new agreement is negotiated.

The debate on UK immigration has been complicated by a conflation of asylum-seekers with irregular migrants. Many migrants will have entered the UK legitimately and overstayed. Estimates from experts range from 400,000 to 1.2 million. In the absence of amnesties, the answer to reducing these numbers is incentivizing return channels with partners. Admittedly, home countries may be less than motivated to take back their citizens – some countries’ economies are supported by remittances. This, however, is a challenge that many countries share and one that can be helped through suitable agreements – for example quotas for legal migration.

There are no easy fixes to what is a complex global problem. Conflicts, poor governance, poverty and environmental degradation contribute to mixed human flows. The UK is, however, far from the epicentre of this challenge. That lies in developing countries, which host 85% of the world’s 26 million refugees, and most migrants. The UK, by contrast, hosted 133,000 refugees last year, compared with 238,000 a decade earlier. It’s now the 26th largest host, down from tenth in 2009.

Undeniably, the UK has been generous in supporting refugees internationally and has been a major contributor to the Global Compact on Refugees, a recent agreement to bring in new actors to support refugee self-reliance and help generous host countries. UNHCR is also investing to improve communications with Diaspora communities and social-media monitoring in refugee communities to counteract smugglers’ narratives and ensure awareness of the risks of dangerous journeys.

Another contribution to deterring such travel would be to strengthen legal pathways, like resettlement and family reunion, which allow refugees to arrive safely and obtain the initial support they need to integrate.

The UK has rightly been commended as a leading resettlement country, welcoming almost 20,000 refugees affected by the Syrian war in recent years. But arrivals were suspended in March due to COVID and it is not clear when the new global programme will start; the ‘Dubs Amendment’ to bring unaccompanied children from Europe ended in May; and the Dublin family reunion route is set to close 31 December when the Brexit transition ends.

Family reunion is a right – and it also facilitates integration and ensures safe journeys, most often of women and children. Whenever there are delays and undue restrictions, smugglers are there to exploit the situation.

UNHCR will continue to advocate for a fair, compassionate and efficient asylum system and remains committed to working with the Home Office to this end. It will also continue to advocate for strengthened asylum and reception systems elsewhere, to ensure that people do not feel obliged to undertake dangerous journeys to find protection and a decent welcome.

But demonizing those who feel forced to move – for example labelling all arrivals as “illegal,” “queue jumpers” or “asylum shoppers” stigmatises desperate people, breeds xenophobia and lays the ground for social division.