This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/world/europe/uk-migration-asylum.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
U.K. Unveils Hard-Line Migration Plan, Taking Aim at Small-Boat Crossings U.K. Unveils Hard-Line Migration Plan, Taking Aim at Small-Boat Crossings
(about 5 hours later)
The British government on Tuesday unveiled legislation that would give the Home Office a “duty” to remove nearly all asylum seekers who arrive on small boats across the English Channel, part of a package of measures that has been denounced by international rights organizations and refugee advocacy groups.The British government on Tuesday unveiled legislation that would give the Home Office a “duty” to remove nearly all asylum seekers who arrive on small boats across the English Channel, part of a package of measures that has been denounced by international rights organizations and refugee advocacy groups.
The Conservative government in Britain has increasingly taken aim at migrants arriving on its shores, the majority of whom are asylum seekers fleeing war and persecution. A recent plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has been challenged in court. The law is the latest in a series of moves by the Conservative government to dissuade people from coming to Britain by boat, even as the are asylum seekers fleeing war and persecution. Last April, the government announced a plan, that is being challenged in court, to send them to Rwanda.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, whose government office is responsible for the planned policy changes and who announced the measures in Parliament, said that the proposed legislation would make good on an earlier promise by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to restrict the boat crossings. Suella Braverman, the home secretary, whose government office is responsible for the proposal and who announced the measures in Parliament, said that the legislation would make good on an earlier promise by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to restrict the boat crossings.
The legislation would allow for the swift detention and deportation of anyone arriving in Britain by illegal means, according to a government synopsis. Mr. Sunak said during a news conference on Tuesday evening, that while the proposed law is “tough,” “it is necessary and it is fair.”
“People must know that if they come here illegally it will result in their detention and swift removal,” he said, adding, “Once they know this, they will not come and the boats will stop.”
The legislation calls for asylum seekers to be sent to their home country, “or another safe third country, such as Rwanda,” according to the synopsis, and any legal challenges or human rights claims would only be heard remotely, after their removal.
There are currently no legal routes for asylum seekers fleeing war and persecution to apply for refugee status elsewhere in the world and obtain a visa to enter Britain, so many see the small boat crossings and other irregular — and often dangerous — voyages as their only option for entering the country.
Although Rwanda, whose own human rights record has come under harsh scrutiny, is the only country to have been identified so far, Ms. Braverman suggested that other nations could be involved.
“It will allow us to stop the boats that are bringing tens of thousands to our shores in flagrant breach of both our laws and the will of the British people,” Ms. Braverman said, insisting that the bill was compatible with international law, despite the criticism.“It will allow us to stop the boats that are bringing tens of thousands to our shores in flagrant breach of both our laws and the will of the British people,” Ms. Braverman said, insisting that the bill was compatible with international law, despite the criticism.
“They will not stop coming here until the world knows that if you enter Britain illegally, you will be detained and swiftly removed, back to your country if it is safe or to a safe third country, like Rwanda,” Ms. Braverman said. However, the bill itself included a statement from Ms. Braverman acknowledging that she could not say unequivocally that the legislation was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights even as the government asked lawmakers to proceed with the bill.
The plans unveiled on Tuesday and provisionally called the Illegal Migration Bill were heavily criticized by rights groups, charities and a number of British lawmakers. The bill’s opponents say that the government’s policies are more about driving political support than addressing the problem.
In Parliament, Yvette Cooper, a Labour lawmaker and the shadow home secretary, called the current asylum system and the government’s proposal “deeply damaging chaos.”In Parliament, Yvette Cooper, a Labour lawmaker and the shadow home secretary, called the current asylum system and the government’s proposal “deeply damaging chaos.”
“There is no point in ministers trying to blame anyone else for it, they have been in power for 13 years, the asylum system is broken and they have broken it,” she said of the Conservative government. “There is no point in ministers trying to blame anyone else for it,” she said of the Conservative government. “They have been in power for 13 years, the asylum system is broken and they have broken it.”
The Refugee Council, a British charity, found in an analysis published late last year that at least two-thirds of the people who crossed the English Channel in small boats last year would eventually be granted asylum status. The bill would allow asylum seekers to be detained for 28 days with “no recourse for bail or judicial review, and then for as long as there is a reasonable prospect of removal,” the Home Office said in its summary of the legislation.
The charity added that, based on its analysis, the proposed legislation would prevent more than 45,000 people over the next year from having their claims processed. The legislation accounts for what it calls “exceptional circumstances,” described as cases in which there is a risk that someone “would suffer a real risk of serious and irreversible harm” if they were to be relocated to a third country. But even in those cases, a person would have a maximum of 45 days to remain in Britain before their appeal was exhausted.
Enver Solomon, chief officer of the Refugee Council, said in a statement that the legislation would shatter longstanding British commitments under the United Nations Refugee Convention to give people a fair hearing. “It’s unworkable, costly and won’t stop the boats,” he said. “They will not stop coming here until the world knows that if you enter Britain illegally, you will be detained and swiftly removed, back to your country if it is safe or to a safe third country, like Rwanda,” Ms. Braverman said.
His charity and others are backing a plan that would create safe routes for refugees to enter Britain, such as a refugee visa, as well as a timely asylum process and agreements with European partners to share responsibility for refugees seeking safety in the region. Opponents of the legislation, provisionally called the Illegal Migration Bill, say that the government’s policies are more about driving political support than addressing the problem, and several said the priority should be addressing problems with the country’s backlogged asylum process.
There are currently no legal routes for asylum seekers fleeing war and persecution to apply for refugee status elsewhere in the world and obtain a visa to enter Britain, so many see the small boat crossings and other irregular — and often dangerous — voyages as their only option for entering the country. The cross-party Home Affairs Committee, in a report issued last year, found that while Britain’s asylum system was broken and under immense pressure amid rising new arrivals, “it was not migrants crossing the Channel who broke it.” It recommended that the government prioritize easing the huge backlog of cases still under review.
Using the Home Office’s own prediction that about 65,000 people would make such crossings in 2023, the Refugee Council said that the government would have to spend the equivalent of about $1.4 billion to detain asylum seekers who arrive by irregular routes. Lawmakers from a number of parties questioned the legality of the bill, including Joanna Cherry, a lawmaker from the Scottish National Party.
She questioned whether the bill would be used as ammunition for the Conservative government to push for a withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Britain is a signatory.
The legislation would almost certainly be challenged in Britain’s domestic courts and could be found in contravention of international law and in violation of the convention.
Pointing to Ms. Braverman’s admission that she could not say definitively whether the law was compatible with the convention, Ms. Cherry suggested the law would be used as a pretext for the Conservatives to campaign on a platform of leaving it.
“That’s the whole point of this isn’t it?,” she asked Ms. Braverman.
Steve Valdez-Symonds, the refugee and migrant rights program director for Amnesty International U.K., also said that the legislation would be found to be in conflict with international law. “Everything about this from any human perspective, let alone a human rights perspective is thoroughly dangerous, miserable, and reckless,” he said.
He said he feared that the bill would only inflame growing anti-asylum seeker sentiment, pointing to an attack on a detention center in Dover last year, and to more recent violence in the country as evidence of those troubling tensions. He warned that the government “is making society not only hostile but hateful” toward those arriving in small boats.
The new legislation is the latest in a series of hard-line, contentious policies put forth by the Conservative government under successive prime ministers, but people have continued to make the sometimes deadly journey, frequently setting off from the French coastline in unseaworthy vessels.The new legislation is the latest in a series of hard-line, contentious policies put forth by the Conservative government under successive prime ministers, but people have continued to make the sometimes deadly journey, frequently setting off from the French coastline in unseaworthy vessels.
Late last year, an agreement aimed at halting the small boats in the English Channel called for Britain to pay France 72.2 million euros, about $74.5 million, over 2022 and 2023. In turn, France agreed to increase security patrols on its northern beaches by 40 percent. Late last year, an agreement intended to halt the small boats in the English Channel called for Britain to pay France 72.2 million euros, about $74.5 million, over 2022 and 2023. In turn, France agreed to increase security patrols on its northern beaches by 40 percent.
Mr. Sunak announced plans in December to tackle Britain’s major backlog in claims and to speed up the return of most asylum seekers from Albania after an uptick in arrivals from that country last year. Mr. Sunak announced plans in December to tackle Britain’s major backlog in claims and to speed up the return of most asylum seekers from Albania after an increase in arrivals from that country last year.
The plan to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda was also promoted by the Conservative government as a way to deter migrants from trying to cross the English Channel in small boats. But the numbers have continued to rise, and the proposal has drawn international condemnation and legal challenges. The plan to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda was also promoted by the Conservative government as a way to deter migrants from trying to cross the English Channel in small boats. But the numbers have continued to rise, and the proposal has drawn international condemnation.
In December, the High Court in London ruled that the measure was legal but qualified the decision by saying that every case needed to be considered individually. So far, no asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda.In December, the High Court in London ruled that the measure was legal but qualified the decision by saying that every case needed to be considered individually. So far, no asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda.
Rwanda’s own human rights record has been criticized, and rights groups have warned that sending asylum seekers to the country could violate international law and would not deter those risking the perilous journey to Britain.