UK's Illegal Migration Bill: Criminalising Asylum and Traversing Legalities
On the 7th of March, Rishi Sunak laid out his plans for an increasingly aggressive anti-migrant legislation. The new Illegal Migration Bill aims to manage and deter the increased number of migrants that arrive through small boat crossings – a figure which has increased 500% since 2020, and reached a high of 45,766 in 2022. Sunak’s new plan is controversial at best and furthering a human rights crisis at worst.
Criminalised Asylum
If passed, Sunak’s new legislation would place a hard cap on applications for asylum regardless of circumstances – A move criticised by the UNHCR as a de-facto asylum ban. The bill makes it clear that unless legal protocol is observed it will be impossible to claim asylum. This fails to address the reality that many asylum seekers do not have access to the means necessary to enter the UK. Migrants fleeing war, natural disasters, or persecution are unlikely to have the documentation or the money to enter the UK outside of small boat crossings. The implication of denying asylum based on the method of travel is that the policy effectively bans asylum for the most vulnerable groups – because for so many, the only option is small boat crossings.
Perhaps the most sinister aspect of the new policy is the callousness of the language used. The bill takes a hard-line approach, explicitly denying people the ability to make “spurious human rights claims” if they arrive via small boats. As a result of this legislation, someone trafficked into the UK and forced into sex work would have to decide between remaining captive or facing certain arrest and deportation. The removal of rights to protection for illegal migrants does more to help trafficking than prevent it for this reason. When challenged on this scenario on PMQs on the 8th of March, Sunak avoided a direct response by saying Britain must “get a grip of this system” and reiterated that the boat crossings were the primary target of his policy.
Traversing the legality of migrant policy
Small boat crossings are a fairly recent phenomenon, only appearing over the last 4 years. Based on a report from Durham University, they can be largely attributed to the fact that the UK can no longer take advantage of the EU migrant returns policy. Pre-Brexit, migrants without a legitimate reason to remain in a country could be returned to the first EU country that they entered. Without managing to negotiate a similar deal to non-EU members like Norway, the success of Sunak’s migrant plan hinges on Sunak’s ability to relocate illegal migrants. As a result, the migrant plan sparks new questions about the status of the controversial Rwanda policy. Proposed in 2022, the Rwanda policy aimed to give select migrants a one-way ticket to Rwanda, where their asylum would be effectively outsourced.
To date, the biggest obstacle to the success of the Rwanda policy has been the ECHR, which intervened in 2022 to prevent the first deportation of asylum seekers. As a result, conservative MPs have been increasingly vocal in their interest for the UK to leave the ECHR. To date, no migrants have been deported through the Rwanda policy, however both this and the Illegal Migration Bill will likely require a concise effort to either undermine or withdraw from the ECHR.
The ECHR exists to be an overarching EU watchdog responsible for holding states accountable for human rights abuses. The ECHR has been instrumental in a considerable number of human rights policies, such as preventing bans on LGBTQ+ people from serving in the armed forces, and helping decriminalise “homosexual acts” in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, leaving the ECHR would breach the Good Friday Agreement, under which ECHR convention must be directly enforceable within Northern Ireland. Sunak has recently made headway regarding relations with Northern Ireland, and withdrawing from the ECHR would require a considerable amount of planning and negotiation to maintain peace within the region. Ultimately the success of the Illegal Migration Bill will be dependent on the government’s ability to either navigate or withdraw from existing human rights authorities, and handle the public’s response.