UK’s controversial asylum plan explained

Britain is facing a domestic and international backlash after unveiling contentious legislation to overhaul the way it handles migrants crossing the Channel on small boats. 

– What has UK announced? –

The Illegal Migration Bill places a legal duty on the interior minister to deport anyone who enters the UK illegally, superseding their other rights under human rights conventions.

They would be deported home or to a “safe third country”, such as Rwanda, under an existing UK plan, where they could then claim asylum.

Legal challenges or human rights claims would be heard in that country. Applicants would be disqualified from using British laws aimed at preventing modern slavery to stop their deportation.

ALSO READ: UK government accuses asylum seekers of ‘abusing the system’

Illegal entrants who are removed also face a lifetime ban on citizenship and re-entry to the UK.

The government is promising new “safe and legal routes” for refugees, but has yet to spell those out.

Lawmakers would set an annual quota for legal refugees eligible to settle in Britain.

– Why is the UK proposing this? –

More than 45,000 arrivals from across the Channel were recorded last year, with 3,150 already having made the journey so far in 2023.

ALSO READ: UK to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda

Interior minister Suella Braverman says that as many as 80,000 could cross by the end of the year, and that the “broken” asylum system is costing UK taxpayers £3 billion ($3.55 billion) annually.

She and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also argue that their approach is more “compassionate” than allowing cross-Channel tragedies to occur.

In November 2021, at least 27 people drowned when their fragile dinghy deflated.

But the government says that in any case, many of the migrants are coming for economic reasons rather than for genuine asylum needs.

Last year, the largest contingent came from Albania, which has already agreed a return policy with Britain to take its illegal migrants back.

– Is it legal? –

Britain is a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which sets numerous responsibilities for countries towards people fleeing persecution or war. 

Criticising the UK bill, the UN refugee agency noted that the convention explicitly allows people to flee their homeland and claim asylum elsewhere without passports or other papers.

Britain also has obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to avoid putting people at risk of torture or other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment.

ALSO READ: Asylum seekers held on trespassing charges

The country’s own 1998 Human Rights Act also offers asylum-seekers various protections.

Braverman insists the draft law complies with international law.

But in a note to MPs at the beginning of the 66-page bill, she acknowledged she was “unable” to assess that its provisions are compatible with the ECHR.

– What responses have there been? –

The bill has drawn vocal support from many Conservative MPs and right-wing newspapers after serial vows by governments to crack down on cross-Channel migration.

But critics including UK rights groups and United Nations agencies have expressed deep concern.

The Refugee Council has said it is “unworkable, costly and won’t stop the boats”, while the Doctors Without Borders charity called it “cruel and inhumane”.

The main opposition Labour party wants the money spent instead on a crackdown on criminal gangs behind the cross-Channel traffic, arguing that the government’s plan will do nothing to deter them.

BBC football presenter Gary Lineker, a longtime critic of the government’s migration policies, even compared the new plan to the rhetoric of Nazi-era Germany.