Post by account_disabled on Mar 9, 2024 23:31:16 GMT -5
It is unfair to take harsh measures against “illegal migrants” when there is no legal route for refugees to cross the Channel – and it is time to stop blaming the refugees “The people traffickers are the real villains, legally and morally, in the small-boats drama. The UK Government should not muddy the moral waters by discrediting the refugees.” Summary The UK Government aims to deter refugees arriving in the UK in small boats by refusing to consider their claims and deporting them to Rwanda to seek asylum there, and a draft law to achieve this is progressing through the UK Parliament. The UN Refugee Agency says the law will be in breach of international law. Government ministers criticise the refugees for failing to claim asylum in France or somewhere else along the way, and for entering the UK illegally. This blog argues that the Government should stop blaming refugees for the situation, and pilot a legal route for refugees to seek asylum in the UK. There could be a combined work/asylum visa, targeting those refugees with a high chance of a successful asylum claim. And there could be a priority asylum visa for refugees unable to work.
A recap on the controversial draft law, which is officially titled the Illegal Migration Bill. The UK has a problem with criminal gangs trafficking asylum seekers across the Channel in small boats. The Government has introduced this Bill to stem the flow and break the traffickers’ business model. Asylum seekers who reach the UK would be prohibited from seeking asylum, and detained with a view to return to their country of origin, or removal to a safe third country for processing and possible resettlement. So far the only “safe country” in the offing is Rwanda. The Government says it believes its plans are consistent with international law, but has refused to certify to the UK Parliament that the Bill is USA Phone Number consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. The UN Refugee Agency says that it would amount to a ban on asylum and to a breach of the 1951 Refugee Convention. It remains to be seen whether the legislation, when passed, will withstand any legal challenges made against it in the UK courts or the European Court of Human Rights. The Government promises that the Bill will allow discussion of new safe routes, and an annual cap on the number of people entering via those safe routes. The Bill authorises the Government to identify safe and legal routes and to cap the numbers of people who may enter the UK using those routes. But the safe and legal routes will come later – after the new rules reduce the flow of asylum seekers across the Channel.
The Government makes the populist claim that its policy represents the “will of the people”. One reason for thinking this is a populist measure is that the UK Government insists that the Bill is the “will of the people”, and that opposing it is obstructing the will of the people. This is what populist parties do, they brand themselves as having a unique insight into what the people of a country want, they brand their policies as representing the will of the people, and they accuse those who oppose those policies as opposing the will of the people. But the public’s view is unsettled and they would support other options too The Government’s claim to represent the will of the people is unconvincing. Opinion poll research finds that if refugees are described as illegal migrants then support for the government’s policy exceeds 50% while if they are described as refugees support falls below 50%. And if those polled are asked to express a preference for the government’s policy over the alternative policy of speedy processing of asylum claims, support for the government’s policy dips to below 40% while 40% express a preference for the speedy processing option.
A recap on the controversial draft law, which is officially titled the Illegal Migration Bill. The UK has a problem with criminal gangs trafficking asylum seekers across the Channel in small boats. The Government has introduced this Bill to stem the flow and break the traffickers’ business model. Asylum seekers who reach the UK would be prohibited from seeking asylum, and detained with a view to return to their country of origin, or removal to a safe third country for processing and possible resettlement. So far the only “safe country” in the offing is Rwanda. The Government says it believes its plans are consistent with international law, but has refused to certify to the UK Parliament that the Bill is USA Phone Number consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. The UN Refugee Agency says that it would amount to a ban on asylum and to a breach of the 1951 Refugee Convention. It remains to be seen whether the legislation, when passed, will withstand any legal challenges made against it in the UK courts or the European Court of Human Rights. The Government promises that the Bill will allow discussion of new safe routes, and an annual cap on the number of people entering via those safe routes. The Bill authorises the Government to identify safe and legal routes and to cap the numbers of people who may enter the UK using those routes. But the safe and legal routes will come later – after the new rules reduce the flow of asylum seekers across the Channel.
The Government makes the populist claim that its policy represents the “will of the people”. One reason for thinking this is a populist measure is that the UK Government insists that the Bill is the “will of the people”, and that opposing it is obstructing the will of the people. This is what populist parties do, they brand themselves as having a unique insight into what the people of a country want, they brand their policies as representing the will of the people, and they accuse those who oppose those policies as opposing the will of the people. But the public’s view is unsettled and they would support other options too The Government’s claim to represent the will of the people is unconvincing. Opinion poll research finds that if refugees are described as illegal migrants then support for the government’s policy exceeds 50% while if they are described as refugees support falls below 50%. And if those polled are asked to express a preference for the government’s policy over the alternative policy of speedy processing of asylum claims, support for the government’s policy dips to below 40% while 40% express a preference for the speedy processing option.