Read on Twitter
As you may have seen, on 10 Dec the Home Office quietly published a new Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules. This isn't big news (the rules are amended regularly), but these changes are noteworthy for 2 reasons - what they say, & why there wasn't more fanfare [THREAD]
The changes focus on asylum, and who the UK intends to process protection claims from post-Brexit. There's a good write up of what these changes mean in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/10/uk-to-deny-asylum-to-refugees-passing-through-safe-third-country, including excellent points from @ColinYeo1 [2/]
In a nutshell, we will reduce the number of protection claims accepted as valid. The plan is to "Enhance our capacity to treat as inadmissible to the UK asylum system asylum claims made by those who have passed through or have connections with a safe third country" [3/]
Why is this necessary? Well, if we were remaining in the EU, it woundn't be. Similar provisions already exist between member states, so the UK currently has the ability to return an asylum seeker to - say - France if that person could have had their claim processed there. [4/]
Leaving the EU puts an expiry date on our ability to use the reciprocal system so new rules take effect from 01 Jan 2021. But there's a problem: leaving the EU also means leaving behind the blanket acceptance by the EU27 to take back our eligible asylum seekers, so what now? [5/]
We don't have agreement with France, Germany, or anywhere to take back asylum seekers once we're a non-EU member, so what if they refuse? The new rules plan to ignore this; regardless of whether there is somewhere safe to return a person to, we will not process their claim. [6/]
That obviously is a problem - the UK has an international obligation to offer protection to those in need. If we ignore people because we're annoyed with how they travel, it is a dereliction of that duty & puts the UK in the territory of breaching international law, again. [7/]
You might be thinking, so what? These people have travelled to Italy, France etc, so why shouldn't they just claim asylum there? Also, the Home Office spins this as a plan to discourage "illegal" crossings of the Channel in small boats, not to deter "genuine" asylum seekers [8/]
That thinking is flawed. Human trafficking is abhorent & must be tackled, but that is a separate issue to the genuine need for safety & support for those seeking protection from persecution or war. The people risking their lives in dinghies need our help, not vilification [9/]
There's also a real NIMBY flavour to these arguments, that we shouldn't share responsibility for those in need because we didn't 'get' them first. This capitalises on our status as an island physically more separated from the countries from which refugees tend to originate. [10/]
But we shirk our responsibilities at our peril. It's yet another example of the UK turning its back on long-forged relationships with allies and friends, of relying on the phony argument of exceptionalism to justify shameful conduct on the international stage. [11/]
And it's also a damning indictment of the social and moral health of this nation during the supposed 'season of goodwill'. We have people in need of shelter and are not just telling them there's no room in the inn, we're denying them the opportunity to even ask for our help [12/]
So why isn't the Home Office more vocal about this great triumph in the fight against Channel crossings? Probably because in reality it's no win. If we can't get agreements from safe countries to 'take back' claimants, we're going to have to process the claims ourselves. [13/]
In truth, there's no viable alternative; we can't start sending asylum seekers back to war torn nations, it goes against everything the Refugee Convention stands for. So what we will achieve? Delay, delay in processing claimants genuine or otherwise. Nothing to shout about [END]
