For the seven decades since the United Kingdom put its name on the UN refugee convention in 1951, our country has provided a home for hundreds of thousands of people who have fled war, persecution and terror. They became proud and law-abiding British citizens, paying their taxes and making a huge contribution to society. In fact, among those who worked on the NHS as doctors and nurses during the pandemic, many people came to our shores as refugees.
As we mark the 70º anniversary of the convention, we should celebrate by welcoming refugees who need our protection. Instead, Interior Minister Priti Patel is trying to determine that asylum applications from people traveling to other “safe” countries are inadmissible, but at the same time grants indefinite leave of absence to people who go through the calls. legal avenues, such as resettlement schemes. This unfairly differentiates between refugees who deserve it and those who don’t, choosing to provide protection for those fleeing war and terrorism based on how they traveled to the UK.
Refugees are ordinary human beings who have had to take extraordinary measures to seek security. They have no choice – the threat to their lives is so great that they need to uproot themselves quickly and find a life elsewhere. Sometimes this involves paying large amounts to smugglers to get to a safe place in the UK.
If the government wants to defeat smugglers of people, as it claims to be the goal of its New Immigration Plan, it must open enough safe routes so that people are not forced to risk their lives in the hands of criminals. In the past five years, the United Kingdom has driven, through a resettlement scheme, 20,000 people from Syria displaced by the civil war that is ravaging the country. But this is a modest number – the equivalent of just six people in each parliamentary constituency each year. If the government is serious about helping those who really need protection, it must immediately expand safe routes to many more refugees. It is striking that President Biden has increased the US refugee limit to 125,000 people a year.
At the same time, it is important to understand that how a person arrives in the UK is not related to the need for protection. Not everyone can access a secure and regular system. For example, in Zimbabwe, people are persecuted if they oppose the government and are forced into hiding instead of crossing the border into a field to be registered by the UN.
The government is right to point out that the asylum system is not working as well as it should. There is an accumulation of more than 60,000 people waiting for a decision. Each of these cases represents a person who eagerly awaits news of his or her destiny. The quality of decision-making can be poor, resulting in more legal challenges, as basic information is neglected or ignored. These are life-and-death decisions, so it is vital that people have the opportunity to present all the evidence to support their requests.
Treating people with humanity and compassion, focusing on the human face behind the case – a critical lesson from the Windrush scandal – is what all people who seek safety deserve. And, like any of us, refugees want to live with their families, so the government must ensure that immigration rules allow them to meet with their loved ones in the UK, whether they have arrived through resettlement schemes or through own account. Current family reunion rules are limited and keep many families separate. This means that many refugees struggle to rebuild their lives here, as they are very concerned about relatives left behind and in danger.
The way people are treated while waiting for a decision on their asylum application says a lot about the type of country we live in. People fleeing the trauma of war and persecution need to be treated humanely and supported to integrate with the local community. The government’s proposals to shut people down at a reception center make this almost impossible. It would be much wiser to allow asylum seekers to work so that they do not have to be supported by the state. Business leaders recognize that this also makes economic sense.
Since the second world war, we have received people fleeing war and terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Zimbabwe, Syria and many other countries. Our businesses, utilities, arts, culture and educational establishments have all benefited as a result. Today, the reality is that the number of asylum applications is falling, not increasing. Britain is still one of the richest countries in the world, but we provide security for less than 1% of the world’s refugees.
“Global Britain,” which the prime minister says he wants to continue to play a leading role in responding to global challenges, must and can do more to help. We must be proudly demonstrating that refugee protection is a great British value, rather than creating a two-tier system, whereby some refugees are unfairly punished for the way they arrived in the UK. Differentiating refugees in this way is a stain on Global Britain – and on our long-standing reputation for providing protection.