Priti Patel has been accused of “pandering to bad instincts” with her plan to crack down on asylum seekers and refugees arriving in the
UK across the Channel.
Lord Alf Dubs, a prominent campaigner for refugees’ rights, told HuffPost UK the home secretary’s plans were “not a workable system” as he called for international agreement on sharing responsibility for asylum seekers.
It came as the
British Red Cross branded Patel’s plans for a “two-tier” system “inhumane”, and the UN’s refugee agency stressed that “people have a universal right to seek asylum, even when they arrive without documents or by non-traditional means”.
Patel has said “the most significant overhaul of our asylum system in decades” would tackle “illegal migration head-on” by making life harder for those who arrive on boats or lorries across the Channel.
But she has been criticised for proposing to deport anyone who arrives in the UK via irregular means, such as crossing the Channel in a boat, to any “safe country” they have travelled through – for example, France.
If this is not possible, but their asylum claim is successful and they are recognised as refugees genuinely fleeing war or persecution by the UK authorities, they will still face the ongoing threat of deportation, with the first review 30 months after they arrive.
Patel has stopped short of some of the most hardline measures she was reported to be considering, although she still plans to change the law to make it possible to ship asylum seekers offshore while their claims are processed.
Border Force will also be given powers to stop and redirect boats back to where they came from, according to a policy statement.
But both these measures require international agreement.
Dubs, who fled the Nazis as a child refugee, said Patel’s proposals will prove unworkable without wider international agreement on sharing the responsibility for asylum seekers.Dubs said it was wrong to treat asylum seekers differently depending on how they arrive in the UK. He insisted “people are fleeing terrible situations”, including young men who want to escape, for example, recruitment by the
Taliban.
The peer also criticised the government for closing down legal routes to refugee status, including resettlement schemes for lone children in Europe.
“It’s just not a workable system. She’s pandering to bad instincts and is not really doing this properly,” Dubs said.
“You can’t run a system by saying we’re going to keep people out, and then treating them as second class citizens if they get here.
“This is driven by politics, not by a wish to have a sensible policy.
“The only way to have a sensible policy is ensuring there are legal routes to safety, which she’s been closing down.
“Secondly, you need a broad agreement with other countries as to how we can fairly and properly share responsibility, and she’s not doing any of those.”
Dubs pointed out that while the UK received 31,752 asylum applications in the year ending September 2020, according to the UNHCR, European countries like
France had more than 81,000 last year, according to Eurostat.
Dubs said: “They say: ‘Why shouldn’t they stay in France?’ If France had nearly three times as many applications as we had, the answer is: ‘Most of them do.’”
British Red Cross chief executive Mike Adamson said: “We should not judge how worthy someone is of asylum by how they arrived here.
“The proposals effectively create an unfair two-tiered system, whereby someone’s case and the support they receive is judged on how they entered the country and not on their need for protection.
“This is inhumane.”
The UNHCR said it would work with the government on improving the asylum system but suggested plans to deport people to “safe countries” risk undermining protection around the world and could breach international law.
Home Office sources have insisted the plans are compliant with the 1951 Refugee Convention and European Convention on Human Rights.
UNHCR spokesperson Matthew Saltmarsh said: “Externalisation arrangements often run counter to the spirit of international solidarity and burden-sharing.
“They risk a gradual erosion of the international protection system, which has withstood the test of time and which we have a collective responsibility to safeguard.
“They often result in forced transfers to countries with inadequate protection safeguards and resources, and therefore risk breaching international refugee law and
Human Rights obligations.”
Responding to criticism, Patel said she would work with the Red Cross and other organisations to create safe and legal routes for asylum seekers to come to the UK.
“What is inhumane is allowing people to be smuggled through illegal migration and that is what we want to stop,” she told
BBC Breakfast.
“We will create safe and legal routes to enable people to come to the
United Kingdom in a safe way so that they can also be resettled in the United Kingdom and that is a fundamental change we want to bring in.”Related...Refugees Face Ongoing Deportation Threat In Priti Patel’s ‘Unjust’ Asylum CrackdownThe Truth Behind Seven Myths About Asylum Seekers45,000 Asylum Seekers Have Been Waiting More Than 6 Months For A Home Office Decision