In March 2021, the Conservative Party announced a new scheme to deter refugees away from the UK, named the Nationality and Borders Bill. The scheme has three main plans, which include making the asylum-seeking system “fairer” and more “effective”, “to deter illegal entry”, and “to remove […] those with no right to be here”. In June 2021, Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, presented this plan to Parliament, but the consultation results were not published at the time.

THE RIGHT TO A NATIONALITY AND THE PROHIBITION OF ARBITRARY DETENTION

In November 2021, the Home Office stated that “British citizenship is a privilege, not a right”. However, according to the United Nations (UN), all people have the right to a nationality, as well as the right to change their citizenship pursuant to article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).  Additionally, the Refugee Council argues that the UK government “demonstrates its prioritisation of control over compassion and competence”.

Under article 9 UDHR, people are protected against “arbitrary detention”, however, the new bill allows security officials to detain people that have entered the UK via “illegal” routes. The refugees are handed “notices of intent”, which inform them that they will be sent offshore and that they have 14 days to appeal. This is an issue affecting refugees of all backgrounds, from those coming from Ukraine to those coming from Syria. A further cause for concern is that language barriers may be a problem for many when filling out paperwork, therefore effectively blocking refugees from accessing legal aid or asylum. 

The definition of “legality” may even be questioned from a philosophical point of view, as has been shown by this sudden change of law, legality is really defined by those in power. However, is the definition of legality in this circumstance used to define routes, or to define people?

DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT

Under article 14 UDHR, people have the right to seek asylum in other countries, however the new bill makes it harder to do so. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, told media sources that he would  “make it far, far easier, and much more easier [sic] for those who are fleeing Ukraine to come here”. However, refugees arriving in the UK from other war-torn countries are now being sent to Rwanda, highlighting a disparity in treatment between Ukrainians claiming asylum, and those arriving from other countries such as Syria. Furthermore, if anyone does enter the UK through “illegal” routes, they will be detained and sent to prison in the UK, as Priti Patel argues there is no reason for anyone to enter the UK via illegal routes.

While the Nationality and Borders Bill will criminalise those fleeing from countries such as Syria, the UK has allowed those fleeing from Ukraine to enter under relaxed circumstances. This differential treatment highlights the subtle racism of the UK government. Despite this, the bill is yet to deter refugees from making the dangerous journey across the channel. Additionally, this treatment has been analysed from the perspective of Noam Chomsky, who argues that this difference in circumstantial treatment is derived from being seen as “worthy or unworthy victims”.

CRITICISM OF THE GOVERNMENT AND QUESTIONS OF LEGALITY

The Archbishop of Canterbury has slammed the new policies, saying it is “against the nature of God” to send refugees to Rwanda and claims that it poses “serious ethical questions”. 

Francis Webber, who is the vice-chair of the Institute of Race Relations, offers further criticism of the government regarding its general approach towards ethnic minorities, particularly due to the insertion of clause 9 which allows the government to deprive an individual of their citizenship without having to give notice. Webber highlights that “this amendment sends the message that certain citizens, despite being born and brought up in the UK and having no other home, remain migrants in this country. Their citizenship, and therefore all their rights, are precarious and contingent”. This can place those who are ethnic minorities into a worrying situation, where they could face the risk of being sent to another country. Additionally, Webber suggests that the bill “unapologetically flouts international human rights obligations and basic norms of fairness”. Moreover, the United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has stated that the bill has not met standards for “legality” or “appropriateness” regarding the transfer of refugees to Rwanda. Again, this poses a question of legality towards the UK Government, and whether they are acting within the correct legal framework. Finally, Amnesty International’s chief executive addresses the plans to deport refugees as “irresponsible”.

The first flight scheduled to leave for Rwanda on June 14th was halted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), by imposing an order. Despite this, ministers are going to appeal the decision, showing an air of confidence for the next flight. This is supported by the UK government’s claims that they will introduce new legislation to override the ECHR’s decision. These new claims have also been targeted by Human Rights groups and church members. 

It has also been found that the Home Office are conducting immigration raids that serve to forcefully remove people from their homes, arguing that this is for the welfare of the British public. Glaswegian politicians have however called out for a ban on immigration raids, as well as various protests amongst the public, but Priti Patel has dismissed their calls.

In regards to legal punishment under the Nationality and Borders Bill, captaining a small boat can now be compared to serious crimes such as murder, meaning such persons will face life in prison. This may be harmful for those running to safety, as it places them at risk of being unable to seek asylum status. 

It is unclear what the UK government’s next move will be, but in the meantime, advocacy groups are continuing to actively retaliate against the deportation flights to Rwanda. Another issue that remains unclear is whether the UK government is actively breaking the law, there is mounting evidence to suggest this could be the case, but this judgement should reside with the UN.

Charlotte is currently a student who aspires high in her academics. She is a strong critical thinker with strong attainments in sociological and political subjects.

Linkedin