The plight of migrants crossing the English Channel from France continues to divide popular opinion, as one group of UK MPs in particular calls for radical measures to curb the number of people making the journey.

CONSERVATIVE AND RIGHT-WING REACTION

The group of backbench Conservative MPs and peers, known as the “common sense group,” have claimed that the migrants are “invading” the country. They describe migrants as having been “welcomed,” saying that those who have survived the crossing are being accommodated in expensive hotels with immediate access to financial assistance. The group also called for Home Secretary Priti Patel to introduce more severe measures in prevention of channel crossings, including the use of royal navy warships. Patel appointed a former royal marine as a “clandestine channel threat commander” tasked with devising tactics to prevent crossings. The use of the navy during this crisis, however, may not be compatible with international law.

The controversial comments of this Conservative group do, however, seem to reflect the attitudes of some sections of wider society. A YouGov poll from August found that almost half of Britons have “little or no sympathy” for the individuals who have chosen to cross the Channel. Concerningly, the far-right has exploited such attitudes to push their anti-immigrant agenda. 

The same month, members of fascist organisation Britain First filmed themselves marching around and throughout a hotel they believed to be housing undocumented immigrants, asking residents where they came from and how long they had been in the UK. One of the members of the group claimed that British taxpayers’ money was paying for hotels to house migrants while other British people are living on the street. Such claims are questionable, seeing as financial support for those seeking asylum amounts to less than £38 per week.

CHANNEL CROSSING CRISIS

It was recently reported that the number of people who have crossed the Channel in small vessels in 2020 so far reached over five thousand, despite the inherent dangers of the voyage. On 19 August 2020, a Sudanese asylum seeker drowned after attempting to make the journey in a dinghy paddled by shovels. For many, this sparked memories of Alan Kurdi, the three year-old Syrian asylum seeker who drowned in 2015 after he and his family attempted to travel to Greece on a dinghy from Turkey. 

Nevertheless, the UK government persists in pursuing what has been called a “militarised” approach to the latest wave of crossings, focusing on making the voyage “unviable”. This is despite warnings from humanitarian groups that the only method likely to work in reducing crossings is “to improve safe and legal routes to the UK for asylum seekers”. Certainly, the desperation of many migrants and refugees and the now well-publicised dangers suggest that the government’s hard-line policy is unlikely to deter many.

There are also emerging reports that the UK government is now considering offshore detention centres to house asylum seekers, similar to those used in the past by Australia. There is even some suggestion that it could instate floating detention centres on ferries. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these plans have drawn serious concerns, particularly as Australia’s comparable centres were condemned by campaign groups and legal bodies for their human rights abuses.

THE UK’S LEGAL OBLIGATIONS 

Although politicians have discussed using the navy to deal with the crisis, such an approach may not be compatible with international law. The French government has stated that it considers such a move illegal, and immigration barrister Colin Yeo has further emphasised that to return migrants across the Channel, the UK government would need to form an agreement to that end with France. Migration researcher Dr. Maurice Stierl has also highlighted how maritime laws and conventions place an obligation on the UK to help migrants who are making the treacherous journey to safety.

Under international law, asylum seekers are not required to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter; this is affirmed in UK case law and legislation. Migrants who enter the UK can claim asylum, and, if they meet the Refugee Convention’s definition of a refugee, then they should be given refugee status. The Convention, a part of international law, defines a refugee as someone fleeing their country due to a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”. 

If the UK wants to deport an asylum seeker, it must do so under the criteria established in the Dublin III Regulation, which forms part of EU legislation. As asylum seekers can only be sent back to other EU member states, it is unlikely the Regulation goes against the Refugee Convention’s key principle of non-refoulement (not sending people back to somewhere they would be persecuted). UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, however, recently called for changes to the legal framework governing those seeking asylum, suggesting he wants to be able to deport more of those who reach British shores. The attitude of many politicians is concerning, as it conveys a disregard for international human rights law by taking a particularly hostile approach to a very vulnerable group of people.

Rhiannon is an LLB student at Swansea University, who intends to pursue a career at the Bar of England and Wales. She has particular interests in criminal and human rights law. She has sat on the committee of her university’s Bar Society and is incoming President of its Feminist Society.

LinkedIn