Author: Hannah Wind
Location: Germany
Photo Credit: Illegal Migration Through the English Channel (Daly, T., & Dawkins, C. (2023, March 14). ‘The Illegal Migration Bill is not only deeply cruel. But also a shameless attempt to embolden extremism.’ The BristolCable. https://thebristolcable.org/2023/03/the-illegal-migration-bill-cruel-extremism-small-boats-%20refugees/)
SUMMARY
Considering the recent elections in the United Kingdom (UK), new Prime Minister Keir Starmer has scrapped the controversial ‘Rwanda Policy’ under which illegal immigrants and asylum seekers were supposed to be relocated from the UK to Rwanda. Instead, the Labour government has suggested the ‘Border Security Command’ (BSC) to tackle illegal migrant crossings into the UK. What is the BSC, and how does it differ from the initial Rwanda Policy?
BACKGROUND
As reported by the House of Lords, nearly 40.000 people have illegally entered the UK since March 2023. Many fled wars and political prosecution, crossing the English Channel in small boats and seeking asylum in the UK. However, per the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the UK does not have to grant asylum to those who have a connection to a safe third state.
Moreover, considering migration increasingly takes place outside the norms of the sending or receiving countries, the previous government enacted the Illegal Migration Act 2023, aiming to disincentivise refugees from coming into the UK illegally and to remove irregular migrants swiftly. While this act is seen as very controversial and questionable in terms of its compliance with international law, it would have been pivotal in effectively enforcing the Rwanda Policy.
The Rwanda Policy
The Rwanda policy was suggested by the government of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak and envisaged to minimise refugee arrivals through the English Channel. Per the policy, those immigrants identified as ‘illegal’ since 1 January 2022 would be deported to Rwanda, where the process of asylum and resettlement would have continued under allegedly ‘safe conditions.’
Although the UK Supreme Court found the policy to contradict fundamental human rights and, therefore, unanimously ruled that the scheme was unlawful, the government subsequently introduced a bill declaring Rwanda a safe country. This, however, stands in stark contrast with the reports of several human rights organisations, which highlight unlawful killings, torture in official state prisons, as well as arbitrary detentions within the Central African state.
Thus, sending people off to Rwanda would infringe upon the UK’s duty to prevent people from being exposed to torture and inhumane treatment, as well as other obligations under international human rights law, which the country contracted to by signing and ratifying documents like the European Convention on Human Rights, integrated into UK Law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Clash With the Rule of Law
Additionally, the bill violates the fundamental constitutional principles of the UK, including the rule of law. Amongst other things, the rule of law demands open, clear, and accessible laws that confine different state actors’ powers, thereby upholding political rights and moral duties.
However, as the bill stands, it suggests that every state instance would have to treat Rwanda as a safe country, thereby ultimately placing government above the law and defeating the rule of law. This, in conjunction with the incompatibility of the policy with the UK’s obligations under international law, erodes the constitutional foundation of the state.
The Border Security Command
First and foremost, it is for the above reason that newly elected Prime Minister Keir Starmer shelved the controversial policy and instead had new Home Secretary Yvette Cooper introduce the so-called ‘Border Security Command’ (BSC). The BSC is meant to protect the UK’s borders by, amongst other things, pursuing smuggling gangs that aid in small boat crossings.
To do so, expertise drawn together from intelligence agencies, the police, and other (governmental) instances will be united in one strategy, which will then be used to coordinate efficient and effective collaboration, essentially building one command structure to consolidate various border security functions.
According to the new government, “early legislation is being prepared to introduce new counter terror style powers and stronger measures to tackle organised immigration crime,” taking into account the different methods and tactics used to smuggle gangs across Europe. While the specific legal and political structure of the body is still being developed, it is clear that it will be confined within the framework of existing laws and international obligations, which reinforces the policy’s overall aim: ensuring border security while also addressing the threats faced by those who are migrating to the UK on ‘illegal’ routes.
Safeguarding the Rule of Law
Hence, comparing the BSC and the Rwanda Policy, it appears that the Rwanda Policy aims to tackle the specific issue of a migrant influx by outsourcing asylum seekers for resettlement. In contrast, the BSC focuses on overall border security, preventing illegal activities and immigration with strategies confined by the boundaries of UK and international law. This seems to suggest an assurance of security with an emphasis on respecting human rights, a point that the Rwanda policy was strongly criticised for.
Moreover, whereas the Rwanda policy constitutes a reactive measure, trying to solve issues related to asylum seeking and immigration after the arrival of migrants in the UK, the BSC follows a more proactive approach. The BSC aims to eradicate the roots of such issues by managing border security through better strategies. As this seems to be the more efficient way to resolve illegal migration while respecting human rights, it is expected that the BSC will face much less domestic and international opposition than the Rwanda policy.
Overall, while it remains to be seen how effectively and to what extent the newly suggested BSC can be implemented, it seems – on paper – a suitable approach to tackle illegal migration bearing in mind the respect for and importance of human rights.
REFERENCES
1) BBC News. (2024, June 13). What is the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda? https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866
2) Brown, T. (2024, January 25). Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill: HL Bill 41 of 2023- 24. House of Lords Library. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2024-0002/
3) Daly, T., & Dawkins, C. (2023, March 14). ‘The Illegal Migration Bill is not only deeply cruel. But also a shameless attempt to embolden extremism.’ The BristolCable. https://thebristolcable.org/2023/03/the-illegal-migration-bill-cruel-extremism-small-boats- refugees/
4) Goddard, J. (2024, May 3). Illegal migration: Dealing with inadmissible asylum applications. House of Lords Library. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/illegal-migration-dealing-with-inadmissible- asylum-applications/
5) Office, H. (2024, July 6). Home Secretary launches new Border SecurityCommand. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-launches-new-border- security-command
6) Pope, C. (2024, June 12). Labour’s immigration and border policy: How we’ll create a fair system and stop the small boat crossings. The Labour Party. https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours- immigration-and-border-policy-stop-small-boats/
Access URL here: https://af52232c-237c-4b2d-8b28-6c803d233b21.usrfiles.com/ugd/af5223_715167febbaf4c30bb1cf3b50a418826.pdf
Access PDF here:
Comentarios