Labour’s narrative on immigration ignores international and humanitarian obligations, argues Nadine Finch
Keir Starmer was in Canada at the weekend discussing global challenges around the theme of the axis of insecurity. This he framed as insecurity arising because of Ukraine, the economy, the climate and for him, in particular, the need for border controls.
There was no attempt to link any of these themes together and acknowledge that internationally states are concerned that climate change will accelerate forced migration from a large number of non-European states. Neither did he refer to the labour shortages currently being experienced in the NHS, the care sector and the hospitality industry. All of these are suffering from a shortage of skilled migrants caused by Brexit and also by the perception that the UK is now a hostile environment for all migrants. He also did not seem to have any understanding that the conflict in Ukraine has severely disrupted traditional migration routes through Asia and driven them south. Merely closing the borders is not an answer to these complex global challenges.
Yet, his primary message was the verbal equivalent of waving the Union Jack, as a solution to problems that need expert consideration and a greater understanding of Britain’s role in a post-colonial world, where a number of states struggle to overcome the consequences of invasions and economic exploitation by states that are more politically powerful and well-connected. Neither does it recognise that many active individuals in the Labour Party and the wider labour movement are themselves first or second generation migrants who well understand the need to seek safety and survival abroad and who have contributed and continue to contribute a great deal to the UK community.
Legally, one of the tasks of the modern state is to defend its borders. But, for the last century, states have also been under international obligations to offer protection to individuals who are being persecuted on grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or as members of a particular social group, for example, as women or children or other social group.
The small boats only started to cross the English Channel in 2018, when a succession of governments, both Tory and Labour, had introduced such stringent controls that it was increasingly difficult for individuals to fly into the UK or use Eurostar or a ferry in order to apply for asylum. It is a false narrative to assert that migrant smugglers merely tout for passengers. Individuals or their families are prepared to pay large sums to ensure that they or their relatives can reach safety with family members or established communities in Britain, even if the one remaining route is in a small inflatable boat across the busiest shipping route in the world.
Asylum seekers have been forced to pay smugglers because the Refugee Convention requires individuals to arrive in a state before they can claim asylum. There are no visas for asylum seekers which can be issued abroad. A very small number of refugees are recognised by UNHCR in refugee camps abroad and then allocated to the UK. There are also small resettlement schemes for Afghan, Syrian and Sudanese nationals. In 2022, this led to 5,792 people being resettled. It left many others at risk of death, torture and persecution. This is why the largest proportion of those in small boats are from Afghanistan.
In the debate about small boats, mention is seldom made of the fact that in 2022, 45% of asylum seekers had had to enter by small boats or the fact that, overall, 76% of asylum seekers were granted refugee status by the Home Office initially and, of the remaining 24%, 43% were granted international protection on appeal. Nor was it mentioned that 98% of Afghan applicants, 99% of Syrian applicants and 100% of Eritrean applicants are successful.
By concentrating on the need to criminalise smugglers, the Labour Party narrative ignores international and humanitarian obligations, which should be a cornerstone of a progressive foreign policy.
At the same time, bilateral returns policies may not be possible until the UK repeals the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and other immigration legislation which places it in breach of a range of international obligations to asylum seekers and those who may have been trafficked. There is also an implicit message in the proposed measures to be taken by a future Labour Government that a large number of those coming in will be returned. This does not correlate with the figures for grants of asylum in 2022, which show the extent to which those entering are entitled to international protection.
It is hoped that there will be a discussion on migration issues at Labour’s Conference this year and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy has been circulating a model motion. Two wards and one union branch in Islington North CLP have put forward a variation on this motion for discussion at the CLP conference resolution later this week. It reads:
- The Illegal Migration Act 2023 prevents those arriving in the UK irregularly by any means, not just small boats, from being entitled to asylum, if they have passed through any country – however briefly – where they did not face persecution.
- The Act does not comply with the UN Conventions on Refugees or the Rights of the Child and parts of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- In 2022, 76% of those who claimed asylum here were granted international or humanitarian protection of some sort.
- In 2022, the existing and very limited alternative safe routes to the UK only provided resettlement to 5,792 individuals.
- The failure by the Home Office to process asylum applications has led to a backlog of 175,000 cases.
- Whilst the UK remains in breach of international migration law, other states risk similar breaches if they enter into return agreements with it.
- That the reasons why people need to migrate – from war, from devastating climate change and from poverty continue to increase.
- That the majority of migrants remain in countries nearby those from which they flee.
Conference believes:
- A future Labour government must repeal all asylum legislation that breaches international law.
- A future Labour government should recognise the benefits that migration has brought to the UK.
- A future Labour government should work with experts and NGOs to devise an asylum system which complies with international law.
Nadine Finch is a former barrister who specialised in human rights law and is the author of several books on family, immigration and comparative law. She writes in a personal capacity.
Image: Migrants in the English Channel. Creator: Sandor Csudai. Copyright: Sandor Csudai. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Labour Hub 