‘Morally repugnant’ or outright ‘unlawful’? UK Home Office’s tough asylum policies face increased opposition

The UK Home Office’s asylum policies under Home Secretary Priti Patel have once again come under fire from various charity NGOs and some political opponents who accuse the government of breaking the law to facilitate expulsions.

The scandal around the deportation of 50 Jamaicans (only 13 of whom eventually landed on the Caribbean island) has barely subsided, but now the British Home Office is facing another series of accusations, this time referring to the alleged breaches of law in processing the supposed victims of human trafficking and torture as well as undue persecution of asylum seekers steering boats across the Channel.

‘Facilitators’ or ‘victims’?

Patel reportedly repeatedly branded those navigating the boats through the waters of the English Channel “people smugglers” as she vowed to make the route “unviable” following the record number of arrivals this summer. Such asylum seekers were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which began charging them with “assisting unlawful immigration.”

The CPS also issued guidance in October that said such charges are fairly applicable in these cases since the suspects “facilitated” the journeys anyway, the Independent reports. The practice, however, did not sit well with some of the Tories’ political opponents. Stuart McDonald, the Scottish National Party’s spokesperson on immigration, called the policy “morally repugnant” while saying it is based on “dubious legality.”

“This is clearly all about the home secretary’s horrendous political posturing rather than any sensible analysis of law, policy, or fairness,” he told the Independent. Meanwhile some legal groups and NGOS sent Patel and the director of public prosecutions, Max Hill, letters warning them about the potential illegality of such actions.

Chai Patel, a legal policy director of one such group, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) said in his missive that the UK government’s actions might violate the UN Refugee Convention as it states that refugees cannot face penalties over their illegal entry or presence on a territory of a nation.

He also argued that the policy is ineffective and “irrational” since it targets the victims of the persecution but has little deterrent effect when it comes to the Channel crossings. “We have considerable doubts as to the legality of this new policy. We request that you suspend all such referrals,” the JCWI said.

The government, however, appears to be sticking to its chosen approach. “If somebody is facilitating these crossings, they are not a victim; they are a perpetrator,” Chris Philp, a parliamentary undersecretary of state for immigration compliance, told the parliament’s Home Affair Select Committee on Wednesday.

The CPS responded to the JCWI letter by saying that each and every case referred to it “is independently considered on its own merits,” goes through the necessary legal tests and is assessed in regards to the public interest.

Whether the scope of the issue is significant enough, is another matter, though. According to the Independent, eight men have been jailed so far this year on such charges.

Rushed deportation?

Another issue raised by the NGOs refers to the fact that the Home Office might be rushing to expel some asylum seekers back to the EU before the end of the Brexit transition period deprives the British government of such an opportunity based on the EU’s Dublin convention.

Unless another transfer accord is agreed, London would be unable to return refugees to the EU country where they first claimed asylum – something it can still do under the Dublin agreement. Now, the UK authorities have allegedly cut the processing of asylum applications short to facilitate speedy repatriations before the end of the transition period in January, some legal and charity groups monitoring the process claim.

Reports about asylum applicants supposedly not being asked two key questions: “Why have you come to the UK?” and “Please outline your journey to the UK” appear to be a particular point of contention. The lawyers and charity groups supporting the refugees say this allows the authorities to send victims of trafficking and modern slavery away.

“Skipping sections of your own due process to avoid listening to details of trafficking that would require a more careful approach to the person in front of you is staggeringly cynical,” Sarah Teather, the director of a UK branch of the Jesuit Refugee Service – an international Catholic group – told the Guardian.

The group that currently supports 11 refugees who say they have been victims of trafficking, forced labor and torture on their journey to the UK, says the British authorities are violating a recent interim High Court order demanding these two questions be asked.

Eight out of 11 asylum seekers, who either say that their screenings were cut short or that the key questions were not asked, are scheduled to be deported this week.

The Home Office denies there are any flaws in its actions. “All individuals due to be removed have or will have been through a screening interview, which includes updated questions on trafficking, prior to removal. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate,” a Home Office spokesperson told the Guardian.

“We remain determined to fix the broken asylum system so that it is firm and fair and make no apology for removing those with no right to remain in the UK.”

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!