Recently we joined almost 150 other faith leaders, charities, and organisations in an open letter to the Government, asking it to reverse a decision which effectively banned tens of thousands of refugees from ever becoming British citizens.

The background is this. Any person seeking naturalisation has to be of ‘good character’ in order to succeed. On February 10th, the Government changed the ‘good character’ guidance to state that people would ‘normally’ be excluded if they had arrived illegally at any time, or had arrived without previous clearance via a dangerous journey. It gave as examples of such journeys arrival by small boat or by concealment (ie in a lorry). The guidance would apply not only to people entering the UK in the future, but also to those who entered in the past, but have not yet applied for UK citizenship.

The open letter makes three arguments:

• that labelling a particular group of refugees in this way risks playing into a toxic politics that pits ‘us vs them’
• that the measure runs contrary to previous Labour strategies, which promoted citizenship as a means of integration
• that citizenship is vital for people to feel safe and integrate: “Citizenship is not just a legal status; it is a tangible fulfilment of the promise of safety, dignity, and opportunity.”

You can read the full letter here.

Relationship with the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

The change in guidance may well have been undertaken to forestall criticism of an important positive move: the Government’s new Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is abolishing one of the most flagrantly problematic elements of the ‘Illegal Migration Act’, the provision that anyone arriving irregularly had no right to enter, remain, settle or obtain citizenship. This provision was, UNHCR warned, “at variance with the country’s obligations under international human rights and refugee law.” Removing it establishes that people arriving irregularly do indeed have the right to apply for asylum.

This is crucial. Denying the right to apply for asylum, as the UK had, undercuts a key principle of common humanity, not to mention human rights law – that people have the right, when suffering persecution or oppression, to flee for safety. So the UK’s change of stance is important for the relatively few people who will come here – but it is arguably more important as a country’s taking a stand to reinforce international laws and norms, at a time when they are increasingly under pressure. And they are under pressure: the US, for example, is severely restricting asylum applications and has rendered them practically impossible at the Mexican border.

Three points on asylum policy

1. Immigration lawyer Colin Yeo  and others have noted that the current provision is still in breach of Article 31 of the Convention, which prohibits discrimination towards refugees based on their mode of arrival. If the Government aims to provide a more humane system that is fully compatible with international law, therefore, it should not include this guidance.
2. While almost all of the Illegal Migration Act is being replaced, Labour is not dropping some of the most concerning elements. These include:
   1. the ban against asylum seekers who have arrived irregularly making use of the protections offered to people who have been trafficked into modern slavery. This was among the most controversial elements of the original bill: Labour opposed it – Keir Starmer talked of its ‘driv[ing] a coach and horses’ through protections for women trafficked into modern slavery – as did many Conservatives, including former Prime Minister Theresa May. As Prime Minister May said at the time, banning people from seeking assistance under modern slavery provisions simply makes them more vulnerable and increases the hold traffickers have on them. It doesn’t do anything to stop the traffickers.

   2. Power to detain asylum seekers, including children, with relatively little judicial oversight.

   3. As Safe Passage has noted: “A restrictive cap on the number of people coming through safe routes – which, while not yet in use, remains in legislation and could be implemented in the future.”

3. The strategy for tackling issues around migration still feels reactive, piecemeal, and undertaken without sufficient consultation with other parties. During  the House of Lords’ debates on the Illegal Migration Act, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, tabled an amendment asking for a 10-year strategy, worked out with other members of the Refugee Convention, that would tackle crises in migration and human trafficking. With the growth of people displaced by conflict – 2.4 million in Gaza, 7 million in the DRC, 12 million in Sudan, alone – and suffering under oppressive regimes, this is a crucial need. All countries need to work together to ensure that there is a system that is fit for purpose.

What can we do?

Talking with politicians

There are petitions available to sign about the citizenship ban: Safe Passage has one. If signing a petition is all you can do, please do it!

Petitions, however, are not as effective as personal contact. If you can write an email or letter to your MP, explaining your concern, that’s ideal. It doesn’t have to be long or elaborate. We would recommend including:

• a statement of your concern about the change to the good character guidance, which will make it almost impossible for people who arrive after dangerous voyages to become citizens, even if they are granted refugee status
• a statement about why you feel refugees should be able to be citizens, regardless of how they arrived in the country. This can be really simple: you might want to talk about integration or about fairness to people fleeing conflict … whatever is your motivation.
• a reminder that people take unsafe journeys because there are not enough safe routes. If you have time, you could mention the latest All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees’ latest report, which advocates for increased safe routes.

That’s it!

We’d also love to work with some Christians and churches on building up conversations with MPs about asylum seekers and refugees. If you’d be interested, email us.

Praying

Dear Lord,
We ask that you will guide politicians
As they consider how to respond
To people making unsafe journeys.

Help them to see each person as beloved
And to offer people fleeing persecution
A haven of safety, the right to start anew,
And the opportunity truly to belong.