I spent much of yesterday angry about the illegal, and in my opinion, fascist inspired actions of our government in promoting the Illegal Migration Bill.
I happen to think few Bills more aptly named: this one is an illegal Migration Bill because, as the Bill itself acknowledged, it may not comply with international law and the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. That Convention was, of course, promoted by Winston Churchill as a bulwark against the fascism that his own Tory successors are embracing.
I do recognise that there are those who know more about this than me. So, let me share this press release from the office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees on this issue:
Statement on UK Asylum Bill
07 March 2023UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, is profoundly concerned by the asylum bill introduced by the UK Government to the House of Commons today. In its current form, the Bill compels the Home Secretary to deny access to the UK asylum system to those who arrive irregularly. Rather than being provided with protection, these asylum-seekers would instead be subject to detention in the UK, while arrangements are pursued to remove them to another country.
The legislation, if passed, would amount to an asylum ban – extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be, and with no consideration of their individual circumstances.
The effect of the bill (in this form) would be to deny protection to many asylum-seekers in need of safety and protection, and even deny them the opportunity to put forward their case. This would be a clear breach of the Refugee Convention and would undermine a longstanding, humanitarian tradition of which the British people are rightly proud.
Most people fleeing war and persecution are simply unable to access the required passports and visas. There are no safe and “legal” routes available to them. Denying them access to asylum on this basis undermines the very purpose for which the Refugee Convention was established. The Convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.
Based on the Home Office's most recently published data, the vast majority of those arriving to the UK in small boats over the Channel would be accepted as refugees were their claims to be determined. Branding refugees as undeserving based on mode of arrival distorts these fundamental facts.
International law does not require that refugees claim asylum in the first country they reach. Returns or transfers to safe third countries may nonetheless be appropriate if certain thresholds are met – in particular, if Refugee Convention rights will be respected there, and the arrangement helps share the responsibility for refugees equitably among nations. The framework in place between EU member states is an example of such an arrangement. Currently, the UK is not part of any such agreement, and its bilateral arrangement with Rwanda fails to meet the necessary international standards. As such, asylum-seekers arriving in the UK irregularly would find themselves in limbo, unable to claim protection in line with the Convention.
UNHCR shares the UK Government's concern regarding the number of asylum-seekers resorting to dangerous journeys, not only across the Channel but also elsewhere, as in the Mediterranean. Making the asylum system work is key to tackling this challenge. Fast, fair and efficient case processing, as well as enhanced reception conditions, would accelerate the integration of those found to be refugees and facilitate the swift return of those who have no legal basis to stay. UNHCR has presented the UK Government with concrete and actionable proposals in this regard and welcomes constructive, ongoing efforts to clear the current asylum backlog. UNHCR continues to support the UK Government in strengthening its asylum system and addressing such challenges directly.
UNHCR will also continue to work with the UK Government to expand safe, regular pathways for refugees to reach the UK, including through resettlement. While critical, these remain very limited, and can never substitute for access to asylum.
UNHCR also welcomes the UK's enhanced dialogue with France and encourages efforts to enhance regional cooperation with its European neighbours to address current challenges.
We urge the Government, and all MPs and Peers, to reconsider the Bill and instead pursue more humane and practical policy solutions.
In summary, they are saying:
- The UK is denying the right to asylum here.
- Claiming illegality of entry as a bar to entry when claiming asylum is oxymoronic because refugees almost inevitably lack legal status.
- No one has to apply for asylum in the first country they reach.
- The UK government rhetoric on this whole issue is inappropriate.
- That is most especially the case as we have no appropriate arrangements in place for transferring genuine asylum seekers to another country.
- We will, therefore, leave genuine asylum seekers in limbo if we seek to expel them, abusing their rights as a result.
- We are failing in our international duty.
I agree with the UNHCR. Their comments are especially appropriate when:
- We already take very few refugees.
- We chose to end our refugee repatriation system by doing Brexit.
- We are not investing the money required in refugee application processing, spending money on hotels instead, meaning we are deliberately creating this so-called crisis.
- We could end the people smuggling by opening legal routes to come to the UK, including by allowing prior application and by giving safe passage on cross channel ferries.
All this being said, reason does not work with this government. After all, they know this law may not pass. They also know that if it does it may still not get through any court. And they have acknowledged its illegality already.
None of these, however, deters them, because this law is about the promotion of hatred of ‘the other' as the fascist rule book requires. That is because this is the type of fascist law Churchill said should never happen again. It is, however, doing so. Right here, right now, yesterday, we saw fascist legislation proposed in the UK parliament. And that is truly frightening.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
There are several “angles” to this. The human rights one, and, if I may, an economic one.
Bare supermarket shelves in the Uk (it does not grow enough stuff itself & is unable to get enough people to pick the stuff it does grow).
Not enough nurses, doctors, ambulance drivers, plumbers, electricians, builders………the list is long (police?)
People to re-build infrastructure – e.g. sewers/sewage-non-system (substituted by chucking it all into rivers)
People to build the renewables that the Uk needs (& undertake energy efficiency measures)
I’d hazard a guess that most refugees would make good Uk citizens and would welcome the chance to be trained and have a useful job.
The tories? they seem to see such people as ravening hordes – perhaps by demonising them the tories hope to make the looming electoral disaster a bit less of a disaster.
I’m trying to remember who in the later 1920s and 1930s did the same (demonisation) with another group – perhaps somebody can remind me?
Cynicism, they name is tory.
Fascism?
Absolutely agreed. This is how desperate the Tories are in appealing to people’s prejudices and the lies about how we ‘can’t afford it’. Next up, they will pick an argument with Laboured and try to back them into corner. Desperate, desperate tactics and potentially powerful too.
But what really sickens me about this is the wider political failure to stop the source of asylum seekers and refugees in the first place. We don’t seem to have learned anything do we since the Jews of Europe clamoured to be free of the Nazis and they were turned away or put under limited quotas. We need to export democracy and liberalism and build relationships with these countries.
And its not as if we are the most welcoming country is it? Even during New Labour, the way immigrants were dispersed around the country was piecemeal with very little financing of help to help them bed into local communities.
What does that tell you about how desperate these people are to get away from something.
The other thing that gets me is that we are so keen on playing up to our ‘decent chap’ image on the world stage that we forget that this is what makes us a target for desperate people anyway so what do you expect?
After too many years of unneeded austerity and divisive fascism in the press and government that ‘decent chap’ thing is just a mirage I’m afraid. These immigrants are coming to a divided and increasingly angry country that is getting more salty by the day.
They want you to be angry. That seems to be the whole point – to get enough people angry – on both sides, to have it challenged by the UN, even in the courts – so as to keep the ‘small boats’ in the headlines all the way to the election.
That is why they trailed it for four days to get arguments to and fro, and headlines in the fascist press – before they had published a word of the bill. Now they will excpect weeks of ‘discussion’ on the BBC – etc etc
Maybe the best approach is ridicule – the ‘Pretend to Tackle Migration’ bill , not to take it seriously on its own terms, while also calmly pointing out that it is indeed straight out of the fascist 1930’s playbook.
What Gary Lineker said.
What did he say?
BBC website
Responding to message setting out the policy by Ms Braverman, Lineker tweeted: “Good heavens, this is beyond awful.”
Told by another user he was “out of order”, he added: “We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries.
“This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?”
It is not clear which language in particular Lineker was referring to, but Ms Braverman’s video and accompanying tweet included the words “enough is enough” and “we must stop the boats”.
Following the comments, the Home Secretary told BBC One’s Breakfast: “I’m disappointed, obviously. I think it’s unhelpful to compare our measures, which are lawful, proportionate and – indeed – compassionate, to 1930s Germany.
“I also think that we are on the side of the British people here.”
They are not on my side
Responding to a video message setting out the policy by Ms Braverman, Lineker tweeted: “Good heavens, this is beyond awful.”
Told by another user he was “out of order”, he added: “We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries.
“This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?”
I liked and retweeted the second before it disappeared
I liked his comeback
great to see freedom of speech champions out in force this morning demanding silence from those with whom they disagree
followed by
I never known such love support in my life than I’m getting this morning (World cup goals aside possibly)I want to thank each and every one of you It means a lot. I’ll try to continue to speak up for those poor souls who have no voice. Cheers all.
I heard snippets of discussions about this yesterday on Radio 4 news whilst on a long journey – I too was truly sickened, so much so that I had to turn the radio off at times. It does indeed feel like Third Reich tactics, so dehumanising is the vocabulary. The press are whipping up a sense of fear and crisis from a situation that in reality touches few people. There is no sense that “these migrants” are actually human beings with families, feelings, histories…. no stories to illustrate the unbearable situations they are escaping, no talk of the family connexions or ability to speak some English that might bring them here, no stories of those who’ve been successful and contributed massively to our society…. so much for balance! Truly disturbing.
Indeed
This is a link to the description of the legal routes available:
https://t.co/1q7fw2FyE6
It’s interesting to me though as an observer that many downsides of the new law are suggested while none of the upsides are mentioned. A centre left commentator would claim there are more of the first than the second. A far left commentator would only talk about the first, get the word fascist in several times to really ram that fence post in hard and not even acknowledge the second.
There are no upsides
And this is fascist legislation
Go on Ronald – give us a list of the upsides you see in this.
Strange – no upsides identified. Perhaps there are none of the policies themselves.
I could suggest a couple of unintended upsides.
These plans demonstrate quite how awful the current government is, and the Home Secretary in particular. (Five Conservative prime ministers since 2010: Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak – it takes some really effort for that series to continue to get even worse – the real risk was that we would replace Johnson – malevolent but lazy and incompetent- with someone who was just as evil but better at implementation. Ditto Trump, by the way.)
And they have opened a space to discuss how few asylum claimants and refugees there actually in the UK compared to our European neighbours let along Turkey, how badly our immigration system is failing after 13 years of Conservative government, and to design a better, more humane, and more effective way to deal with people moving to the UK. Not least how human rights laws are there to protect everyone against the careless cruelty of a banal bureaucracy.
Please would you help to redress the balance by listing the upsodes, for those who are unable to see them. Thank you so much.
One of the great ironies of this issue is that the main reason there are so many people in the world with justifiable asylum seekers claims is that there are far too many countries in the world that are run by people who share the mindset of Suella Braverman.
We still, just about, can vote to get rid of Braverman and the vicious people she represents, Asylum seekers do not have that choice.
Totally agree with Mike P, PSR and Andrew Broadbent. Nauseating twaddle from an utterly incompetent, cynical and immoral ‘government’ derived from a party of selfish, greedy hypocrites and idiots. One of whom is Braverman herself, the daughter of an Asian immigrant allowed into the UK in 1968 as he was fleeing increasing hostility in Kenya aimed at Afrian Asians. And her mother is an immigrant too.
So having seen her immigrant parents do well for themselves in the UK, well enough apparently to send her to a private school, she doesn’t think others in her father’s situation should get the same chances?
The self-regard is sickening. Her parents were ‘deserving’ immgrants in the 1960’s, but those fleeing war, persecution and poverty now aren’t? Selfish, selfish, selfish – no wonder she’s a tory politician.
As Mike says, most of these people would jump at the chance to get a job and contribute to the UK, in just the same way as her parents did. In fact, as I recall, studies show most immigrants contribute more to the UK than the indigenous (‘indigs as I call us) population.
Still, as PSR points out, we’ve never been the generous and welcoming country to refugees we like to imagine ourselves as. You hear endlessly of the 10,000 Jewish children let in on the Kindertransports; rather less about their parents or the thousands of other Jews we DIDN’T let in before WW11, who were subsequently murdered by the Third Reich.
And of course, Andrew is also 100% correct about how the pricks in this ‘government’ want to keep this issue in the headlines to try and shore up their support. Presumably support from the the most stupid, bitter , vivious and racist sections of the electorate.
By chance, I fell on Sunak’s Statement & Press Conference live on BBC World. I waited in vain for the obvious question ‘You say you want to help the most vulnerable. What are the legal routes available to such people trying to escape from countries where – for the most part – British embassies no longer exist?’ Of course the questioners were selected by Mr Sunak himself who was thus free to choose journalists least likely to trouble him and I’m not sure the live feed continued to the end, but I heard no-one from, for example, The Guardian – who at least got it right in today’s strong editorial. But how many people will read that?
The previous evening I had watched a moving and powerful interview on Hard Talk with a guy (sorry, I forget his name) who arrived in the UK from Afghanistan as an adolescent in the 90s by a route now deemed ‘illegal’, overcame all obstacles to fulfil his dream of becoming a doctor and now works in the NHS as a much respected A&E doctor. He was understandably enraged by this bill, pointing out that he and others like him simply had – and still have – no other option to escape from authoritarian regimes where dissent is not tolerated and their lives may be in danger. He also said he had experienced much kindness from the British people. So we can only live in hope that understanding, kindness and empathy will eventually prevail and the fascists will be defeated.
Agreed
I think that was Waheed Arian. He was on Desert Island Discs last year. His story is inspirational. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waheed_Arian
Thanks John. Yes, it was him.
Correction: should have been ‘Thanks Andrew’ !
I am still trying to grapple with the meaning of an Illegal Immigration Bill that is probably illegal. The government appears to possess less than 50% confidence in the legality of their own Bill (less than 50% confidence it does not break Human rights law to which the UK is bound), but still believe it is legal. This faith in its legality does not seem to be the opinion of the lawyers advising the Government, with less than 50% confidence supplied by the “best legal minds”, whom it seems must also be “lefty best legal minds”, since the best legal minds believe the Bill effectively to be illegal.
Make of all that what you will. I confess I am now becoming inclined to think the Government is now thrrowing around ‘red meat’ solutions to problems they can’t cope with, in the hope they can deflect attention (through the red meat red tops) from the complete disaster the Conservative Party has proved to be in government; and the economic problems they can’t solve without abandoning neoliberalism, and the ERG sect (whom, however now own them).
Agreed John
The well known legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg has already pointed out that there is a ‘Habeas Corpus’ loophole in the proposed legislation, that he argues immigration lawyers have already spotted. If this is right, the fact that an experienced, forensic legal commentator can so easily find a loophole for something as basic as a ‘habeas corpus’ right (wrongful imprisonment in Scotland); has not adequately been addressed in the Bill speaks volumes for the competence of this Government, and notably this Home Secretary (a lawyer!).
Indeed
It goes on and on. The FDA (Whitehall senior civil servants Union) has sent a letter of protest to the PM, furiously demanding the Home Secretary apologise for signing an email to Conservative supporters, accusing civil servants of being part of a left-wing ‘activist blob’ with the Labour Party (a tactic that also plays into the attacks on Sue Gray).
The BBC is reporting that: “in a letter to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, [the FDA] said the statement was ‘factually incorrect’ and a ‘direct attack on the integrity and impartiality of thousands of civil servants who loyally serve the Home Office. This cowardly attack on civil servants, whom the home secretary knows are unable to publicly defend themselves, also risks further stoking tensions over a matter which has previously resulted in violent clashes with protesters’. It accused Ms Braverman of breaking the ministerial code, which states that ‘ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the civil service’.
This isnot the first time the Home Secretary has been accused of breaking the Ministerial Code. It made no difference to Sunak last time; he simply handed her job back to her, the last time she felt obliged to resign for the spectacular mess she made. Incompetence is no barrier to success in the Conservative Party; presumably it is a proof of membership.
Nothing matters but pretence. The Conservative Party has failed diastrously over immigratio, for over a decade; and now attempts to survive politically by promising their more and more extreme supporters; ever more outlandish outcomes, that they know they have never delivered; know they have always made things much, much worse, aquandered billions achieving nothing at all; never providing the resources sufficient to achieve anything, and demading outcomes they know they cannot ever deliver; but go on making more and more ridiculous promises, and insisting that nobody examines the record. It is pitiful.
And every Wednesday Sunak has landed on the ploy of not answering questions in PMQs, but turning it into questions for the Opposition. Nobody has noticed that Johnson and Sunak have destroyed Parliament as a forum to bring Government to account. Sunak uses PMQs to bring the Opposition to account; for the Conservative Government. It is obvious and it is ludicrous.
This is the reality of Britain today. A complete and unforgivable farce.
Agreed
Thanks John
The 50% business is all about presentation and nothing else.
It is an effort to portray the Tories as doing their best (like they tried to do during Covid) to try to seriously deal with the problem because some people will believe that they are doing their best – but hopefully not too many.
And if they cannot quite make it 100%, they will blame everyone else anyway.
It is called ‘taking back control’. It is the latest in a long line of national embarrassments.
For several years now I have been of the opinion that this latest incarnation of Tory politicians and those such as Farage are embracing Fascism. Several of them are on record making common cause with Neo Fascists such as Orban in Hungary and the Polish PM next door. Other far right individuals are on record as supporting the Fascists in Italy. It is gratifying to read well respected commentators such as Richard are now naming them as Fascists because that is what they are. The policies they espouse are Fascist. I hope others will use the term as common practice.