Isaac Ho formerly worked at the Public Affairs team at DRD Partnership. He was also a Parliamentary Intern and a master’s graduate from the London School of Economics. He writes in a personal capacity.
As the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill begins to progress through its Committee Stage in the Commons this week, the question of the lack of safe and legal routes for refugees will certainly arise.
It has yet to be adequately addressed by the Government. Under current rules, an asylum claim can only be made once the claimant has arrived at the UK’s borders.
However, for many fleeing persecution, the lack of visa-free access has made this impossible without either first applying for a Visitor Visa or, like many coming on small boats, seek out other alternatives.
The current asylum system creates problems. Failing to provide any legal routes for applications leads people to cross the border through illegal means; restricting those who manage to arrive from working while they’re processed means that the burden of supporting them falls on the state.
Thus the argument for a General Refugee Route/Refugee Visa is not one for open borders, but a pragmatic solution to bring the system under control. It is the key to a streamlined asylum process.
For many politicians and members of the public, as Henry Hill pointed out previously, is not simply how people are coming here, but how many are coming. Advocates of a legal refugee route (who don’t actually want an open border) must address this point.
Yet there are several ways in which a formal application pathway, properly managed, could ease the pressures on the border.
First, similar to the applications process for other visa routes, the application for the refugee visa would be made either in the applicant’s home country, or another country where they currently reside.
This would mean that those who need protection would be able to apply without having to reach Britain’s shores. The application would then be processed by the Home Office while the applicant remains abroad.
If the applicant is found to be eligible to apply for asylum in the safe country where they are residing – such as France – then officials could advise them to seek those alternatives instead.
However, if the initial screening suggests that the applicant is in immediate or imminent danger, then a temporary emergency visa could be granted so they may travel to the UK.
This would be followed by further processing, while the applicant is allowed to right to work to minimise the need for governmental support. Abuse could be minimised by issuing a Biometric Residential Permit (BRP), which is already a standard issue to UK visa holders as an official ID.
Eventually, a decision would be taken by the Home Office as to whether the applicant is eligible for formal refugee status.
Such mechanism would, of course, require investing more personnel and resources at the Home Office and its immigration centres abroad.
But due to the bulk of applicants being processed whilst residing overseas, and those granted temporary leave to come to the UK in exceptional circumstances being free to work, the issues of overflowing detention centres and expensive financial support could be resolved.
The existence of a refugee route would also enable the Government to respond to future crises more flexibility and efficiently. When a sudden shock creates new refugee flows, as from Ukraine and Afghanistan, it could use the existing infrastructure from the General Refugee Route to create a bespoke pathway for those affected.
As Rishi Sunak commented on the Illegal Migration Bill, there is no silver bullet to the issue. Those advocating for a refugee visa must acknowledge that it is not an alternative to rigorous enforcement measures such as the Rwanda Plan or the Illegal Migration Bill.
In fact, the introduction of such route would confer the legitimacy upon the Government to take forward these tough measures to deter illegal crossings; it would, after all, be difficult to argue against the case of relocation or deportation if there was already an adequate legal route in place.
This would also increase the pressure on France and other neighbouring nations to take up their share of responsibility and help deter those who attempt to cross the Channel illegally.
Politicians and commentators may debate at leisure western nations’ current, theoretical obligations under international law and whether these need to change. The practical problem needs solving either way.
Instead of relying solely on deterrent measures like the Illegal Migration Bill, the Government should combine it with proactive solutions that would ensure Britain remained accessible to genuine refugees, ease pressure on the Home Office and the Treasury – and bolster the legitimacy of rigorous enforcement too.
Isaac Ho formerly worked at the Public Affairs team at DRD Partnership. He was also a Parliamentary Intern and a master’s graduate from the London School of Economics. He writes in a personal capacity.
As the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill begins to progress through its Committee Stage in the Commons this week, the question of the lack of safe and legal routes for refugees will certainly arise.
It has yet to be adequately addressed by the Government. Under current rules, an asylum claim can only be made once the claimant has arrived at the UK’s borders.
However, for many fleeing persecution, the lack of visa-free access has made this impossible without either first applying for a Visitor Visa or, like many coming on small boats, seek out other alternatives.
The current asylum system creates problems. Failing to provide any legal routes for applications leads people to cross the border through illegal means; restricting those who manage to arrive from working while they’re processed means that the burden of supporting them falls on the state.
Thus the argument for a General Refugee Route/Refugee Visa is not one for open borders, but a pragmatic solution to bring the system under control. It is the key to a streamlined asylum process.
For many politicians and members of the public, as Henry Hill pointed out previously, is not simply how people are coming here, but how many are coming. Advocates of a legal refugee route (who don’t actually want an open border) must address this point.
Yet there are several ways in which a formal application pathway, properly managed, could ease the pressures on the border.
First, similar to the applications process for other visa routes, the application for the refugee visa would be made either in the applicant’s home country, or another country where they currently reside.
This would mean that those who need protection would be able to apply without having to reach Britain’s shores. The application would then be processed by the Home Office while the applicant remains abroad.
If the applicant is found to be eligible to apply for asylum in the safe country where they are residing – such as France – then officials could advise them to seek those alternatives instead.
However, if the initial screening suggests that the applicant is in immediate or imminent danger, then a temporary emergency visa could be granted so they may travel to the UK.
This would be followed by further processing, while the applicant is allowed to right to work to minimise the need for governmental support. Abuse could be minimised by issuing a Biometric Residential Permit (BRP), which is already a standard issue to UK visa holders as an official ID.
Eventually, a decision would be taken by the Home Office as to whether the applicant is eligible for formal refugee status.
Such mechanism would, of course, require investing more personnel and resources at the Home Office and its immigration centres abroad.
But due to the bulk of applicants being processed whilst residing overseas, and those granted temporary leave to come to the UK in exceptional circumstances being free to work, the issues of overflowing detention centres and expensive financial support could be resolved.
The existence of a refugee route would also enable the Government to respond to future crises more flexibility and efficiently. When a sudden shock creates new refugee flows, as from Ukraine and Afghanistan, it could use the existing infrastructure from the General Refugee Route to create a bespoke pathway for those affected.
As Rishi Sunak commented on the Illegal Migration Bill, there is no silver bullet to the issue. Those advocating for a refugee visa must acknowledge that it is not an alternative to rigorous enforcement measures such as the Rwanda Plan or the Illegal Migration Bill.
In fact, the introduction of such route would confer the legitimacy upon the Government to take forward these tough measures to deter illegal crossings; it would, after all, be difficult to argue against the case of relocation or deportation if there was already an adequate legal route in place.
This would also increase the pressure on France and other neighbouring nations to take up their share of responsibility and help deter those who attempt to cross the Channel illegally.
Politicians and commentators may debate at leisure western nations’ current, theoretical obligations under international law and whether these need to change. The practical problem needs solving either way.
Instead of relying solely on deterrent measures like the Illegal Migration Bill, the Government should combine it with proactive solutions that would ensure Britain remained accessible to genuine refugees, ease pressure on the Home Office and the Treasury – and bolster the legitimacy of rigorous enforcement too.