Maha Sardar, Human Rights Barrister, Garden Court Chambers
In the shadow of mounting global geo-political and humanitarian crises and a rising tide of displaced individuals worldwide, the United Kingdom’s approach to asylum seekers has come under harsh scrutiny. A glaring disparity in refugee groups’ treatment has come into sharp focus. The consequential result? A hierarchy of refugees.
The central plank of the government’s approach to refugees is its insistence that those seeking asylum in the UK should use ‘safe and legal routes’.
Any asylum seeker entering the UK outside of these routes, perhaps by small boat or in the back of a lorry, can be disregarded by the government as an illegal entrant. They are seen as looking to subvert the UK’s borders and undermine our laws, criminalising those desperately seeking international protection.
A key component of the incumbent government’s strategy to address these ‘bad refugees’ is the Rwanda Scheme, first announced in April 2022.
This policy dictates that anyone arriving in Britain unlawfully will be sent to Rwanda, deemed a ‘safe third country’ by the UK Government. In Rwanda, these asylum seekers will have their claims processed with no possibility of returning to the UK.
The policy, unsurprisingly, has faced widespread criticism for aggravating existing inequities within the asylum system and representing a significant departure from the UK’s traditional methods of handling asylum claims.
Shortly after formalising the deal with Rwanda, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 received royal assent, becoming law. While the Act’s provisions are complex, its message is unequivocally clear: those entering without permission are unwelcome in the UK. Although the Act technically applies to anyone entering the UK without permission, the focus is unmistakably on asylum seekers.
This is now supplemented by the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, declaring in law that Rwanda is a safe place for refugees, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s conclusion to the contrary just a few months ago.
The Supreme Court found not only that Rwanda was not safe for refugees, but that the scheme breached the Refugee Convention, the UN Convention Against Torture, and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The government’s recent legislation requires the courts to pretend Rwanda is safe, despite conflicting evidence. Both our commitment to international law and the country’s tradition of independent legal scrutiny are expected to fall away from the government’s fervour for keeping asylum seekers away from the UK.
All of this depends on the government’s condemnation of asylum seekers’ failure to use the UK’s ‘safe and legal routes,’ which it calls “some of the most generous anywhere” in the world. But the reality is that such routes are virtually non-existent for most asylum seekers. Furthermore, the few available ‘safe and legal routes’ favour our European neighbours.
A closer examination of the figures shows that nearly half of the people offered safety via these routes between 2015 and 2022 came to the UK under Ukraine Scheme visas, with a third coming under the scheme for Hong Kong British National Overseas status holders and their family members. Outside of these two major schemes, a relatively small number of Afghan and Syrian nationals have been offered resettlement. The Syrian scheme has now been closed (replaced with a general resettlement programme taking a small number of referrals from the UNHCR), and the Afghan scheme has stringent requirements excluding most, including some with family ties to the UK.
The government’s swift and generous response to Ukrainian refugees saw it relaxing immigration routes, opening borders, and encouraging citizens to welcome Ukrainians into their homes, a stark contrast with the policy of exclusion, expulsion, and hostility towards other asylum seekers. Afghan nationals, for example, who have faced protracted conflict and instability, are then faced with substantial barriers to entry and resettlement into the UK. While the humanitarian support extended to Ukrainians is commendable, this preferential treatment demonstrates the fallacy of ‘safe and legal routes’ being open to other, especially non-European, individuals seeking refuge.
Western media reporting on Ukraine has been criticised heavily for perpetuating this prejudicial discrimination. The unedifying sight of some politicians and journalists seeking to justify this discrimination by explaining that Ukrainians, unlike Afghans, are “civilised” and “look like us” should stand long in our collective memory.
This type of dangerous rhetoric has contributed to the dehumanisation of certain refugee groups.
Moreover, this discrimination extends beyond politics and is recognised, albeit for different reasons, as justified by law. That was the Court of Appeal’s decision in a recent case called AB.
While acknowledging the stark disparity based on nationality between how Ukrainian and Afghan refugees are treated, the courts upheld the government’s justification for this differential treatment on grounds of immigration control and national security.
Thus, the government may by law establish a hierarchy that protects one group of lives over another.
With the absence of legal avenues for asylum seekers and the scarcity of resettlement schemes, what recourse remains for those fleeing persecution?
The UNHCR notes in their explainer on ‘Why the UK Illegal Migration Bill is an Asylum Ban’ that nearly 90% of refugees worldwide hail from countries without direct flights to the UK; rendering lawful travel nearly impossible.
The fact that so many refugees arrive in the UK without permission underscores the lack of viable legal pathways for them and is emblematic of their dire circumstances: escaping civil war, state persecution, or human trafficking.
The atrocities in Gaza further highlight the UK’s inconsistent stance on humanitarian crises and contraventions of international law, particularly those affecting Muslim populations.
The UK abstains from UN Security Council votes on Gaza rather than condemning the ongoing human rights abuses persistently perpetrated against Gazans by the IDF. Despite a growing chorus of international voices denouncing Israel’s brutal and deliberate targeting of innocent civilians, many of whom are children, the UK remains defiant in its untenable stance.
When Ukraine brought allegations of genocide against Russia to the International Court of Justice, the UK steadfastly intervened in support of Ukraine’s case. When South Africa did the same, Rishi Sunak reportedly said the case against Israel was “completely unjustified and wrong,” and the government maintains that it was “wrong and provocative” for South Africa to do so even after the ICJ’s interim ruling on January 26.
In its most recent Order on May 24, the ICJ stated that it “considers that, in conformity with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate that may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
During Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, the government was right in quickly condemning its occupation as illegal, and the bombing of hospitals and schools in contravention of international law.
However, Israel’s decimation of Palestinian lives and civilian infrastructure is justified by the UK government as an act of self-defence. In one conflict, the UK provides arms to the occupied, while in another, the occupier is supplied with arms.
There have been desperate calls for the government, currently unanswered, to provide safe and legal routes for people fleeing Gaza. This silence contributes to the abandonment felt by those directly impacted and undermines the UK’s professed commitment to upholding international human rights standards and humanitarian law. The bare hypocrisy speaks louder.
The UK government can no longer pretend to have a neutral commitment to international law. It has shown that it selectively applies international human rights standards with geopolitical interests as the deciding factor.
This inconsistency in policy reflects a troubling blend of bias, fear of the ‘other’, economic pragmatism, and ignorance that continually reshapes immigration rules and our policy decisions on who deserves refuge and resettlement. These policies often lack fundamental values, humanity, and dignity.
Whoever wins the general election in July, there is an urgent need to advocate for a more consistent and compassionate approach to those fleeing conflict and persecution, recognising the shared humanity that binds us beyond religious and national divides.
(Credit: Alisdare Hickson/Flickr Commons)
