The Securitization of Immigration and Refugee Law in the United Kingdom

In describing governance trends in the United Kingdom today, Ian Loader contends that certain issues or “threats” are taken out of the realm of democratic politics and “securitized” by government.[1] Refugee and asylum law in particular, is an issue that has been increasingly securitized over the past decade since the ‘9-11’ attacks in the US in 2001 and the ‘7-7’ attacks in the UK in 2005. Evidence of this trend can be detected from the analysis of a recent press statement from the British Home Office:

Asylum applications for the last three months of 2009 were the lowest since the early 1990s. Net migration is down, and the new UK Border Agency is increasingly successful… We are making the UK a more hostile place for illegal immigrants by issuing foreign nationals with ID cards, checking those who apply for visas against watch lists and fining those who employ illegal workers.[2]

There is nothing inherently wrong with a dip in asylum applications occurring within the UK. In fact, the decreasing amount of refugees in the UK probably does correlate with a global downturn in the total number of refugees.[3] Yet, it is strange that this press statement focuses on this dip in correlation to the UK Border Agency’s (UKBA) attempt to create a more  “hostile” atmosphere for those seeking to migrate to the UK. The UKBA publishes accounts of its agents cracking down on illegal workers in urban restaurants right next to lists of useful information for asylum-seekers.

This conflation of refugee law with other forms of immigration law is indeed troubling, and might not be helped much by the fact that the two subjects are often taught in tandem in Western law faculties. The issue has also been given unfair and cursory treatment by the British press. It is often thought that Britain is ‘overrun’ with illegal immigrants.[4] While the UK may have an overall immigration problem, it is imperative to separate refugee and asylum law on the one hand, and immigration law on the other, in Britain.

Refugee law comes from a distinct body of international human rights law, stemming from the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees in 1951. Many other UN conventions, and regional treaties and conventions also bolster the rights of refugees.[5] Contrarily, immigration law and security matters are much more domestic in nature. While recent policy harmonization within a growing European Union has led to a more regional approach to immigration controls, the UKBA enjoys uninhibited control over the nation’s borders. The UK courts have said that the rights granted by the European Convention can be suspended, as this is sometimes “necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country.”[6] Again, this is not inherently a problem, so long as there is a realization by policymakers that they are dealing with two distinct bodies of law.

All three of the above issues highlighted in the Huang decision could be part of the reasoning behind the recent curtailment of refugee’s rights and the provision of services for them in the UK. Previous scholarship has shown that during times of economic decline in Great Britain, public attitudes towards refugees have become negative, and more governmental restrictions have been placed on the granting of refugee status.[7] As Prime Minister David Cameron has alluded to the fact that the UK is heading towards decades of economic austerity, what will be the fate of Britain’s long-held tradition of providing asylum to deserving candidates?[8]

According to a study of the opinions of the refugees themselves, the UK government and society have haphazardly conflated the situations of refugees with security threats.[9] This has created a feeling amongst refugees “that policy responses to terrorism, together with security measures and public attitudes, threaten to undermine Britain’s human rights culture and democratic rule of law.”[10]

Deborah Phillips has argued, “legislation has systematically curtailed the welfare and housing entitlements and choices of new arrivals through a series of increasingly stringent measures designed to deter and control the flow of asylum seekers to the UK and to manage their settlement upon arrival.”[11] This is particularly the case with the housing policies of the UK government. The policy of ‘dispersal’ has a variety of impacts on refugees in the UK, who are a particularly vulnerable segment of the population.

As a great proportion of Britain’s refugees come from predominantly Muslim nations, many of which are facing insurgencies tied to Islamic militants, it is of the utmost importance to deal with this issue in a sensitive manner. Refugees fleeing from these countries often leave because their human rights are being violated. The last thing they need is to be deterred from finding asylum in the UK for the very same reasons. This creates insecurity, not security!

While the media can play a valuable role in educating the public about the UK’s proud traditions of hosting asylum-seekers, it is evident that at least some government officials in the Home Office also require some tutelage on the matter, if the press statement above is of any indication. The British public and the UK government should be made more aware of the roots of refugee and asylum law in international law, and treat this body of law with the utmost care if they are to stay true to their ideals in trying political and economic times.

[The author completed the research for this article for an LLM seminar given by Professor Fatima Khan of the University of Cape Town Law Faculty. Special thanks also go to Shirin Taherzadeh.]

[2] February 2010 UKBA press statement, online: UKBA <http://ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2010/February/home-office-stats>.

[3] “Global refugees ‘at 26-year low’” BBC News Online (9 June 2006), online: BBC News <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5061322.stm>.

[4] A full investigation of media trends is not possible due to the scope of this article. Yet stories on illegal immigration in the UK press are frequent, and tabloid publications dealing with the issue have stirred, or mirrored, the public’s concern, depending on one’s point of view. For example: James Slack, “Axing immigration staff ‘could see Dover overrun’” London Daily Mail (30 April 2010), online: Mail Online <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270183/Axing-immigration-staff-Dover-overrun.html?ito=feeds-newsxml>. Of course, media attention is also paid to the case of asylum-seekers, for example: Stuart Nicolson, “Asylum seekers ‘guilty until proven innocent’” BBC News Online (19 May 2010), online: BBC News <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8689955.stm>. Deborah Phillips comments on this issue, detailing how positive media can help ease integration of refugees into the population: Deborah Phillips, “Moving Towards Integration: The Housing of Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Britain” (2005) 21:4 Housing Studies 539 at 546 & 551. A report from the London Asylum Consortium echoes this call for media cooperation in educating the public about refugee and asylum issues: Michael Bell, Ian Ford & Duncan McDougall, A Warm Welcome? Public Services and Managing Migration in London: Scoping Research and Introductory Report (London: London Asylum Seeker’s Consortium, 2008) at 24. In sum, the approach of refugee advocates in the UK seems to be extremely media savvy. For an example, please visit: www.researchasylum.org.uk/.

[5] The European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 has in particular granted certain inalienable rights to those present on European soil.

[6] Huang and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 3 All ER 435 at para 18.

[7] Liza Schuster, The Use and Abuse of Political Asylum in Britain and Germany (London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003) at 82.

[8] Ibid. Schuster writes about Britain’s proud tradition of hosting asylum-seekers in her work.

[9]Anja Rudigar, Prisoners of Terrorism? The impact of anti-terrorism measures on refugees and asylum seekers in Britain (London: Refugee Council, 2007), online: Refugee Council <http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy/position/2007/prisoners_terrorism>.

[10] Ibid at 16.

[11] Phillips, supra note 4 at 540.