The Nationality and Borders Bill
otssolicitors.co.uk
A controversial Nationality and Borders Bill has been passed through the UK House of Commons. Conservative ministers reportedly cheered the bill’s passing in Parliament on Wednesday night, with Home Secretary Priti Patel – the bill’s main backer – saying she was “delighted”.
The Bill is expected to be passed through the UK House of Lords soon and become law. Here are some of the most controversial parts of the Bill:
Sending asylum seekers to a ‘safe third country’
The UK will be able to send asylum seekers to a “safe third country” and can allow for offshore processing centres overseas. Instead of community resettlement, asylum seekers could be sent to places such as Rwanda for asylum processing centres. The safe third country will be chosen by the discretion of the Home Secretary.
Activists fear that people will be sent to countries they do not know well or have never lived in, sometimes thousands of miles away. They also fear that UK will take a similar approach to the Australian offshoring processing centres, deemed “inhumane” by activists.
Connection to “safe” country
The UK can declare many applicants “inadmissible” and ineligible to claim asylum in the UK because of their connection to a country the UK deems safe, including countries where they have never been or where they were unable to apply for refugee status.
Turn away asylum seekers
Border forces will be able to turn people away from the UK while travelling to British land in a boat and not face any prosecution for doing so.
The Bill will create a "two-tiered" asylum system that will penalise those seeking asylum via “unofficial” means and only consider those coming through so called ‘safe and legal pathways. Allowing differential treatment of refugees depending on how they arrive in the UK and penalising those arriving via irregular means is incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention 1951.
Notably, the Bill fails to provide any safe route to claim asylum, which will inadvertently force people – including those with family and connections in the UK to resort to smuggling gangs and perilous journeys to reach the UK.
Increased sentences for people entering the UK “unlawfully”
The Bill will make it a criminal offence to arrive in the UK without permission. It will “criminalise” those fleeing persecution merely because of the mode of passage they chose to get to the UK.
The maximum sentence for people entering the UK unlawfully will go up to four years. The maximum sentence is currently six months.
Those helping asylum-seekers come to the UK would also be criminalised, even when this is not ‘for gain’ (for gain refers to activity such as people smuggling), and regardless of whether or not the asylum-seeker arrived irregularly.
Revoke British citizenship for the public good without notification
Background
Depriving someone of their British citizenship has been allowed under the UK law for several years, but not without a notice. The measures to revoke British citizenships were introduced after the 2005 London bombings.
Currently, the power of the Home Office to deprive someone of their citizenship is contained within the British Nationality Act 1981. Under the act there are two reasons to deprive someone of their British citizenships-
1. Deprivation of citizenship on ‘conducive to the public good’ grounds is reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm, for example in response to activities such as those involving:
· national security including espionage and acts of terrorism
· unacceptable behaviour such as the ‘glorification’ of terrorism
· war crimes
· and serious and organised crime
note: the meaning of ‘public good’ is left to the discretion of the Home Secretary.
2. Deprivation of citizenship on ‘fraud’ grounds is for those who obtained their citizenship fraudulently and so were never entitled to it in the first place.
In practice, revocation of citizenship was rare. Until 2017, the number of people who were stripped of their citizenship was fewer than 20 a year. In recent years, it has been as high as more than 100. The most recent high-profile revocation is that of Shamima Begum.
The new Clause 9
Clause 9 of the bill allows the Home Secretary unprecedented power to deprive a person of their British citizenship without having to notify them if the officials do not have the subject’s contact details or if doing so is not “reasonably practical”. The Bill does not change the circumstances in which a person could be deprived of their citizenship.
Critics have said that this clause puts ethnic minorities are at a risk of becoming second-class citizens and increases the fear of citizenships of ethnic minorities being revoked without even notifying the subjects.
The clause does not impact an individual’s right to appeal, but this right would be explained to those who were not sent a notification only when they make contact with the Home Office.
A petition against Clause 9 has gathered more than 100,000 signatures. Parliament will consider a debate for all petitions that reach that level, according to government guidelines.
Additional note on statelessness
In 2014, Theresa May, then the home secretary, extended the measures to foreign-born British citizens without dual nationality. Therefore, leaving someone who only had a British citizenship, stateless.
The law requires that the revocation action should only proceed if the individual would not be left stateless. The Home Office interprets the law as that someone stripped of their only citizenship is not “left stateless” if they are eligible for another citizenship. According to them, the law does not require that the person being stripped of their British citizenship has to be able to end their statelessness by acquiring a foreign citizenship, only that the home secretary “has reasonable grounds for believing” that they could.
Anyone deprived of their only citizenship will be left stateless for at least as long as it takes them to acquire another one and there is no guarantee that they will acquire one. The reasonable grounds belief of the Home Secretary does not reflect the reality of how difficult acquiring a citizenship could be.
Critics say that clause 9 will increase the chance of ethnic minorities, particularly of Muslims, being rendered stateless.
Discouraging asylum seekers
This Bill, according to Priti Patel, will work to reduce the so-called “pull factors” of the UK’s asylum system. The Home Office claims that UK disproportionately attracts asylum seeker. This is an incorrect narrative. There are about 21 million refugees globally. About 86% live in lower- or middle-income countries, and 73% are hosted by States neighbouring countries of origin. IN Europe, last year, France had 95,600 asylum applications, Germany 122,170, Spain 88,530, Greece 40,560 and the UK 29,456 – a drop of 18% year on year. Far more asylum-seekers remain in France than come to the UK. France had more than three times the asylum applications of the UK last year.
The Bill also aims to discourage those who could have applied for asylum in a different country. Under the Refugee Convention 1951, an asylum seeker does not have to seek asylum in the first country they pass through. They may seek asylum anywhere. The Convention does not require refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach or make it illegal to seek asylum if a claimant has passed through another safe country. While asylum-seekers do not have an unlimited right to choose their country of asylum, some might have very legitimate reasons to seek protection in a specific country, including where they might have family links. They may not have had a reasonable opportunity to claim asylum in other countries that might appear at first glance to be “safe.”
If all refugees were obliged to remain in the first safe country they encountered, the whole system would probably collapse. The countries closer to zones of conflict and displacement would be totally overwhelmed, while countries further removed would share little or none of the responsibility. This would hardly be fair, or workable, and runs against the spirit of the Convention.
by Swarnim Agrahari