The Nationality and Borders Bill

What’s in it? What does it mean for people seeking sanctuary in the UK? Why should Christians care, and what can they do?

What stage is the bill at?

On March 24^th 2021 the Home Secretary Priti Patel announced a New Plan for Immigration in the House of Commons. She set out further details to Parliament on May 25^th, and the draft version of the Nationality and Borders Bill was put before the Commons on 6^th July, where it had its first reading. The second reading followed on July 19^th, and was passed the following day by 366 votes to 265, a majority of 101.

Government reconvened after the summer recess on 6^th September. It has passed through the Committee Stage, which has not made any major changes, as the Conservatives had a majority in the committee. It is now coming to the end of the Report Stage and will start its third and final reading in the Commons on Monday December 6^th, before going to the Lords, then back to the Commons for a final vote, probably in the New Year.

What is the Bill about?

Priti Patel says that the UK immigration system is broken, and needs fixing. Most people would agree with that, though many will disagree that the proposed changes will fix it. Although the bill is 67 pages long, these are the main proposals:

• Newly arrived asylum seekers will have their claims processed in large reception centres rather than being dispersed around the country. The idea of removing them to offshore processing centres hundreds of miles from the UK is one option backed by some Tory MPS. The Falkland Islands (8,000 miles from the UK) has been suggested.
• Those who arrive ‘illegally’, e.g. on dinghies across the channel or in the back of lorries, will no longer be entitled to the same benefits as now. Their case may be considered ‘inadmissable’, and even if their asylum claim is accepted, they would only be entitled to temporary protected status, not indefinite leave to remain. The idea is to deter ‘illegal’ entry and thus break up people smuggling gangs Illegal entry may be punishable by up to four years in prison, and ‘facilitating’ illegal entry will also. be criminalised. This could potentially even include rescues by the RNLI. Currently the government is trying to get France to do more to stop the crossings, but without expending huge resources, that would be difficult.
• Those who come on resettlement schemes will be given indefinite leave to remain. The emphasis will be entirely on resettlement, thus creating a two-tier asylum system of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ refugees, depending solely on how they enter the UK.
• Those who claim asylum will face a higher burden of proof than currently, and will have to find that proof quicker. Time limits will apply, after which new evidence will not be accepted.
• Deportations should happen faster, either to the country of origin or the first safe country that the asylum seeker passed through. Attempts to prevent deportations through further appeals or judicial reviews will not be allowed, and solicitors who put in last-minute claims may have their fees seized.
• Foreign national offenders will be removed faster. The law will be amended to prevent their deportations being thwarted by legal challenges. What constitutes a ‘serious offence’ could be anything that carries a one-year sentence.

 What’s Good about the Bill?

• All refugee organisations agree that creating more resettlement schemes is a good idea, and taking in more people through safe routes is needed. However, so far there is no commitment to any targets, and the only new scheme in operation is bringing up to 100 skilled refugees from Lebanon. The promised Afghan Resettlement Scheme has not materialised, and at the moment there is no commitment to resettle child refugees with relatives in the UK. (Community Sponsorship schemes are beginning to bring in more refugee families, but the process is still slow and cumbersome, and numbers are very small.)
• Tidying up historic injustices around British Citizenship for those from British Oversees Territories and other inconsistences in immigration matters is also welcome.

What’s Bad about the Bill?

Over 300 organisations have joined together under the Coalition Banner Together With Refugees to oppose the bill, including Jubilee+ and many other Christian groups and churches.

• If the reception centres proposed are old barracks and army camps like the ones used recently by the Home Office, they will be totally unsuitable. Using dormitories with up to 14 beds during a pandemic, with shared toilets, led to 200 cases of Covid-19. A recent Home Affairs Committee slated the use of the barracks, and the Prisons Watchdog cited ‘fundamental failings’ in the management.
• Off-shore processing is inhumane, hugely expensive and impractical. Home Secretary Priti Patel is a great admirer of the Australian offshore system, which sent refugees to processing centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. The Supreme Court of PNG recently ruled that the centre there was illegal, and it has now been shut. The cost of the system was £126,000 per asylum seeker per year and the abuse that took place led to the Australian government having to pay £37 million in reparations for ill-treatment of refugees.
• Prevention of gangs engaging in people smuggling is clearly a good thing, but NGOs say that the methods proposed will only make the smugglers richer through higher charges. The way to stop people smuggling is not to prosecute the migrants but to create safe routes so that those who have a genuine reason for coming to the UK do not have to use people smugglers.
• The two-tier system of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ refugees will criminalise genuine refugees. At the moment more than 60% of UK asylum seekers are granted refugee status: most have come here ‘illegally’, because they have no other way of coming. There are no legal routes available to them. That’s why the UN Convention on Refugees recognises that illegal entry and the use of people smugglers may be necessary. If the government criminalises ‘illegal entry’, it will effectively be tearing up its commitment to the Refugee Convention.
• Faster asylum decisions do not mean fairer decisions. Asylum seekers rarely see a solicitor before their initial interview, and are told little about how the system works. Getting proof of your claim takes time: genuine refugees often cannot leave their country with evidence, because it would be dangerous if caught. Once here, they need time and support to get that evidence.
• A higher burden of proof will simply mean that caseworkers and asylum judges will tend to disbelieve asylum seekers even more than they do now. There is a culture of unbelief amongst many in the Home Office, who will be given licence to refuse claims for minimal reasons. Unlike the criminal justice system, where innocence is assumed unless proven otherwise, asylum seekers will have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
• The way to unclog the system is not to be harsher and faster – 40% of initial refusals are overturned on appeal at tribunal. If more time was spent getting the initial decisions right, there would be less appeals, and the system would also cost far less, which the Home Secretary is keen to see happen. In truth the biggest costs are not asylum benefits (£39.63 a week) but expensive contracts with multinationals like Serco, unnecessary detentions and removal attempts. Off-shoring and channel surveillance will just add to the costs.
• There are likely to be far more deportations – but not to the first safe country, because we are no longer in the EU, so EU countries have no obligation to take people back. Indeed, why should they, since they already have far more asylum seekers per capita than we do? Attempts to make agreements with ‘first safe countries’ have so far failed to produce a single agreement. The alternative, removal to their country of origin, will lead to many being imprisoned, tortured or killed as enemies of the state.
• Clamping down on judicial reviews and appeals will not lead to a fairer system. There is a serious shortage of legal aid and legal aid solicitors to take on cases, so cases that could be resolved earlier take far longer than they should. That’s why they are often ‘last minute’ interventions. The way to prevent appeals and judicial reviews is to put more money into the system at the beginning, so every asylum seeker has met their solicitor before their initial interview. That will lead to more correct initial decisions, less appeals, and a faster and cheaper system.
• Why should we not remove foreign national criminals from the UK? That may depend on what they have done, and whether the removal is proportionate and not counter-productive. By lowering the bar of what constitutes a ‘serious offence’ to anything that warrants a jail sentence of more than a year, the danger is that those who have lived in the UK for many years could be removed to countries they barely know – leaving behind families in the UK. That’s neither humane nor cost-effective.

Why should Christians be concerned?

Two reasons, really –

• The Bible is clear that we should welcome strangers. (Matthew 25:31-46 and Hebrews 13:2). Nor does it differentiate between different categories of stranger!
• The direction of travel in the UK immigration policy is towards an inward-looking state that prioritises border enforcement rather than welcome and criminalisation rather than compassion.

What can be done?

• First and foremost, pray. A final vote to make the bill law is unlikely before the New Year. Prayer is powerful, and breaks down strongholds. It saved the country from invasion in World War Two: it can save refugees from the impact of this bill too.

• Secondly, speak up on behalf of refugees, who have no way of speaking for themselves. The bible says, 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
      for the rights of all who are destitute.
  Speak up and judge fairly;
      defend the rights of the poor and needy.' Prov. 31:8-9

• Write to or email your MP, especially if your MP is a Conservative. If they are Christian, so much the better: their faith should make them deeply uncomfortable about voting for the bill! Here’s how you can contact your MP. The Together with Refugees Coalition has a guidance and template letter on Page 18 of their Campaign Pack. You could even ask for a meeting: find some like-minded people, and go as a delegation. If they won’t accept the request, you can still turn up at their surgery! No MP should refuse to see a constituent. They need to know the strength of opinion against such unjust legislation.
• Above all, keep up to date with developments. We’ll try to do that on the Jubilee+ website, but you can also follow Together With Refugees or Asylum Matters to get campaign ideas. If you have responsibility for a church or a refugee support group, you might like to sign up to the coalition or sign the Christian response statement drafted by the St.Vincent de Paul Society (SVP). It now has over 200 signatories from Christian groups and churches.