Open Letter on the 'New Plan for Immigration'

Open letter from Child Rights Academics,

The Home Secretary, Priti Patel has published her ‘New Plan for Immigration’ which is open for consultation until 6th May 2021. The title of the document hides the fact that the ‘New Plan’ focuses entirely on asylum seekers and not on immigration more generally. Priti Patel’s stated objectives are to increase the fairness and efficacy of the asylum system to better protect and support asylum seekers, to deter illegal entry, ‘break’ criminal trafficking networks and remove easily those with no right to be in the UK. This plan raises many concerns relating to what it neglects to include and its impact on children which we raise in this open letter.

The plan has been criticised by academics, UNHCR, NGOs and charities working with refugees (JCWI, Safe Passage), immigration lawyers and former home secretaries (Lord David Blunkett). The proposals, if they are enacted, will violate the UK’s obligations under international law and will create a two-tier system of asylum for the first time. Those who use irregular routes to reach the UK (incorrectly referred to as ‘illegal entry’ throughout the New Plan) will only be eligible for ‘temporary protection’ and will have to live with the risk of being deported throughout their temporary stay in the UK. On the other hand, those who are chosen by the Home Office to be resettled directly from refugee camps in countries such as Jordan and Lebanon will be entitled to full refugee status as soon as they arrive here.

Resettlement schemes have, generally prioritised families and in particular families who are vulnerable or require medical treatment. Only a handful of separated and unaccompanied children have been eligible for such resettlement schemes previously and there is nothing to suggest this is going to change. The government’s Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) was primarily for Syrians living in Jordan and Lebanon (70% of resettled refugees between 2010 and 2020 were Syrian). If separated children are not Syrian and do not qualify for family reunion with family members in the UK, the only way they can reach the UK is to undertake dangerous journeys via irregular routes in order to reach safety. There is no acknowledgement of the risks facing unaccompanied children in the ‘New Plan’, just an assumption that because children arrive via these routes they or their families are somehow complicit in the smuggling/trafficking. Closing down safe and legal routes or disrupting the irregular routes to the UK does not stop children seeking asylum from making the journey, it forces them to look for more perilous routes, placing them at much greater risk of harm. The Home Office have not produced any evidence or research to prove that spending millions on shutting down irregular routes deters asylum seekers from making the journey. The Home Office’s proposals to disrupt ‘criminal networks behind people smuggling’ includes an intention to increase the criminal offences for ‘illegal entry’ which will risk criminalising children who have no choice but to trust the smugglers.

We are a group of Child Rights researchers who are appalled at the proposals set out in the ‘new plan’ and are extremely concerned at the impact these proposals will have on the rights of both unaccompanied and accompanied children who are seeking asylum in the UK and those who are seeking family reunification with family members already in the UK. The proposals fail to acknowledge the rights of children in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a Convention which the UK ratified in 1991. At no point in the proposals does the Home Secretary acknowledge the duty to safeguard the welfare of the child (also known as the best interests principle (Art 3(1) UNCRC)) which is enshrined in the UK’s immigration law – s55 Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. An asylum seeking child has a right to be protected under Art 22 UNCRC and the child is entitled to a family life (Art 16 UNCRC), a right not to be separated from their parents (Art 9 UNCRC) and a right to family reunification (Art 10 UNCRC).

Brexit closed the Dublin Regulation route on 31st December 2020, which has already had a devastating impact on unaccompanied and separated children currently in Europe (https://www.safepassage.org.uk/ ). The closure of this route and the failure of this government to propose an alternative compounds the damage following the closure of the Dubs’ scheme and the imminent demise of the VPRS. These were the only legal routes for most unaccompanied and separated children to reach the UK. This leaves many children and young people stranded in Europe with no choice but to undertake dangerous journeys to reach the UK. Many of them have relatives in the UK and have lost everything in their home countries. The government’s mantra that ‘Global Britain’ (a new idyll created by the Johnson Government) has a ‘proud’ history of welcoming people rings hollow when it is clear that this policy is deliberately and cynically designed to appeal to Conservative voters and intentionally conflates the UK’s obligations to protect people fleeing persecution with the narrow and short-sighted policy aims of keeping immigration to the bare minimum. Furthermore, the core message that ‘Global Britain’ is enriched by legal immigration and those who come to Britain lawfully will be a devastating message to separated children in Europe seeking sanctuary or family reunification in the UK who will not qualify for resettlement and have no other route to take.

The following are the main areas in the ‘New Plan’ which directly interfere with children’s rights:

There are no new proposals on family reunification and no new legal routes under the ‘New Humanitarian routes’ (resettlement scheme). The lack of proposals relating to family reunion for unaccompanied children and the narrowing of routes for family reunion for adults in the UK wishing to reunite with their children is a direct violation of the children’s right to non-separation from their parents, Art 9 UNCRC, right to family reunification under Article 10 and 22 UNCRC and a violation of the right to a family environment under Article 16 UNCRC (and Art 8 ECHR).
Age assessments are aimed at preventing adults claiming to be children. There are no proposals for further protective measures to ensure appropriate and accurate age determination procedures for children who are under 18.
Those who arrive by irregular routes, such as boats across the Channel, can only achieve ‘temporary protection status’. As most unaccompanied children arrive via irregular routes, most of these children will only be eligible for this new temporary status. Unaccompanied children have, since April 2013 been granted limited leave as unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC), which is temporary and only last for 30 months or when the young person reaches 17 ½ (whichever is sooner). Chase and Allsopp (2021) have demonstrated the impact on young people without a regular status on their wellbeing, identity and sense of belonging. The lack of a secure non-temporary status affects their education and health outcomes, thus violating the best interests principle under Art 3 UNCRC, right to education under Art 28 UNCRC and the right to health under Art 24 UNCRC (as well as potential breaches of Art 3, Art 8 and Art 2, Protocol 1 of ECHR)
The proposed reduction in appeal rights is likely to have a disproportionate impact on children. Currently children who receive temporary permission to remain in the UK, usually UASC leave, have the right to appeal, but very few do. By narrowing the routes for appeal further, children turning 18 face an even greater risk of being returned to their country of origin than they do currently. This breaches a child’s right to an effective remedy, protected under Art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Measures which affect adults also affect the children who travel with them and children who travel alone. There has been no children’s rights impact assessment to consider the impact of the proposed measures on children. The consultation is an opportunity to engage with young refugees and asylum seekers, and those who represent them, to ensure their voices are heard (Art 12 UNCRC) and to ensure due regard for their views in a crucial matter which affects them.
There is no reference to the best interests or welfare of the child anywhere in the proposals or in the consultation questionnaire, which indicates the lack of regard by this government for children’s rights and interests in the context of irregular and forced migration.

This government’s lack of respect for the right of children and young people to seek and enjoy asylum under international law and their rights under the UNCRC is evident throughout the ‘New Plan on immigration’. This plan is a nasty and cruel attack on the legitimate and universally recognised right to seek and enjoy asylum and on children’s rights. It seeks to undermine the work and advocacy of children and young people and their representatives to secure their futures in a place of sanctuary. We would encourage you to take part in the consultation, write to your MP and the Home Secretary to highlight the Plan’s failure to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of refugee and asylum seeking children.

Yours Faithfully,

Dr Ruth Brittle, Nottingham Trent University

Dr Naomi Lott, University of Nottingham

Dr Tracy Kirk, Glasgow Caledonian University

Dr Fiona MacDonald, University of South Wales

Sheila Varadan, Leiden University (PhD Candidate)

Rhian Chamberlain, Swansea University (PhD Candidate)

Dr Clare Patton, Queens University Belfast

Professor Helen Stalford, University of Liverpool

Dr Brian Sloan, University of Cambridge

Dr Alison Struthers, University of Warwick

Dr Aoife Daly, University College Cork

Professor Laura Lundy, Queens University Belfast