Why the illegal migration act is illegal | thearticle

On June 29 the Court of Appeal ruled that Rwanda was not a “safe third country” and deporting asylum seekers there was consequently unlawful. Given this judgement, the drafters of the

_Illegal Migration Act _might be complimented on their foresight in the wording of the Bill’s title. This legislation has been called unworkable, cruel and “amounting to an asylum ban” (the

UNHCR).  In its lack of human empathy, its content could have been generated by AI. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has declared he will achieve what he calls his five “people’s priorities”.  The

fifth reads: “We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.” Last year some 90% of the boat people

who reached the UK sought asylum.    By the beginning of this year only 3% of them had received an initial decision from the Home Office.   More than 135,000 asylum applicants were awaiting

a decision, many of them in hotels paid for out of the UK aid budget; 89,000 of them had been waiting for more than six months.  This is the context within which the Prime Minister has

chosen to back this bad Bill.  Is he serious? Sunak excuses the draconian contents of the Illegal Migration Act on grounds of compassion.  56 people, 11 of them children, are known to have

drowned trying to cross the Channel since 2018.  He argues that the people smugglers’ business model will collapse if would-be migrants believe they will be sent to Rwanda.  If there were a

well-funded special unit in the National Criminal Agency (NCA) dedicated to the arrest of these criminal gangs, if there were adequate accessible, safe and legal routes for asylum seekers to

get here, his compassion argument might carry conviction.  But if migration policy is driven by compassion, why has the Conservative Party in the Commons voted down Lords amendments to the

Bill containing just such provisions? The Conservatives believe that their Bill is a direct response to the democratic will, or, at least, the will of voters in the Red Wall constituencies

who want to see an end to small boat crossings.  And Kent County Council as well as Dover genuinely are overwhelmed, because so few councils around the country are willing to “burden-share”

— and most of these are Labour Councils. This is a microcosm of the European Union’s predicament.  But just how popular is the _Illegal_ _Migration_ Act?  How many people are thinking this

harsh action is not our idea of British values? In the House of Lords we were hearing voices speaking for another, kinder Britain: Lord Dubs, who before the Second World War was brought to

Britain on the _kindertransport,_ concerned for the needs and protection of unaccompanied children. Then there was Baroness Mobarik, who aged six accompanied her family from Pakistan to

Glasgow, speaking alongside David Walker, the Anglican Bishop of Manchester, against Government attempts to weaken limits on the detention of immigrant children and pregnant women. Isn’t the

welcoming of Ukrainian refugees, in which we take pride, more in keeping with what we want Britain to be? The under-appreciated Upper House of Parliament — without veto power — is doing its

job, holding the Government to account, scrutinising its legislation and trying to make this Bill less bad.   Between 27 April and 10 July, peers worked on 20 pertinent, important and

compassionate amendments.  A large cross-Party group outvoted the Conservative peers on each of the amendments and sent the Bill back to the Commons. There had also been 16 Conservatives in

the Commons who denounced various aspects of the Bill and abstained during its initial readings, including the former Home Secretary and Prime Minister, Theresa May. In the Commons, the

Government rejected the Lords’ amendments, but did make small concessions. It agreed not to weaken limits on the length of detention and removed retrospective provisions which would have

made the Bill operative from its introduction by the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, on 7 March 2023. The Bill was then sent back to the House of Lords, and on July 12 they accepted the

rejection of their amendments.  After further deliberations, the Lords returned the Bill to the Commons with nine revised amendments — including two proposed by Tory peers.  These

sophisticated strokes in the Palace of Westminster “ping-pong” were immediately and casually dismissed by the Immigration Minister, Robert Jenrick, who said the Government did not plan to

make any further concessions. The Government, with only a few days left, badly wants to get its legislation through Parliament before the summer recess.  For this reason, the House of Lords

has a small amount of leverage, though it is improbable that the Government will change the Act in any meaningful way.  The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, together with unwritten

constitutional convention, dictate that the unelected House of Lords should not block legislation by the elected House of Commons – especially measures promised in an election manifesto.  No

such pledge on migration was contained in the 2019 Tory manifesto.   Sunak persists in alleging that he is fulfilling a “people’s pledge” and responding to public opinion. The peers have

done their best to stop him. The Conservative majority in the Commons means we will be saddled with this deeply unpleasant legislation.  The Act will enable the Government to interpret

international human rights treaties and refugee conventions in ways that are not consistent with the UK’s obligations.  The Government’s excuse for this shabby populism is a variation on

Margaret Thatcher’s “there is no alternative”, alleging that the Act’s many critics do not offer any other policy to deal with migration.  Consistent with our current politics of empty

promises and brazen untruths, this is a lie. There is a broad consensus amongst Churches and religious communities, NGOs, refugee organisations, and the House of Lords on what needs to be

done, starting with the creation of new safe and legal routes and serious investment in putting the criminal gangs behind bars.  One of the Lords’ amendments — proposed by the Archbishop of

Canterbury and garnering not a single Tory vote — was a call for a UK-led strategic ten-year multilateral plan for handling immigration compassionately, whilst countering the impact of

conflict and climate change on sender countries.  The Labour Party, acting as a government-in-waiting, has produced a strategic package of proposals consonant with the Archbishop’s call. 

His amendment was amongst those voted down in the Commons. The boat people who pay the people smugglers are desperate and aware of the risks.  Nothing is quickly going to stop the small

boats.  Nor will the Rwanda threat, least of all if the Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeal’s judgement.  Opinion polls suggest many voters now believe only a new Government, a new

and more competent Home Secretary and a reformed Home Office can reduce the number of small boats and deal humanely with refugees, who are entitled to this country’s protection. A MESSAGE

FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help

to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation._