Writing to your MP about Government proposals on asylum and returns

The following text may be used to write to your MP about these proposals. 

Dear MP

I am one of your constituents. I am writing to raise my deep concern at the immigration and asylum proposals set out in the Government papers Restoring Order and Control and A Fairer Pathway to Settlement published last month. Amnesty International UK has produced two short briefings on the proposals set out in these papers (these can be found here and here)

Among the proposals relating to asylum are that:

1. People recognised as refugees in the UK’s asylum system will be permitted to stay for only 30 months before being required to apply again for asylum (for another 30 months period). They will have no prospect of applying for permission to settle (permanent residence) until at least 20 years have passed since they were first granted asylum. This is a radical departure from past policy – though it is based in part on harmful proposals first introduced by a Conservative Home Secretary (Priti Patel) via the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

2. Refugee family reunion, which the Government suspended in September, is to be largely closed. People recognised as refugees in the UK’s asylum system will only be permitted to sponsor their partners and children to obtain a visa to join them if they have substantial earnings or savings. This is a radical departure from past policy – though it too is based in part on harmful proposals first introduced by a Conservative Home Secretary (Priti Patel) via the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

3. There will no longer be a duty on the Government to accommodate people who are waiting for their asylum claims to be determined and would otherwise be destitute. This is similar to a failed and harmful policy introduced by a Labour Home Secretary (David Blunkett) under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

4. The Government will increase its use of disused or repurposed military and similar sites as mass accommodation for people seeking asylum. The use of such sites by successive Governments since a Labour Home Secretary (Jack Straw) opened an immigration removal centre at Oakington barracks near Cambridge in 2000 has been a longstanding matter of considerable local and national controversy, which has done real harm to many people.

5. The Government will establish a limited visa route to permit refugees whom it regards as particularly “talented” or “skilled” to relocate to the UK.

Among proposals that also relate to other immigration are that:

1. The Government will legislate to restrict the application of Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) in immigration and asylum cases. A Conservative Home Secretary (Theresa May) did this via the Immigration Act 2014.

2. The Government will legislate to further restrict the application of modern slavery safeguards in immigration and asylum cases. This is an extension of the harmful policy of previous Conservative Home Secretaries (Priti Patel/Suella Braverman) introduced via the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

The above proposals, and others not listed here, are intended to make the asylum system harsher. This is objectionable for several reasons including:

1. The asylum system ought to focus on identifying refugees as quickly as possible, providing them safety in the UK that is secure, and enabling them to rebuild their lives and integrate well. These proposals do precisely the opposite. They make refugees’ lives extremely uncertain and prolong that uncertainty, and the isolation and marginalisation it causes, for decades.

2. The Government asserts a concern about growing social division, which it identifies in hate and racism directed towards some refugees and other migrants. However, it is giving implicit justification for some of that hate. By creating conditions in which more refugees are liable to face social isolation (including destitution, homelessness, ill-health and exploitation), it is exacerbating division and some of the social ills that enable that to thrive.

3. The Government is making far more work for the Home Office and increasing its costs. It will have to deal with thousands more applications for permission to stay by refugees, who will need to make many more applications and far more frequently. It is also making work and costs for other Government departments. These proposals have serious implications for the legal aid system, the courts, the NHS and local authorities among others. Worse, since the Home Office and courts are already struggling to manage their workloads, it is highly likely that costs will be made far greater by the further dysfunction this additional work will cause.

4. The likely human rights impact is dire. Reducing safeguards and increasing the severity of the asylum system can only increase the dependence of people who seek or receive asylum on human rights laws to protect their most basic needs and interests. In any event, the human, financial and social harms of what is being proposed will not ease tension concerning migration and human rights but rather make this worse. While the Government is formally committed to the European Convention on Human Rights, its current actions and proposals put the future of this country’s participation in this regional human rights agreement at significant risk.

I urge you to please raise these concerns with ministers and would be grateful to hear from you as to how you intend to respond to the proposals.