Writing to your MP about Government proposals on asylum and settlement

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 ordinarily not be permitted to apply to stay permanently until 20 years has passed since they were first granted asylum.

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 secure a visa to join them if they have substantial earnings or savings. 

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. 

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 has been a longstanding matter of considerable local and national controversy, and 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 the proposals relating 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. 

2. The Government will legislate to further restrict the application of modern slavery safeguards in immigration and asylum cases. 

3. The Government will change the way in which those migrant people who are permitted to settle (become permanent residents) may do so. In particular, it will introduce a system by which the period of time (and therefore the number of successful applications for permission to stay) that someone must spend with only temporary permission to stay will vary. It has called this system “earned settlement.” The starting point is that this period is to be 10 years for most migrant people. That period may be made shorter – for example, only 3 years for very high earners (with salaries over £125,140); or between 5-7 years for someone who can demonstrate “extensive” volunteering. It may be made longer – for example, 20 years for someone who has lawfully received public funds for more than 12 months; or 30 years for someone who first arrived without permission or has in the past overstayed permission that was granted to them. 

The above proposals, and others not listed here, are intended to make the immigration and asylum system harsher – except for migrant people who are relatively wealthy and/or with particularly privileged educational advantage. This is objectionable for several reasons including:

1. The asylum system ought to ensure that refugees are identified as quickly as possible, provided safety in the UK that is secure, and enabled 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 system for settlement ought to ensure that migrant people who are going to be staying are encouraged and enabled to integrate well. These proposals do precisely the opposite – except for migrant people who are already advantaged by relative wealth and privileged education. At their heart is an awful notion of social contribution that regards wealth and privilege as signifiers of worth and treats people who are not very high or high earners as if contributing little or nothing. This is fundamentally socially divisive – treating the work of surgeons as socially valuable but that of hospital cleaners as not; or treating high earners as socially valuable and integrated even if the person may be a poor parent, colleague or neighbour, or live a life wholly separated from the great majority.

3. 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 people 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.

4. 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 people, 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.

5. The likely human rights impact is dire. Increasing the severity of the immigration and asylum systems can only increase the dependence of migrant people 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.