Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Legal routes to asylum: what are they?

48 replies

Watchagotch72 · 08/08/2023 20:26

I’ve read the threads about the barge, and about the issue of illegal migrants arriving in the UK. One thing that gets mentioned often is that ‘the uk government has closed off all the Legal routes of asylum’.

what are these routes?
are the UK government obliged to offer these routes? How do they work?

can people wishing to apply for asylum choose to do so in the country of their choice? I can totally understand why people would choose the UK over France (English speaking, no ID cards, NHS free at the point of care, able to work cash in hand, established immigrant communities etc) but am not sure how the ‘legal routes’ would be available given the geographical routes by which people arrive.

OP posts:
AnneElliott · 08/08/2023 21:46

It's worth being aware that no EU country allows asylum claims to be lodged from outside the country. The UK is often criticised for not allowing this but no other EU country does either - and I can't think of any one that does - although I've not worked in immigration for a while.

France is really keen that the migrants living in camps on their northern coastline are accepted here and they often make noises about the UK allowing this. But just consider that I'm sure Greece would be thrilled if France allowed out of county applications but for some reason they don't choose to.

Aplume · 08/08/2023 21:46

Those coming on small boats aren’t seeking asylum anyway as if so they’d seek it in the first country they come to. That’s always been the process

What the fuck are you talking about? That's never been the process. Honestly, never ever.

The process is that you claim asylum where you claim it.

At the point you claim asylum you are literally stateless. It doesn't matter where you are. That's the point of asylum.

AnneElliott · 08/08/2023 21:48

The other big reason more young men make the trip is that they're often avoiding military service rather than having a convention reason for claiming asylum.

There's only a few countries in the world that conscript women (Israel and Eritrea are the two that come to mind) and so that's a reason why you see fewer women.

MillicentBystandr · 08/08/2023 21:49

AnneElliott · 08/08/2023 21:46

It's worth being aware that no EU country allows asylum claims to be lodged from outside the country. The UK is often criticised for not allowing this but no other EU country does either - and I can't think of any one that does - although I've not worked in immigration for a while.

France is really keen that the migrants living in camps on their northern coastline are accepted here and they often make noises about the UK allowing this. But just consider that I'm sure Greece would be thrilled if France allowed out of county applications but for some reason they don't choose to.

That’s not been true since 2016. The EUAA allows refugees to apply to any EU country from the first EU country they arrive in.

AnneElliott · 08/08/2023 21:50

Very few asylum seekers are stateless- that's quite a specific narrow definition and if people qualify (very rare - I only saw 2 cases I think) they are granted asylum straight away.

Most people are not stateless but are claiming to face persecution in their home country which means they want to seek asylum elsewhere.

AnneElliott · 08/08/2023 21:51

Yes but they have to get to the EU first - they can't apply to an EU country for asylum from Africa for example.

SueVineer · 08/08/2023 22:08

Aplume · 08/08/2023 21:46

Those coming on small boats aren’t seeking asylum anyway as if so they’d seek it in the first country they come to. That’s always been the process

What the fuck are you talking about? That's never been the process. Honestly, never ever.

The process is that you claim asylum where you claim it.

At the point you claim asylum you are literally stateless. It doesn't matter where you are. That's the point of asylum.

Sorry but it isn’t true that you lose your existing citizenship when you apply for asylum elsewhere nor does the act of applying for asylum make you stateless

JuneWind · 08/08/2023 22:19

TheodoreMortlock · 08/08/2023 21:33

If you give this question an iota of thought, you might come up with any of the following:

Men are less vulnerable to sexual violence en route.
Men are more likely to be at risk of overt state persecution in many asylum-producing countries.
Men are often prioritised in families which can only afford to send one person.
Men generally have fewer caring responsibilities.
Many families hope that in sending the man, the wife and kids can apply for family reunion later, once he is granted.
Men in many asylum-producing countries are more likely than women to have the education level, skills, and contacts to leave and to believe they will manage abroad.
Women in many asylum-producing countries lack autonomy including access to their own funds.
Women can be more reluctant to leave their children / elderly parents.
Women's asylum claims are often from fear of non state actors and they may not always realise that they would be entitled to seek asylum.

These are generalisations but they do have an impact. Women do want to come but circumstances can prevent them doing so due to patriarchy, prioritising, and pragmatism.

Show quote history

This is a really well thought out and reasoned post.

Elieenmorrigan · 11/08/2023 17:28

Can those supporters of "safe & Legal Routes" set out what this means in practice?

Where would the starting point for these routes be and how many applications should be accepted?

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 11/08/2023 17:43

Well, the current estimate is 100,000 in the last twelve months ( that’s the people who have actually claimed asylum). So in eighteen months, that’s Reading or Macclesfield filled. Two years takes you to Brighton. Three years, the entire population of Leicester.

That’s with all the current ‘barriers’ which are so decried. So how many people would turn up if it was just an ‘open ‘ border.

titchy · 11/08/2023 17:56

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 11/08/2023 17:43

Well, the current estimate is 100,000 in the last twelve months ( that’s the people who have actually claimed asylum). So in eighteen months, that’s Reading or Macclesfield filled. Two years takes you to Brighton. Three years, the entire population of Leicester.

That’s with all the current ‘barriers’ which are so decried. So how many people would turn up if it was just an ‘open ‘ border.

No one's suggesting open borders.... just that the easiest way to avoid untold deaths on small boats is to enable asylum applications to be made from outside the UK.

(And if 100,000 a year are awarded asylum status so what - NET migration is what puts pressure on local services. Not that the UK is able to actually measure net migration...)

Howdoyouknowwhitney · 11/08/2023 18:06

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Elieenmorrigan · 11/08/2023 21:08

@titchy "No one's suggesting open borders.... just that the easiest way to avoid untold deaths on small boats is to enable asylum applications to be made from outside the UK."

So which countries do you suggest for this scheme?

Countries such as Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Libya, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, and Syria are all currently experiencing civil wars, resulting in significant casualties and displacement.

So which would you prioritise?

titchy · 11/08/2023 21:14

Elieenmorrigan · 11/08/2023 21:08

@titchy "No one's suggesting open borders.... just that the easiest way to avoid untold deaths on small boats is to enable asylum applications to be made from outside the UK."

So which countries do you suggest for this scheme?

Countries such as Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Libya, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, and Syria are all currently experiencing civil wars, resulting in significant casualties and displacement.

So which would you prioritise?

Eh - I'm not talking about our assessment of asylum seekers and the relative merit of their case - that's not what the thread is about Confused

Im just explaining, because very few people are aware, that legal routes are pretty much non-existent, hence why people take the huge risk of crossing the channel in an overloaded dinghy, and if the Gov wanted to solve that problem (and not have to house asylum seekers whilst they're waiting for their claims to be processed), then enable them to apply from outside the UK.

If you want to discuss who we prioritise etc maybe start a thread about that.

Elieenmorrigan · 11/08/2023 21:21

@titchy "Im just explaining, because very few people are aware, that legal routes are pretty much non-existent, hence why people take the huge risk of crossing the channel in an overloaded dinghy, and if the Gov wanted to solve that problem (and not have to house asylum seekers whilst they're waiting for their claims to be processed), then enable them to apply from outside the UK."

Well then why are we having a discussion?

The legal routes are here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes

End of discussion.

CloudPop · 11/08/2023 22:12

Bear in mind over 600,000 people immigrated to the UK last year entirely legally.

CloudPop · 11/08/2023 22:13

Which was supposed to be the point of brexit.

CloudPop · 11/08/2023 22:14

"Bringing back control of borders"

titchy · 11/08/2023 22:31

End of discussion.

I'm sure OP is delighted to have your contribution.

Perhaps you can go through all other Mn threads and respond in the same way?

RafaistheKingofClay · 11/08/2023 22:53

I bet end of discussion is what the Home Secretary wished she’d said when she was asked what the safe and legal routes were by the select committee and couldn’t answer.

Given that the Afghan resettlement scheme and the Ukrainian one were a total clusterfuck I’m not sure it is the end of the discussion.

Original poster
Watchagotch72 · 12/08/2023 06:32

I have read the UK government legal sheet: it’s pretty thin, and as a former policy writer there is a fair amount of padding in there. Beyond family / existing link to the Uk schemes, and arrangements for specific groups (from Ukraine, Afghanistan and HK) the only legal option is the UNHCR referral scheme. A quick read of this indicates that only a tiny, tiny minority of refugees (and it does apply only to confirmed refugees - those already living in camps etc outside their own country) ever succeed in being resettled in the UK in this way, and that there are no quotas or any other obligation on the UK. There are of course various routes for skilled workers, or students etc to obtain visas to live and work in the UK.

Wikipedia was useful in clarifying the terms (though we can probably still argue about them):

people arriving in the UK without the necessary permissions are defined as ‘illegal immigrants’ up to the point where they submit an application for asylum, which can only be done from under the country. Once the application has been accepted for consideration they are classified as ‘asylum seekers’. If their application is approved they get ‘refugee status’. If it is turned down they revert to being illegal immigrants.

So effectively there are no safe or legal routes for these people who end up in the small boats, not to the UK or to many other rich, developed nations. And there is no legal obligation on the UK / other destination countries to provide them.

OP posts:
Elieenmorrigan · 12/08/2023 06:42

titchy · 11/08/2023 22:31

End of discussion.

I'm sure OP is delighted to have your contribution.

Perhaps you can go through all other Mn threads and respond in the same way?

Err, excuse me, but I don't see the need for sarcasm

I was quite happy to contribute to this discussion and I questioned the logistical challenges of setting up bi-lateral agreements with other countries. This is part and parcel of dealing with asylum claims originating outside UK.

You yourself told me, quite clearly, at 21.08 yesterday, that my contribution was irrelevant and therefore not required. You also told me I should start my own thread.

So I've acquiesced to your request and left the thread, but it seems that doesn't suit you either. 🙄

New posts on this thread. Refresh page