Asylum - how does it work, what would providing ‘safe routes’ look like?

[rickyrickygrimes]

I’ve been reading the illegal immigration thread 101 and have a question. Some posters propose that ‘safe routes’ should be provided, for people to apply for asylum in the UK.

What are ‘safe routes’? Where do people seeking asylum apply from - and how? Are there any rich / developed countries that have functioning, safe routes to asylum? How do we prevent them becoming a free for all?

You can only claim asylum once in the UK. Safe routes would involve setting up spaces where you could apply for asylum outside the UK and we would be inundated.

What would these ‘spaces’ be? Like an office? Or something online? i just can’t imagine something that would work 🤷‍♀️

has any country managed to do this?

A building with people inside that process claims. I haven't heard of any countries doing it.

I think they mean things like the UNCR schemes.
The UNCR identify genuine refugees and the UK agree to take a certain number.

As an advocate of safe routes let me explain. There are, for practical purposes, no way you can come to the UK legally so as to claim Asylum. You won't get on a plane to the UK without a visa or some other means of legal entry. It's either a boat, legal arrival with a promise of work and default on that or jiggery pokery with false papers.

I see two variants. One is for people from places like Afghanistan who have some connection to the UK, for example working for us pre the current regime. It would operate from neighbouring countries such as Pakistan.

I don't mean people could just rock up and be in London a few hours later. They'd be pre-processed for Asylum as would otherwise be the case when they're picked up in the Channel. Proper in depth interviews and full fingerprint/DNA etc profiles taken.

The other would be in Northern France. Same process as above. They'd need to show a connection to the UK such as family and have enough English to be able to navigate basic life skills in the UK. Prospect of work might be needed too. If they're refused by that route then try to sneak in on a boat they'll be straight back. Obviously it would require the active agreement and participation of the French and no doubt, as is ever the case some quid pro quo on our part.

It would no more be a free for all than what we have now.

If it doesn't work or there is clear evidence of abuse then it stops.

Given the lack of success stopping boats, or prior to that people under lorries, a bold alternative has to be worth a try.

Only we don't.

Refugees in other countries can be given protection in the UK via resettlement schemes. The UK works with the UN Refugee Agency (the 'UNHCR') to arrange for the transfer of refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of ultimately granting them permanent residence.

You'd probably be off better reading the information on the government website.

Safe and Legal (Humanitarian) routes to the UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2024/safe-and-legal-humanitarian-routes-to-the-uk#:~:text=Refugees%20in%20other%20countries%20can,ultimately%20granting%20them%20permanent%20residence.

Does it actually happen though.

What are the numbers for those coming by the route last year?

Whenever this subject is discussed I'm reminded of the then Home Secretary being kebabbed by an MP from her own party over safe routes:

Does it actually happen though. What are the numbers for those coming by the route last year? Why don't you Google it? The information is available.

@NancyBellaDonna the answer would seem to be 59,000 over ten years nearly all of whom were Syrians or Afghans.

As I read it you have to have refugee status to apply.

And to keep us on topic the subject is safe routes for those seeking asylum.

i don’t think refugees and asylum seekers are the same category, but I might be wrong 🤷‍♀️

@rickyrickygrimes Spot on. A Refugee is an Asylum Seeker whose claim has succeeded.

Thank you for a detailed response.

So the Home Office safe routes are aimed at

Ukrainians
British Nationals overseas - Hong Kong
Afghanistanis
the Syrian. / Middle East route ended in 2021 I think.

of the people currently arriving by ‘small boats’ , this is for the year to June 2024, here are the nationalities

1. Afghanistan – 5,370 arrivals (18%)
2. Iran – 3,844 arrivals (13%)
3. Vietnam – 3,031 arrivals (10%)
4. Turkey – 2,925 arrivals (10%)
5. Syria – 2,849 arrivals (9%)
6. Eritrea – 2,678 arrivals (9%)
7. Sudan – 2,560 arrivals (8%)
8. Iraq – 2,450 arrivals (8%)
9. Albania – 927 arrivals (3%)

10. Other nationalities – 3,366 arrivals (12%)

Assuming that the Afghanis who do qualify for asylum to the UK choose the legal route, that means that none of the above can apply through the existing safe routes.

yet 60-70% of irregular immigrants who apply for asylum status are eventually granted it. 🤷‍♀️ but none of them have a safe route to begin with?

You are right - it's a continuum. A person at risk applies for asylum and is therefore an asylum seeker. When their application is accepted they are then considered a refugee. They are the same thing but at different points in time.

The "safe routes" concept is largely a fallacy - except for specific circumstances (Hong Kong, Ukraine and latterally some Afghans) it is an impossible ask. Let me explain...

Imagine you are an woman in Afghanistan. I imagine you'll not be feeling very safe or secure right now. You're a doctor. You aren't allowed to work any more, but women keep coming to see you, and you have been warned by the Taliban to desist or else... Now a "safe route" involves you, say, going on line and filling in an application form saying that your life is at risk so you'd like to come to Britain. Around about the time the Taliban intercept your communication, you are dead. Same applies if you "nip to the embassy office". Except of course it closed in 2021 so you need to get to Qatar (which is the UK mission to Afghanistan HQ now). You can't exactly get on a plane!

So you grab your money and belongings and with the help of some male relatives, you travel overland and walk into Pakistan. You are now placed in a huge refugee camp - nearly 1 million Afghans are currently in such camps in Pakistan. According the the UK you are now in a "safe country" and therefore cannot apply for asylum. The only possible way to legally claim asylum is the enter the UK and claim it at the point of entry. You can't afford to get on a plane. You are stuck in Pakistan and are going nowhere. You will never be safe.

There are many versions of stories like that. The only way to enable a safe route would be to allow people to apply from abroad in "safe countries" and provide their reasons for wanting to settle in the UK (often to join up with family for example). The idea that "the small boats" are all young men who are economic migrants is not entirely true. Some will be. But others are genuine asylum seekers fleeing abuse and threats. 72% of "small boat arrivals" between 2018 and 2024 were given refugee status. And refugee status is simply not easy to achieve.

Whether people like it or not, the majority of these people are genuine asylum seekers whose lives are at risk in their home country. The only possible safe route system would need to be allowing people to apply from a safe third country and considering their reasons for wanting to come to the UK in a mature and informed way. That doesn't open the floodgates, as some claim. It starts to put the people traffikkers out of business and allows us to have an informed and humane approach to allowing those at risk in ways that we will (hopefully) never know to settle and build new lives - whether in the UK or elsewhere. It doesn't mean that we have to accept all applications, even where genuine. We still hold the right to refuse entry. But it would allow us to look at supporting those who, for example, already have family here or other good cause to want to settle in the UK instead of them risking their lives further in an attempt to enter by unsafe routes.

@rickyrickygrimes the standout on that list is Vietnam from which people smuggling into modern slavery is huge. I believe all of the others are places where some groups could well have a well founded fear of persecution even if they 'kept their heads down'.

The issue with this approach is demand.

We wouldn’t be able to meet the high demand and that would mean a market for trafficking would still exist.

Unless you stopped the latter which is the hard part.

There is certainly truth in that. There have been people traffickers as long as humans have been around. They will continue. But what we would be doing is giving people with genuine cause a safe and legal route. And reducing demand - bear in mind what I said before, the majority of people arriving in this way are actually accepted as genuine asylum seekers. Right now we give the genuine people no safe route and push them into the hands of the criminals.

And as I also said, we don't have to meet a "high demand" - nothing says that we have to accept everyone who applies. We are still able to set conditions and criteria, as we currently do.

Yes we can and do set limits on safe routes now. You could double or triple that and the same issue would be there.

Those who are not accepted due to those limits can still arrive as they do now, by crossing in any manner under international law.

You can only limit and not have that by opting out of those laws or being hardline as some countries are, and the electorate might not be there yet.

Your first variant already exists. There is a scheme in place for people with connections to the UK and who used to work with the UK government.

Your second variant fundamentally misunderstands the process to claiming asylum which is about proving they are fleeing prosecution not having English or family connections.

Organisations calling for this envisage that it would mean accessing people in refugee camps and once they are approved travelling from there.

I do think that creating more safe routes and funding the refugee camps in countries like Turkey, Jordan and Uganda who all host vast numbers would actually reduce the numbers of people fleeing to Europe and the UK. It’s also more humane.

@Odras you misunderstand my points.

If the first variant exits it's not working.

My second variant more or less assumes fleeing persecution as a given. It's about whether the UK is the place those meeting the criteria should be accommodated.

No you are right I don’t think the first one did work - the promises made on numbers were not kept. On the second I fundamentally disagree. I don’t think it is fair that 75% of refugees in the world are in camps in countries that are low or middle income themselves. We all need to share it out a bit more.

I volunteer at a conversational English sessions for aslyum seekers but I’m truly amazed at how quickly people learn English, especially the women I have met who have had no formal education at all. Lots of young people are speaking decent English after only 6 months.

Chat GPT tells me that these are the nationalities of most of the worlds refugees

1. Syrians – Fleeing the Syrian civil war since 2011. Most are in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Europe.
2. Afghans – Displaced by decades of conflict, including the Taliban takeover in 2021. Many are in Iran, Pakistan, and Europe.
3. South Sudanese – Escaping civil war and instability. Most are in Uganda, Sudan, and Kenya.
4. Rohingya (Myanmar) – Persecuted in Myanmar, with most refugees in Bangladesh (Cox’s Bazar).
5. Somalis – Fleeing decades of conflict and instability, many are in Kenya (Dadaab), Ethiopia, and Europe.
6. Sudanese – Many fled the Darfur conflict and more recently the 2023 civil war, seeking refuge in Chad, Egypt, and South Sudan.
7. Venezuelans – Displaced by economic collapse and political crisis, many are in Colombia, Brazil, and Peru.
8. Eritreans – Fleeing forced conscription and repression, many end up in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Europe.
9. Iraqis – Displaced by war, sectarian violence, and ISIS, with many in Jordan, Turkey, and Europe.

10. Ukrainians – Fleeing the Russian invasion since 2022, with most in Poland, Germany, and other European countries.

So there’s a lot of correlation with the groups that end up making it to Britain, and succeed in gaining refugee status.

Is fleeing civil war and conflict enough to be granted refugee status? Or does it need to be more specific - like the party in power is specifically repressing / harming women or gay people? And they can then make a case for refugee status.

so the example that @PhilippaGeorgiou of a female dr fleeing Afghanistan to a refugee camp in Pakistan: a safe route might be a UNHCR office, or whatever, accepting and processing asylum claims from there, in the camp? And Britain having agreed in advance to accept a certain number of applications recommended by the UNHCR assessors in Pakistan?

That’s a very easy case to sympathise with though. What about a young Sudanese or Somalian man, not particularly well qualified, little-to-no English, not specifically persecuted against but caught up in violence and no chance of a future in Sudan / Somalia because it’s a not a functioning country. There are no ‘safe routes’ for him, right? No country wants to make it easier for him to come to them and he has no claim to asylum. But he still desperately wants to leave.

Why not just give out 2 year working visas to young people from these top 10 countries, surely they just want the chance to work and better themselves

Telling someone they have failed in seeking asylum would make them more likely to jump in a boat and disappear once here.
How no one sees this flaw in the plan I don’t know.