Revealed: Anti-immigrant laws leave 1,000s unable to claim asylum
Conservative law changes meant asylum claims for small boat arrivals stopped last year, leaving thousands in limbo
Last year, Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government made a last-ditch effort to win over voters with the Illegal Migration Act (IMA), a draconian policy that said anybody arriving in the UK via an ‘irregular’ route – usually aboard a small boat or in the back of a lorry – would not have their asylum application considered.
The law was intended to deter people from travelling to the UK to claim asylum. But vulnerable communities continued to risk their lives to cross over in large numbers only to find themselves caught in a legal no-man’s land with no clear route to asylum.
An investigation by openDemocracy has uncovered more than 31,000 people arrived in the UK in a small boat in the 12 months after the law was passed in July 2023 – compared to 40,000 people in the previous 12 months – and more than 99% of them submitted an asylum application.
Under the IMA all of their applications were deemed ‘inadmissible’. The law required the Home Office to remove the applicants to either their home country or a third country. But their home countries were often considered unsafe, meaning deportations would breach international law, and the government was unable to pass its controversial Rwanda policy – described as “inhumane” by rights campaigners – which would have seen asylum seekers sent to the East African country for processing.
While immigration rights campaigners say it is not possible to determine whether the fall in the number of people crossing the Channel was due to the IMA – it could also have been caused by reasons such as the weather, wars or global events – it is undisputed that the law created a huge asylum backlog, with dire consequences for the people affected.
Thirty-one thousand applicants were stuck in limbo: unable to claim asylum, work in the UK or find a house, abandoned on the fringes of society in Home Office-run accommodation. Yet their nationalities suggest that most would have been granted refugee status before the law was changed.
openDemocracy’s analysis revealed that of the 31,000 new arrivals, more were from Afghanistan than any other country (5,370) and a further 2,849 were from Syria. Before the IMA came into effect, 99% of Afghan and Syrian claimants had been granted asylum.
There were also a further 3,844 applicants from Iran, 3,031 from Vietnam and 2,925 from Turkey – all of whom would have been more likely than not to have had their asylum claim granted before the IMA. The UK had previously accepted 86% of Iranians, 88% of Turkish asylum seekers, and 54% of those from Vietnam at initial decision. The actual proportion of arrivals granted asylum was likely higher still, as even those who did not have their application accepted at the initial decision could appeal the refusal with the Home Office.
Giulia Tranchina, national immigration manager for the legal and welfare advice team at the NGO Freedom from Torture, said openDemocracy’s findings expose how the IMA risks “people left, being left stuck as asylum seekers forever, never able to feel safe, to work, be reunited with their families”.
Related story: ID 56623
These findings also reveal the pitfalls of using ever-harsher laws to tackle immigration — a complex geopolitical issue that cannot simply be legislated away without a humane and comprehensive policy.
Refugee Action chief executive Tim Naor Hilton said the figures “highlight how dysfunctional and inhumane the system had become under laws passed by the previous government”. Naor Hilton urged the new Labour government to “commit to defending the right to claim asylum in line with our international agreements”.
In July, new home secretary Yvette Cooper condemned the IMA as the “most extraordinary policy I have ever seen”, telling Parliament: “I have been shocked to discover that the Home Office has effectively stopped making the majority of asylum decisions [...] We have inherited asylum ‘Hotel California’ – people arrive in the asylum system and they never leave.”
Cooper issued a statutory instrument – legislation that allows the government to change a law without the need to pass a new Act of Parliament – so “the Home Office can immediately start clearing cases”.
The instrument has suspended the ban on processing applications, meaning people who have arrived on small boats can finally have their asylum claims heard, and decided, either with an offer of refugee protection or removal from the UK. Cooper also committed to introducing new immigration legislation through the forthcoming Border, Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.
But with claims not having been processed for an entire year, the asylum backlog has ballooned. More than 76,000 people have been waiting for more than six months for an asylum decision, according to openDemocracy’s analysis of Home Office data.
The delays, Tranchina warned, place asylum seekers in legal limbo and have “horrific” implications for their mental and physical wellbeing. “People cannot recover from trauma when they don’t have any safety and stability,” she said. “They feel that no one cares about what they have suffered and what their families are often still suffering.
“They can’t even explain to someone what they went through, because the Illegal Migration Act means they are not even invited to an asylum interview,” she added, referring to the ‘substantive interview’ with the Home Office that all asylum seekers were previously invited to. This chance for a person to make a case as to why they are in danger in their home country and need refugee status was prohibited under the IMA.
Sara* knows all too well the impact that being stuck in asylum limbo can have on a person’s wellbeing. She waited three years for her claim to be processed after she fled Iran, where she had been tortured for her political activism. Freedom from Torture, a charity that has supported Sarah since her arrival to the UK, estimates that nearly half (44%) of refugees arriving in the UK have survived torture.
“It was a choice of flee or die,” she told openDemocracy, describing her decision to leave her home. Traumatised by the ill-treatment she had suffered in Iran, she hoped the UK would offer a safe place to live. Instead, the three-year wait left her depressed and suicidal.
“I arrived with hope, but I was broken down to a woman standing at the edge of a river wanting to die. I’d escaped torture and death from a dictatorship, but now it would be life in the UK that killed me,” Sara added.
The collapse in protection shows the Tory government left an “asylum system in meltdown” as a result of policies that “effectively banned asylum in the UK,” said Imran Hussain, the executive director of external affairs at the Refugee Council.
Protest and hate
As well as having had no route to asylum in the UK, most of those arriving on small boats had nowhere else to go. Instead, they were placed in temporary accommodation, such as hotels, barracks or the controversial Bibby Stockholm barge, which will close in January. Such accommodation has become a target for far-right protests over the recent years, including during the race riots that spanned much of the UK last month.
The far-right group Britain First, which regularly films “exposés” of asylum hotels, describes the UK government as “traitors” for accommodating migrant people, “while our own people struggle and our veterans sleep rough on the streets”.
openDemocracy’s analysis of far-right Telegram channels found migrant people being referred to as “scroungers” and hotels described as “being on standby for fighting-age foreign men”. Such language is often used in extremist memes.
Sian Norris
“The riots over the summer do not reflect the views of Britons, the vast majority of whom unequivocally condemned the violence and are proud that Britain is a multi-ethnic society,” said Jenna Cunningham, research and data analyst at the More in Common think tank.
She added that most British people want the government to take action on immigration, but “with common-sense compassion”.
“People seeking asylum want to integrate into our democratic society,” said Tranchina of Freedom from Torture.“If people are treated with compassion, then the system can be efficient and quick.
“People should have their claims processed, they should be granted protection, they should be allowed to work and be reunited with their families. That way people can recover and contribute so much to society.”
Responding to openDemocracy’s request for comment, a Home Office spokesperson said: “The home secretary has taken immediate action to clear the asylum backlog and enhance the government’s immigration enforcement and returns capability, redeploying hundreds of staff to increase the removal of those with no right to be here.”
Such steps, they added, are designed to “strengthen our border security and bring an end to dangerous Channel crossings which put lives at risk.”
Sile Reynolds, head of advocacy at Freedom from Torture, warned moves by Labour to clear the asylum backlog could risk endangering people if proper procedures are not followed.
“The new government has shown a welcome willingness to reject the gimmicks and flawed policymaking of the past and has committed to admit and process asylum claims swiftly,” Reynolds said.
She added, however, that ramping up returns could lead to an approach that is “frighteningly reminiscent of the careless approach to refugees’ human rights demonstrated by previous post-holders.
“Speed cannot come at the expense of quality or we risk sending refugees back to torture and persecution.”
openDemocracy is investigating how anti-democratic laws are impacting human rights in the UK, from anti-migration legislation to attempts to crack down on protest, and changes to policing powers. Got an example or story to share? Email sian.norris@opendemocracy.net
Comments ()