London, Response
At the former camp on the edge of Crowborough, East Sussex, hand-made signs swayed in the wind as residents gathered in the soft morning light, their breath caught in the cold air. The narrow road leading to the facility was lined with police in fluorescent jackets, amid groups of locals who had come to express their concern over plans to house 600 applicants in the sprawling military complex.
Although the demonstration remained peaceful, the atmosphere was tense – some curiosity, some concern – as residents watched the gates of the camp that may soon be the new home of hundreds of new arrivals in .
In one of them, the British government presented a package of reforms aimed at preventing irregular arrivals, speeding up returns and reforming refugee protection. Ministers argue that the pressures on the existing system have become unbearable, citing international instability, increasing mobile populations and a domestic framework they see as lagging behind other European countries.
Inspiration from Denmark
The new model moves the UK towards , clearly inspired by the reforms implemented in Denmark in recent years. Under the plans, refugee status would be temporary and not an automatic path to permanent settlement.
Reviews will take place every 30 months and refugees may be returned to their country of origin if deemed safe. Access to family reunification, appeals, housing and financial support will be limited. Those who enter legally but then claim asylum will also face tougher rules.
Supporters within the government describe the package as necessary to restore public trust and dismantle the traffickers’ business model. Critics – lawyers, refugee experts and human rights defenders – warn the changes risk breaching international obligations, undermining integration and putting vulnerable people at greater risk.
According to Interior Minister Shabana Mahmoud, the system has become unsustainable. “As we stuck to the old model, other countries tightened theirs… Last year, asylum applications in Denmark fell to a 40-year low,” he said.
Legality concerns
Dr Ruby Ziegler, Associate Professor of International Refugee Law at the University of Reading, told Vima that “the government is proposing a regressive package of measures that do not comply with its international obligations nor with the country’s constitutional principles… By targeting the right to safe residence of recognized refugees, it is treating them worse than any other migrant”.
“Subjecting them to an asylum review every 2.5 years will cause them prolonged uncertainty. Revoking the right to family reunification will push more family members into dangerous irregular travel,” he added. “It would be far better to allow asylum seekers to work while their applications are being assessed and contribute through taxation.”
Implications for public debate
According to Bridget Anderson, professor of Migration, Mobility and Citizenship at the University of Bristol, the new measures “will shift the political debate on asylum even further to the right. The “illegal immigrant” is considered a criminal, as are now asylum seekers and refugees”.
“Will the numbers go down? Probably not. People who want to come to the UK often have connections here,” he told Vima. The new system “will only be effective in making people’s lives unbearable and causing them mental illness.”
Professor Anderson also expressed concern about the “increased risk of incorrect returns and wrongful lawsuits. It undermines the UK’s commitment to the rule of law and international obligations.” He predicts that “homelessness and poverty will increase” and warns that “neither racism nor asylum applications will decrease. Deportations will really tear communities apart. What employer will invest in an employee who will not have a guaranteed stay beyond 30 months?’ he wondered.
The political debate is getting tougher
Dr Dan Fisher, a research fellow at the University of Glasgow’s Center for Public Policy, told Vima that the Home Office’s proposals would reshape the public and parliamentary debate on asylum. “Despite a major overhaul of the asylum system, opposition parties are still calling for further radical changes – including leaving the European Court of Human Rights. The political debate on asylum is therefore likely to intensify further, both in the House of Commons and in the public sphere.”
In particular, he added, “combined with existing rhetoric that portrays some asylum seekers as ‘fake/illegal’ and others as ‘deserving’, this kind of language and action may lead to further demonization of people seeking asylum in the UK.”
Regarding the government’s plan to introduce temporary refugee status, Dr Fischer observed that “the decision to reduce the refugee residence permit to 2.5 years by reviewing the status is an adjustment to the Danish asylum system. However, according to the organization Refugees Welcome Denmark, the Danish state succeeded in canceling only 48 permits last year. Therefore, the need to review refugee status – coupled with the proposed work and study visas that refugees could apply for – represents a huge increase in bureaucratic burdens for the Home Office and the government as a whole.”
“Temporary shift” in protection
Dr Alan Desmond, associate professor at the University of Leicester, told Vima that “the shift towards temporary refugee status in the UK is indicative of a wider ‘temporary shift'”. It seems paradoxical that such a punitive approach should be applied to people who are granted refugee status by the UK.”
“The proposal that they wait 20 years before applying for permanent settlement conflicts with the UK’s international obligations. This waiting clearly contradicts Article 34 of the Geneva Convention,” he added. “It will add administrative burden to the Home Office, which is already notorious for delays and backlogs. Withdrawing guaranteed housing can push asylum seekers into poverty and make them more vulnerable to exploitation. It will undermine their inclusion and social cohesion.”
Risks of indigency and legal pressures
“While there is little evidence that temporary refugee status prevents arrivals, it is certain to create long periods of insecurity,” Nando Sigona, professor of International Migration and Forced Displacement at the University of Birmingham, told Vima. “Limiting appeals increases the risk of incorrect returns, family separations and breaches of basic protection”.
“Removing guaranteed support will not reduce need – it will shift costs to local authorities and increase homelessness. Instrumentalizing poverty as a deterrent to refugee arrival has not worked in the past,” he added. “We expect more litigation, more administrative pressure and deeper social instability. The temporary asylum regime requires repeated reviews; it does not simplify the task, it multiplies it.”
