Illegal Immigration Act: A Strain on the UK’s Economy and International Law

On July 20, 2023, after much contention, the United Kingdom (UK) passed into law the “Illegal Migration Bill”. The Tory-led government implemented the bill to deter the number of migrants illegally entering the United Kingdom, from small boats crossing the English Channel. Proponents of the bill claim that it will help solve issues in the United Kingdom’s broken asylum system. The Illegal Migration Bill has been controversial since its inception as it relies on the government to send migrants to a third, safe, country. So far, the only country which has agreed to act as a third country is Rwanda. However, the British Supreme Court has ruled that the Rwanda plan is unlawful, which will only further add to the issues created by the legislation.

The combination of the rise of right-wing populism, and the increasing number of displaced people arriving in Western countries has resulted in a growing anti-migrant sentiment throughout many Western countries. The United Kingdom is one such example, as approximately 52% of British citizens believe that immigration levels should be reduced, and 37% of people believe that the arrival of asylum seekers should be made more difficult.

In 2022, the UK received 74,751 asylum applications, and 110,171 asylees received government support that year. The increase in the number of migrants in conjunction with growing apprehensions makes reducing migration levels and increasing the difficulty of the asylum process a talking point for many conservative politicians. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak promised to bring down the immigration and migration levels he ‘inherited’ when he came into power. At the time of his nomination, the UK received approximately 500,000 net arrivals, with 45,774 Channel small-boat crossings. Thus, came Sunak’s vow to “stop the boats” and the subsequent creation of the Illegal Migration Bill.

According to the Home Office, the Illegal Migration Act has two primary goals. First, to make it “unambiguously clear that, if you enter the UK illegally, you should not be allowed to remain here.” Anyone entering the UK illegally on small boats will be detained and either sent back to their home country or another safe country where any asylum claims will be processed. Anyone removed from the UK will not be permitted the right to re-entry, settlement, or citizenship. The second primary goal is to increase the number of safe and legal routes available to asylum seekers and work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to identify the most vulnerable populations, while also partnering with local authorities to set a relevant annual cap on numbers. Measures to achieve these goals include strengthening detention powers so bail can only be applied for after 28 days, making removal easier, and prohibiting any last-minute legal challenges. The Home Office states that if someone is a victim of human trafficking, the office will ensure that nobody can abuse the nation’s modern slavery laws to lead to their removal.

The UNHCR and various rights groups have raised several concerns about the Act as it effectively strips the migrants of the ability to make any asylum or human rights claims, while also increasing the burden placed on asylum seekers and the country to which they are being sent. The British Supreme Court deemed that sending migrants to Rwanda was unlawful. Therefore, any migrant detained as a result of the Act is thereby detained indefinitely. The Act stipulates that detained asylum seekers may be sent back to their home countries; however, for the vast majority of migrants, returning to their home country is not a viable option. This is especially true for migrants who enter the country by crossing the English Channel from countries like Albania, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Eritrea, and Sudan – of these seven countries, only Albania is a safe country to return to, according to the UNCHR. It is also important to recognize that, in recent years, fewer migrants have been able to access asylum through safe and legal routes. For example, in 2022, only 1,185 people from those seven countries were resettled through a safe route. The Illegal Migration Act provides no concrete steps towards increasing the number of safe and legal routes to the UK and therefore has no means of achieving the Home Office’s second primary goal.

From an economic perspective, the Home Office insists that the Act will lower the amount of expenditure spent on asylum seekers and refugees, currently set at about £3 billion. The Home Office stated the cost of relocation outside of the UK – £169000 per individual – would ultimately save money. However, this data relies on the UK sending migrants to Rwanda, which has been deemed unlawful. Even if sending migrants to Rwanda were a viable option, some sources, like BBC, estimate that the Home Office’s claim of cost savings is inaccurate and keeping migrants out of the UK may be more expensive than keeping them in the UK. Furthermore, a UK-based organization, the Refugee Council, conducted a budget impact assessment, which reported a lower bound estimate of the total detention and support costs of £8.7 billion, and the upper bound estimate of £9.7 billion, both of which are significantly higher than the £3 billion currently being spent.

The UK receives far fewer asylum seekers than most other countries in Europe and often prohibits them from being able to work or receive certain kinds of assistance until they are granted official refugee status. However, the UK spends more on asylum seekers than many other European countries. The Illegal Migration Act does little to provide any alleviation to budgetary strains presented by the current process. If anything, the Act will only increase economic burdens as detention rates and detention times for asylum seekers increase. The Act puts further strains on asylum seekers, as the asylum process becomes more arduous to navigate. United Nations (UN) experts deem the act to be punitive more than a resolution of root causes. Vulnerable people will be exposed to further harm, hostility, and xenophobia. Furthermore, according to the former home secretary Suella Braverman, the Act pushes the boundaries of international law and could pose significant risks to the integrity of international law if more countries follow in the UK’s example.