Problematic migrant policy of the UK

There was immense pride in South Asia, especially on the other side of our border, when Rishi Sunak became the Prime Minister of the UK. However, the fact that Sunak was chosen to head the Conservative government is not indicative of British society deciding to become more inclusive. Instead, Sunak has been at the forefront of defending the controversial illegal migration plan, meant to keep desperate people from poor countries away from British borders.

The British Conservatives have sought to showcase diversity within their top leadership, perhaps in an attempt to deflect accusations of racism. Besides Sunak, the Conservatives consecutively brought two women of Indian origin to serve as Home Secretaries. Priti Patel was the Home Secretary from 2019 till September last year. Now, Suella Braverman is the current Home Secretary.

Despite their own migrant backgrounds, both these home secretaries have taken a hard stance against asylum seekers and undocumented migrants. The Conservatives aim to turn back anyone who enters the UK illegally, even if they are seeking asylum under rights enshrined in the International Refugees Convention, signed by the UK in 1951. The UK’s new illegal immigration plan intends to expel illegal entrants within 28 days and block them from returning or applying for British citizenship in the future.

Illegal entrants are either supposed to be returned to their country of origin, or else be relocated to another ‘safe’ country if they fear persecution back home. Home Secretary Patel had signed a controversial deal with Rwanda, whereby this African country offered to accommodate asylum seekers who manage to reach the UK in lieu of financial compensation.

Despite legal challenges, her successor, Braverman, is now also digging in her heels in an effort to push this repatriation plan through. Unfortunately, the appointment of people from diverse backgrounds to positions of power does not mean much if these individuals have been co-opted by, or are the product of, existing power structures. Sunak’s rise to the highest office in the UK means as much for South Asians as the rise of Indra Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Khaleda Zia or Sheikh Hasina meant for women’s empowerment in the Subcontinent.

While political dynasties were responsible for the rise of female premiers in the Subcontinent, the rise of Sunak, Patel or Braverman has been described as a tactic used by British Conservatives to “brown-wash” their far-right image and to use these minority leaders to push through tougher immigrant laws. Perhaps it seems more palatable for second generation migrants to advocate for the adoption of more stringent immigration policies, despite the irony that such strict policies may have prevented the migrant parents of these same Conservative leaders from having settled in the UK.

Yet, it is not uncommon for people from minorities or other vulnerable backgrounds to push agendas which undermine the interests of their larger group to gain personal benefits in the form of positions of power or affluence. The Conservatives are arguing that their efforts to prevent the arrival of smaller illegal boats on British shores are motivated by the need to prevent people smuggling. But such rhetoric is blind to the desperation which compels people to flee their homelands.

Making illegal migration more stringent will probably not prevent desperate people from risking their lives to reach Britain, but it will certainly make it riskier for them to do so. The current political debate within the UK is centred around whether the government has the capacity to detain those who arrive illegally on its shores, and whether the UK has the necessary agreements with other countries to repatriate asylum seekers.

The bigger question concerns Britain’s own role in creating the underlying conditions which are now compelling desperate people to flee their homes, and what obligations Britain has towards these people fleeing fragile states that had been exploited by centuries of colonial rule.