{ subscribe_url: '/share/sites/library-of-congress-blogs/law.php' }

UK – New Immigration and Asylum Bill Provides Fundamental Change

The following is a guest post by Chris Brain, a foreign law intern working in the Global Legal Research Directorate of the Law Library of Congress under the supervision of Clare Feikert-Ahalt, senior foreign law specialist for the United Kingdom.

On July 6, 2021, the Nationality and Borders Bill (the bill) was introduced in the UK Parliament with the aim of amending the current asylum and immigration system in the United Kingdom (UK). The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, introduced the bill so that the UK can “take full control of its borders” and prevent the asylum system from being abused. The bill has raised concerns from immigration practitioners.

The bill has just passed the first reading, which is the initial stage in the UK’s legislative process. The reading is usually described as a formality as at this stage a bill is passed without a debate. A date for a second reading is then usually set when the Members of Parliament will debate the bill, make amendments, and vote on passing the bill to the next stage of the law-making process.

If enacted, the bill will make fundamental amendments to the asylum and immigration system. With respect to existing asylum law, the bill seeks to amend the criminal offense of illegal entry by removing the requirement of “entry.” The difference between arriving and entry is that asylum seekers are not deemed to have ‘entered’ the UK until they disembark. Under the proposals in this bill, any person arriving in the UK without permission can be prosecuted. Currently, if an asylum seeker disembarks at a port, they do not ‘enter’ the UK until they have passed through immigration control. Removing the requirement of entry may open asylum seekers to prosecution for just arriving in the UK before being able to claim asylum. Immigration practitioners have expressed concern that the broadness of the offense may potentially lead to “thousands of additional convictions every year.” However, any potential criminal prosecution must first meet the Crown Prosecution Service’s two-stage test: (i) whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute; and (ii) whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.

The bill aims to amend the offense of helping an asylum seeker to enter the UK by removing the requirement of facilitating “for gain.” This means that any person who knowingly facilitates the arrival, or attempted arrival, of an asylum seeker, will be guilty of an offense and subject to life imprisonment, regardless of whether they facilitated the entry “for gain.” (Clause 38.) An exemption to this offense is maintained for organizations that aim to assist asylum seekers and do not charge for their services. Lawyers have queried whether this offense would conflict with maritime law if a person were to help a boat in distress that contained asylum seekers, and also whether organizations such as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution may be prosecuted under this bill as they would not fall into the above exemption. The Home Office published a tweet stating that the coastguard and lifeboat services would not be prosecuted for helping boats in distress, however, it did not provide a legal basis for this statement.

The bill provides for “differential treatment of refugees” depending on their mode of arrival. (Clause 10.) As a result, the length of time a refugee may be granted permission to stay in the UK, whether permission to enter the UK will be given to a refugee’s family, and the requirements a refugee must meet to obtain indefinite permission to remain in the UK may vary depending on how they arrived in the UK. Additionally, the bill provides the power to remove an asylum seeker to a ‘safe third country’ to claim asylum if they stopped in that country prior to the UK. The bill also allows the government to remove asylum seekers to a safe third country while their asylum appeal in the UK is processing. (Schedule 3(1).) In line with that provision, the Home Secretary is set to propose offshore processing centers for asylum seekers in the UK.

The bill will make changes to the court process. First, it will provide “Priority Removal Notices”, which will cause some removal and deportation appeals to be heard directly in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). This will create a single-tier appeal system for those select cases, which was previously in place in the UK but was abolished in 2010. The immigration appeal system is currently two-tiered, with the First-Tier Tribunal hearing appeals on Home Office decisions, followed by  the Upper Tribunal hearing subsequent appeals. The bill provides the courts with the power to fine legal representatives personally – including the Secretary of State and the Home Office’s representatives – for “improper, unreasonable, or negligent behaviour.” (Clause 62.) This follows from the Home Secretary’s promise to “tackle the practice of meritless claims which clog up the courts,” although cases only go to court after the Home Office denies an initial application.

The bill seeks to fix the naturalization issue for victims of the Windrush Scandal, which saw many migrants – who had permission to remain in the UK  indefinitely but had no records to evidence this – being refused re-entry to the UK after traveling abroad. The Windrush Scheme, launched in 2018, allowed those victims to obtain documentation and compensation. However, these individuals did not automatically receive British citizenship and had to live in the UK for five years, among other requirements, in order to apply for citizenship. The bill will enable the government to waive that five-year requirement, which will allow a person who had been forced to remain outside of the UK by no fault of their own, including the Windrush victims, to become a British citizen without waiting five years.

This post details just some of the amendments in this bill.

An Interview with Nabila Buhary, Foreign Law Intern

Today’s interview is with Nabila Buhary, a foreign law intern working in the Global Legal Research Directorate of the Law Library of Congress. Describe your background. I was born in Melbourne, Australia, and completed a bachelor of laws/bachelor of arts double degree at Monash University in Australia in 2012. I completed my practical legal training at the United […]

Would Britney Spears’ Type of Conservatorship be Possible in Israel?

Britney Spears’ plea to a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to end her conservatorship has drawn global attention to the legal arrangement of conservatorship, also known as guardianship, existing under the laws of many countries. Spears has been subject to conservatorship since 2008, following highly-publicized mental health problems. As a result, she has had no […]

FALQs: Greenlandic Autonomy, Government Formation, and Mineral Resource Policy

This blog post is part of our Frequently Asked Legal Questions series and describes Greenland’s legislative autonomy, government formation process, and mineral resource policy. A few weeks ago I wrote about the government formation process in Sweden. Last month, specifically June 21, marked the National Day of Greenland and the anniversary of the adoption of the […]

On This Day in 1984: Women’s Suffrage in Liechtenstein

On July 1, 1984, women’s suffrage was introduced in Liechtenstein— making it the last European country to do so. Liechtenstein is situated between Switzerland and Austria and has a total of 38,557 inhabitants. In the 1984 national referendum, a slim majority of 2,370 (male) voters (51.3%) approved the right of Liechtenstein women to vote and […]

Reflecting on 10 Years of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

This is a guest post by Elizabeth Boomer, an international law consultant in the Global Legal Research Directorate. Elizabeth has previously written for In Custodia Legis on Technology & the Law of Corporate Responsibility – The Impact of Blockchain, 30th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations Day – A Time to […]

FALQs: Swedish Government Formation – Votes of No Confidence and Extraordinary Elections

This blog post is part of our Frequently Asked Legal Questions series. On June 17, 2021, the Swedish parliamentary parties the Left Party, the Sweden Democrats, the Christian Democrats, and the Moderates expressed support for a motion for a vote of no confidence (Yrkande om Misstroendeförklaring) against the sitting Prime Minister Stefan Löfven. On June 21, 2021, […]

An Interview with Pichrotanak Bunthan, Foreign Law Intern

Today’s interview is with Pichrotanak Bunthan, a foreign law intern working at the Global Legal Research Directorate of the Law Library of Congress. Describe your background. I was born and raised in Phnom Penh, the capital and largest city of Cambodia. Located in Southeast Asia, Cambodia is probably best known for its magnificent Angkor Wat – the largest […]

New Report on Children’s Online Privacy and Data Protection Published

The Law Library recently published a new report on the protection of children online. The report, titled Children’s Online Privacy and Data Protection, surveys ten jurisdictions on the special measures they have put in place to protect children online. The jurisdictions are the European Union (EU) member states of Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Spain, […]