Timely new article on 'securitization' of asylum by Cristina Saenz Perez of the University of Leeds
An interesting and timely academic article by Cristina Saenz Perez published this month in Oxford University Press' International Journal of Refugee Law looks at the 'securitization' of asylum in the UK and post-Brexit asylum laws.
The open access article is available to read online here. The author is a lecturer in law at the University of Leeds.
'Securitization' refers to the political trend of linking migration and asylum to national security and seeing migration movements as a security threat. Saenz Perez says this trend has become a feature of immigration and asylum policies in most Western States since 2000 and is particularly salient in Europe.
The article is particularly timely in light of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's comments in Italy on Saturday. Sunak said migrants and asylum seekers threatened to "overwhelm" Europe, and migration would increasingly be used as a "weapon" by hostile states to "destabilize our societies".
In her article, Saenz Perez notes: "The securitization of asylum is also characterized by the use of criminal law instruments. Through strategies that conceptualize asylum as a security matter rather than a humanitarian issue, asylum seekers are portrayed as security risks or deviant actors. As a response to these threats, States may use punitive measures, such as the imposition of detention, community service penalties, and administrative fines or, in extreme cases, criminal offences to dissuade asylum seekers from crossing national borders. These measures reinforce the idea that asylum seekers fleeing conflict zones may generate internal destabilization and have to be 'managed' through criminal law instruments."
Saenz Perez continues: "The current political discourse in the UK, in turn, portrays asylum seekers as security risks and then justifies the use of punitive and retributive sanctions in this area. These measures include, inter alia, increased border controls, the creation of a criminal offence of entering the UK without a valid passport or documentation (which excludes those who subsequently claim asylum), and the use of detention against asylum seekers. These initiatives respond to the traditional aims of criminal punishment, such as retribution and deterrence, rather than fulfilling the humanitarian principles that underpin asylum law."
The article focuses, in particular, on the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which together with the April 2022 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed with Rwanda marked a shift in the Home Office's securitization agenda towards externalizing asylum policy and restricting who is entitled to international protection in the UK.
The introduction of the Nationality and Borders Bill and its original clause 39 (which sought to allow prosecutions of anyone 'arriving' in the UK, including asylum seekers) constituted a further step in the "punitive discourse that underpins Home Office policies in the asylum context".
Saenz Perez says: "This discourse blurs the distinction between asylum seekers and individuals holding other migration statuses, equating them all with 'illegal immigrants'. This justifies the securitization discourse that considers asylum seekers as threats and demands their criminalization, in violation of article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which prohibits the imposition of penalties on asylum seekers 'on account of their illegal entry or presence', provided that they present themselves to the authorities 'without delay' and provide 'good cause for their illegal entry or presence'."
The article also considers the Government's policy of relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda, though it was authored before November's Supreme Court judgment and this month's updating and replacement of the MoU with a treaty.
Saenz Perez says the agreement with Rwanda represents "burden shifting" by the UK rather than burden sharing. The ultimate aim is to reduce the number of individuals who can claim asylum in the UK.
She explains: "Rather than strengthening cooperation and burden sharing, this mechanism shifts the UK's responsibility to process asylum claims to Rwanda. This strategy fits with trends in European States to externalize their obligations to States in the global South. The global South already hosts the majority of the world's refugee population who are usually found in countries neighbouring conflict zones, despite the more limited capacities of such countries to resettle asylum seekers. Only a small percentage of these refugees move into Europe, and an even smaller fraction of them arrive in the UK. Contrary to the declared aims of the UK–Rwanda MoU, these transfers do not strengthen solidarity or cooperation, as countries chosen under these so-called 'partnership' agreements already host significant numbers of asylum seekers despite the limited resources of their asylum systems."