By Nahiyan Helal
Imagine not having access to healthcare, not being able to work, not having the right to rent, and thereby, not having a place to live. Any reasonable person would agree that such situations indicate a climate that is ‘not friendly’ at best and ‘draconian’ at worst. Unfortunately, these situations have not been taken out of a bleak chapter of a novel. If you are an illegal immigrant in the UK, the chances are, you will face these situations.
Every country needs to control the number of people crossing its border, for pragmatic reasons; the most convincing of these reasons being distribution of economic resources of the country among its citizens. However, does that trump the human right, namely, right to life, of an individual fleeing persecution? Under international law, according to the non-refoulment principle, no state can order a citizen to return to the state they are fleeing from, if their life would be in danger or if they would be subject to torture or degrading treatment upon return. The challenge for most countries is to strike a balance; owing to different policies adopted by different countries, some strike a ‘better’ balance than others.
It is pertinent to very broadly categorise two types of migrants: the first category comprising of those who are fleeing persecution and the second comprising of those who have decided to overstay beyond their leave to remain in the UK. It is important to note and repeat here that this is a broad categorisation. It is perhaps easy to conclude that those belonging to the second category ought to be subject to hostility as they have decided to overstay. However, the cases are not always clear-cut. What about a child who was born in the UK and its parents were ‘over-stayers’ in the UK? As harsh as it may sound, the present immigration policy in the UK does not treat the child in a different way. On the subject of children, the strict attitude of the UK towards spousal visas has also left many children living without one of their parents.
This attitude of the UK towards migration is vividly portrayed in a statement made by the previous Home Secretary, Theresa May:
What we don’t want is a situation where people think that they can come here and overstay because they are able to access everything they need.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/theresa-may-interview-going-give-illegal-migrants-really-hostile/
Her party pledged to reduce the net migration figures over the last nine years. It has often been pointed out that this hostility by the government, while being effective in reducing the figures to an extent, has also driven many migrants ‘underground’. This leads to many issues including migrants working and living in inhumane conditions, and rogue employers not paying the national minimum wage to these migrants, to name just a few.
One would probably think that reducing the migration figures perhaps allowed the government to provide further resources to its various domestic instruments, for instance, the criminal justice system. That has not been the case thus far. It makes one question whether the rationale for the ‘hostile environment’ in the UK has its roots in an ideology more nefarious than concerned with its own citizen’s wellbeing. I’d be inclined to agree.
