OPINION: Murder, migration, and marginalization: seeking refuge and representation in the UK
Photo by Ben Stansall/AFP
By Phoebe Bower (MPA ’23)
Last November, 27 men, women, and children drowned in the English Channel.* International media termed them the “27 migrants;” their bodies were recovered from frozen waters following the capsize of their overcrowded, flimsy life-craft. For a very short while, the world imagined the horrors these “migrants” faced and people called for change. Yet, despite various calls to action and the risks involved with the perilous journey, another 106 people attempted the same route days later.
Such brief recognition of this tragic loss of life hints at a broader issue — a systematic failure within the British government to value the lives of non-citizens, including those on its own territory. This needs to change: the government must listen to the voices of this population and counter this narrative of dehumanization and marginalization of refugees. Indeed, this problem is deep-rooted and entrenched. While the British government has touted how human rights are at the heart of its institutions, this is not the case. What is instead enshrined is ivory tower policymaking, which widens the chasm between those creating policies and the people who are impacted by them. It also enables an environment where responses to tragedy never seemingly materialize beyond initial shock and horror.
This can be seen in the barbaric measures currently going through Parliament. The Nationality and Borders Bill will “murder human rights” for refugees, as refugee groups have challenged, making it almost impossible for them to claim asylum. Of particular note is the fine print of the policy, which allows the U.K. Border Control to use force to turn boats back towards France, even when this endangers lives. An amendment to the Bill, proposed to prohibit any actions putting lives at risk, was defeated by a margin of 235 votes to 313. It appears that one of the most fundamental rights — the right to life — is not extended to all humans within the U.K.
Moreover, the latest government plan to welcome refugees is to send those seeking refuge in the U.K. to Rwanda, which is 4,500 miles away from the U.K. In doing this, there is no regard to the vulnerability or safety of the individual. Those who are on the initial list of deportees include unaccompanied children, people who are highly vulnerable, and people who have experienced unimaginable atrocities. Further, those at risk of deportation include LGBTQ+ refugees despite the likelihood that they will be “persecuted on the basis of their sexual orientation” in Rwanda.
This is all set against a background where, only last year, the U.K. accused Rwanda of human rights violations. Despite these recent concerns, government opinions have evolved tremendously over the past months, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson describing Rwanda as “one of the safest countries in the world,” at least publicly. Yet, other positions on human rights in Rwanda have not changed so quickly. UNCHR’s Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, Gillian Triggs, warned that the country lacks “sufficient safeguards and standards.” Triggs also highlighted the British government’s limited concern with respect to the U.K.’s obligations under international human rights law, including the foundational Refugee Convention.
Despite heavy criticism and probable breaches of international law, the first set of deportations to Rwanda were expected to take place on June 14 this year, a date that seemed immovable when the British Supreme Court declared that deportation flights could go ahead. The decision showed a reluctance to interfere with political matters, but also sparked an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. To the surprise of the British government, the European court approved an injunction that paused the first deportation flight — for now, at least. The government is still plowing forward with its efforts to deport those seeking refuge in the U.K. to Rwanda, with a judicial review expected to analyze the legality of the policy at the end of July. Home Secretary Priti Patel promised that the government “will not be deterred from doing the right thing.” Unfortunately, the “right thing” that she referred to is the full implementation of the deportation policy.
Challenging the atrocities committed by those in power is inhibited by both a lack of political inclusion and a voice for those affected. A specific incubator of this status quo is the systematic exclusion of the most marginalized within government institutions, particularly institutions that purport to represent the interests of these specific groups. It is incomprehensible that the governmental group representing refugees and their relations within the U.K. is all-white and seemingly all British-born. While the group may be familiar with the issues or have credentials in this realm, this demographic disparity demonstrates a privileged, non-representative viewpoint. It ignores that those who are (or have been) refugees are better placed to steer and operate such a group and to protect the interests of their community.
Consequently, refugees are often left without a seat at the table, they do not have meaningful influence within the system, and their plight is often overlooked or — like November’s tragedy — mentioned fleetingly. This exclusion reduces accountability to them, “perpetuates their marginalized status in society,” and further endangers their fundamental rights.
Upending the lack of representation of the refugee community is essential. Representation ensures better safeguards for rights, and it gives seats at the table to those who will call out the inhumane and degrading treatment suffered by refugees.
However, this must also be coupled with the rightful extension of democracy to those residing within the U.K. Currently, it takes at least seven years to receive citizenship, with voting prohibited for non-citizens, but it does not have to be this way. There are 45 countries around the world where “all or specific categories of resident aliens” can vote. The U.K. should adopt this approach to voting and shift from a citizenship-focused approach to one based on residence, incorporating refugees on the path to citizenship.
Additionally, beyond inclusion within institutions and voting rights, investment into areas such as civic engagement and voter registration are equally important. Each of these elements plays a role in reducing marginalization, realizing fundamental rights, creating stronger accountability mechanisms, and ensuring that tragedies like those in the Channel receive a concrete place on the British agenda.
Many of those that drowned in November were pursuing opportunities to live freely and safely, hoping to realize rights we often take for granted. Their desperation was so heightened that they pursued a dangerous, deadly journey across the English Channel. Refugees that arrive in the U.K. expecting a sanctuary will swiftly realize that the land they perhaps idealized will not uphold their fundamental rights either.
No countries are immune from these problems and themes. Within and beyond the U.K., we must do all we can to change the current regime of refugee marginalization and we must recognize that the lives of all are equally valuable. We must learn from the tragedy of 27 human lives lost in the Channel. Human rights are refugee rights, and we must hold our institutions and our societies accountable for this. We must give the refugee community influence and we must judge our government by how they treat the most vulnerable within our communities.
*The Guardian and BBC were among the few news outlets that named the victims of this tragedy. They could only identify 20 of the 27 who died: Kazhal Ahmed Khidhir, mother of Hadiya Rzgar Hussein, 22; Mubin Rzgar Hussein, 16; and Hasti Rzgar Hussein, seven. Baran Maryam Nuri Mohamed Amin, 24; Mhabad Ahmad Ali, 32; Rezhwan Yasin Hassan, 19; and Mohammed Qadir Aulla, 21. Deniz Afrasia Ahmed Mohammed, 27; Bilind Shukir Baker, 20; “Hybar” Bryar Hamad Abdulrahman, 23; Harem Serkaut Perot Muhammad, 28; and Hassan Mohammed Ali, 37. Mohammed Hussein Mohammed, 19; Muslim Ismael Hamad, 19; Shakar Ali Pirot, 30; Sirwan Alipour, 23; Zanyar Mustafa Mina, 20; Pshtiwan Rasul Farka, 18; and Twana Mamand Mohammed, 18.
Phoebe Bower is pursuing her MPA in human rights and gender policy at SIPA. Prior to SIPA, Phoebe was a lawyer specialising in economic, social, and corporate governance and sovereign debt, while also working on pro bono cases ranging from the death penalty to protecting marine ecosystems.