Why have we been giving UK citizenship to refugees?
I hate to say I might agree with the Reform UK racists on something but why have we been giving UK citizenship to refugees?
This Writer agrees wholeheartedly that refugees who are fleeing their own country because their lives are in danger – most commonly due to political persecution or war – should be allowed into the UK. I support the proposal to (re-) open so-called “safe routes” for them to do so.
I also support equal treatment for all refugees. Keir Starmer’s choice to open the door for refugees from Ukraine and close it to those from Gaza is racist and he should be condemned for it.
But I do not support them having UK citizenship. They are refugees from their own country, who have sought asylum in this one. Political asylum is “protection given to foreign people”, according to the Cambridge Dictionary.
So I, for one, am quite happy the Labour government is moving to deny citizenship to refugees who arrive here in small boats in the future. It should never have been offered to any of them.
Sure, give them a place to live and a visa so they can work for a living. But we should also be working to ensure that they can return to their country of origin when conditions allow it. Is it naive to think that?
Isn’t that what diplomacy is for? Shouldn’t our Foreign and Commonwealth Office be in touch with the home countries of anyone who has arrived here unexpectedly, asking to know what’s going on and trying to find a solution to the problem that sent those people here?
The Refugee Council and Labour’s Stella Creasy have condemned the change, saying it means that “refugees would forever remain second-class citizens” – which is wrong; they would not be citizens at all.
They would be guests – and should be assured all the privileges of such status. But they should not be accorded the privilege of UK citizenship. As guests, the assumption should be that they will aim to go back one day -when and if it is safe to do so.
I do not agree that it should be a crime to enter the UK without permission, if one is fleeing persecution – a threat to life and limb – in their own land.
In fact, if the so-called Assisted Dying Bill is passed, I can foresee a time when disabled people from this country may seek asylum elsewhere – until such time as it becomes safe to return here without being hounded to “voluntarily” end their lives. I would want them to be accorded the same courtesy I desire for refugees who come here.
Immigration barrister Colin Yeo’s claim (in the BBC’s article) that the change “is a clear breach of the Refugee Convention” is false.
The Convention of 1951 and its 1967 protocol do not require that refugees be granted citizenship in the country where they seek asylum. It says they should be offered certain rights, such as access to courts, education, and work, depending on their status, and suggests long-term solutions including local integration (settling in the host country) after a period of time.
The UK did have a rule under which people could be considered for citizenship – after waiting 10 years. But this was not mandated by the Refugee Convention, which states that granting citizenship is at the discretion of the host country and typically depends on national laws and policies.
It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the Labour government to change the UK’s refugee policy, to reflect the mood of the people (and perhaps to stave off some of the racism that we’ve been seeing lately; if people know that refugees aren’t being given exceptional treatment and have a responsibility to return home, they might be less inclined to hate).
And if there is a stronger obligation to work towards making it possible for these people to return to their home countries, it might just help to make the world a safer place.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
I do now that it’s our government with good old USA who are causing these wars causing the people’s to flee their countries untill people’s open their eyes to our government whose doing this then nothing will change
The Refugee Convention states that governments cannot “impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees”. Countries must “facilitate assimilation and naturalisation of refugees”.
This may be the Age of Reaction. We surely should resist this trend.
Denying refugees citizenship is not a penalty. You don’t automatically get citizenship if you’re a refugee. And the Refugee Convention explicitly does NOT say that countries must “facilitate assimilation and naturalisation of refugees”.
If you don’t believe me, just you go and read it!
Article 34 of the 1951 Convention says
(naturalisation)
“The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and
naturalization of refugees. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings.”
But the law now will preclude citizenship for refugees who necessarily arrive by illegal routes. This is a blanket ban for these refugees, and clearly a punishment for making the crossing, isn’t it?
Previously they could get it, though not of course automatically. Now not at all – forbidden.
Look at the language used. It encourages states to help refugees to become naturalised, but there is no legal requirement to grant citizenship. It suggests that naturalisation is a desirable long-term solution but does not override a state’s sovereign right to determine its own citizenship laws and procedures.
No, I don’t think removing the possibility of citizenship is a punishment for making the crossing. There was never an automatic right to it.
Quoted by Natalie Bennett on Bluesky:
“Labour ex-Home Office minister Lord Boateng said the measure appears to breach the Refugee Convention which says that countries must “facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees”.
No it does not; that is not a requirement. It encourages nations to support such processes, that is all – possibly because governments should accept the wishes of their citizens.
Yet some would do the opposite, discourage or in fact forbid naturalisation for the refugees who have taken of necessity a dangerous route, should they choose to apply after ten years as they could of old. That is against the word and spirit of what is indeed a Convention, not a law that can be broken, but regrettable and backward-facing just the same.
Well, I think you’ve made your point, and I’ve certainly made mine, so let’s draw a line under this now.