Channel-Crossing "Migrants" in Context
Listen to this article at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG-lBS-PPNw&t=1s
After another spike in the number of people crossing the channel in small boats, mainstream media has given plenty of coverage to the ongoing crisis. Much of this focus, however, has been on the impact of the channel crossings solely, without wider thought or context to the process of asylum-seeking in general. This can be seen in Sky's New Year's Day piece (1) which focused solely on the "record-breaking" number of people crossing the channel and the government's methods to tackle this. The problem with this is it creates a narrative detailing a large problem that needs to be solved. This sets up a platform for debate within the media, between the Conservatives and other parties, further concentrating the topic solely on the issue of small boat crossings. Assessing this issue alone leaves out the wider context which would serve to aid in our understanding of this controversial topic. It also means that the best analysis of the topic comes from outside of the mainstream media. The best source for context and analysis of the issue of channel-crossing alone comes from the IPPR (2). Whilst this is useful in understanding the context behind the boat crossings alone, this article will show why a broader understanding helps us to move past the current deadlock in debate.
Defining Our Key Terms: Asylum Seeker and Economic Migrant
The most commonly defined term when focusing on The Channel crossings is 'asylum seeker'. The United Nations Refugee Agency defines an asylum seeker as "An individual who is seeking international protection. In countries with individualized procedures, an asylum-seeker is someone whose claim has not yet been finally decided on by the country in which the claim is submitted. Not every asylum-seeker will ultimately be recognized as a refugee, but every refugee was initially an asylum-seeker.". Therefore, anyone who crosses The Channel and applies for asylum has not done so illegally. It is upon the decision of their case that the legality of their crossing is judged. Upon the granting of asylum, these people become refugees with a perfect legal right to stay in the country. Although this is the case, the people aboard the boats are sometimes referred to as economic migrants, which is a term that needs to be explored further. The Cambridge Dictionary defines an economic migrant as "a person who leaves their home country to live in another country with better working or living conditions" (3). However Robert Garland, in his book Wandering Greeks, raises an important query about the term. Garland stresses that (in the case of economic migrants in Athens) we cannot assume that economic reasons were the primary motivation for them leaving their homes to move to Athens (4. Garland 2014: 153-4). We must surmise that the motivation behind the movement of these people cannot be affirmed until after their (potential) asylum claim has been checked, and it is with this premise that I will build upon in the rest of the article.
Working with the Data: Channel Crossing and the Wider Refugee Movement
Now that we have established our definitions, we can now approach the data to understand the extent to which those crossing the channel are refugees, and thus how this plays into the broader refugee network within the UK. Using data from the Government (5) we can see that between January 2018 to June 2022 that 50,297 undertook the crossing in small boats with 94% (47,306) of those applying for asylum. We can now confidently assert that the majority of these people are asylum seekers. Of those that had their asylum application assessed, 49% (3,378) were granted asylum in the UK with a further 43% (2,988) assessed as genuine claims, but not granted asylum on third-country grounds (meaning that the applicant should claim asylum in another country they have connections too or have passed through). Only 8% (544) of applicants were rejected. With this data, we can establish that, statistically, 92% of applicants are genuine refugees with the majority of those considered to be refugees (53%) granted asylum in the UK. Any assertion that these people are economic migrants is unfounded and could only (not without assumption) apply to a small minority of people that take up the crossing. The data here negates any debate as to whether these people are genuine, but now we must place this data in the wider context of migration to Britain. This will tackle whether this is causing the backlog on asylum applications (as is so often claimed) and enhance our understanding of asylum in the wider UK context.
In 2022, 45,728 people made the crossing to reach the UK (6). As we have already established, there is statistical cause to assume that around 92% (around 42,000) of these people would be genuine asylum seekers. In regard to the wider context of migration in 2022, channel-crossing asylum seekers made up just 4% of all migrants to the country, with asylum, in general, making up approximately 17% (7). In the grand scheme, asylum is a rather minimal form of population influx in the UK, however it can often be complex, with individuals not necessarily carrying documentation. Therefore let us assess all forms of asylum with the hope of shedding light on the process as a whole. It is important to state that many asylum claims are dictated by current events and this is also clear in the prioritisation of those granted asylum. In 2021 for example, 12,000 Afghans were relocated to the UK following the withdrawal of military personnel, this accounted for 46% of all those granted asylum in that year. 2022 saw an even larger increase in asylum being granted, this was due to the expansion of the British National Overseas scheme to Hong Kongers fleeing the city (8), 76,000 visas were issued in the year ending June 2022). The largest cause of refuge in the UK was the Ukraine-Russia war, in which 146,379 visas were granted to Ukrainians fleeing (9). These three schemes show that there is the capacity for a robust and efficient asylum-granting process when required, but it is not the norm. The lack of delay when implementing these government schemes should lead to valid criticism that there is a matter of priority rather than a natural backlog brought about by the increase in channel-crossing asylum seekers. More Ukrainians received asylum last year alone than asylum seekers have crossed the channel from 2018 to 2022 and shockingly, only 4% of small boat arrivals have had a decision on their application. (10). Is it fair to argue that there is a slight bias in how the process is handled? In order to answer this, I will use the most recent catalyst for this debate, the Albanians.
The Current Fixation on Albanian Asylum Seekers
I believe that the current reaction towards the increase in Albanian asylum seekers provides us with a useful case study as it shows us direct action stemming from government policy/rhetoric. The motivation behind this targeting is, as PM Rishi Sunak has himself said, due to the backlog in processing applications. However, this backlog has been a rising trend since 2019 and will undoubtedly have been affected by government-backed programmes as highlighted above. Statistically, although Albanians are the largest nation of channel-crossing asylum seekers, they only make up 18% of the overall figure (11). On top of this, 53% of Albanians that apply for asylum have it granted. The remaining individuals that have their applications rejected can also be easily returned as Albania is a designated safe country. If the majority of Albanians gain asylum, and they are only 18% of the incoming asylum seekers, why are they presented as a numerous threat to the system?
What Does This Mean for Channel-Crossing Migrants?
As the data shows, the number of Albanians entering the country is dwarfed by other nations and yet there appears to be a lack of proportionality or nuance to the issue. In my assessment, this is due to the fact that the Home Office is ultimately focused on successfully pursuing government-backed schemes at the detriment of those that cross the channel. The influx of people from Hong Kong and Ukraine has ultimately doubled (at minimum) the number of people escaping persecution, thus sidelining other claimants. This is all without any ideological influence, which I have deliberately avoided in this article because there are very few definitive statements made other than the policy itself. Therefore, in sticking to the data we have, we can confidently state that channel-crossing asylum seekers are mainly genuine refugees, that are in need of humanitarian help and caught up in both national and geo-political policy that has manufactured their status as illegal economic migrants. Moving forward, more needs to be done to provide the humanitarian aid that is desperately needed, rather than allowing this issue to further spiral into political debate.
Bibliography and Notes:
2. https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/understanding-the-rise-in-channel-crossings
3. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/economic-migrant
4. Garland, R, 2014. Wandering Greeks: The Ancient Greek Diaspora from the Age of Homer to the Death of Alexander the Great (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
10. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511