Over 90 Per Cent of Failed Asylum Seekers Were Not Deported in 2020

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM - 2022/06/13: A protester holds a placard expressing his opinion du
Hesther Ng/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
Kurt Zindulka

Over ninety per cent of failed asylum seekers in 2020 were not deported by the UK Home Office, analysis conducted by the Oxford Migration Observatory has found.

The dismal record of the Conservative government to take back control of the nation’s borders has been demonstrated once again, with 91 per cent of migrants refused asylum in the year in which the UK left the European Union were left free to remain in the country.

According to figures complied by the Oxford Migration Observatory, provided to The Guardian newspaper, showed that of the 3,632 migrants blocked from asylum, only 314 were actually removed from the country. This follows along the long-term trend of declining deportations achieved by successive Tory governments, with 81 per cent being permitted to stay in 2019, compared to 38 per cent in 2013.

The issue has only continued to grow, with just 113 failed asylum seekers successfully removed in 2021, compared to 6,771 in 2010.

Commenting on the findings, senior researcher at the Migration Observatory, Dr Peter William Walsh said: “There is some evidence to suggest that the Home Office has reduced its enforcement activities and become more reliant on its hostile environment measures to remove irregular migrants, including unsuccessful asylum seekers.

“The data show that this approach is not leading to substantial numbers of refused asylum seekers being removed.”

One of the main issues dogging the government in enforcing migrant returns has been the intransigence of France to come to an agreement on taking back illegal migrants who have been setting off in record numbers from their beaches to reach the UK. In lieu of such a deal, the Home Office struck an agreement with the African nation of Rwanda to house migrants while their asylum claims are being processed, rather than allowing them to remain on British soil in the interim.

Since 2018, over 50,000 illegals have successfully reached the UK on often unseaworthy rubber dinghies set off by people smugglers in Calais and other French coastal areas. So far this year, over 11,000 have arrived via the English Channel route.

The scheme to send the illegals to Rwanda has been held up as the government’s chief policy to deter further illegal immigration as the Home Office has been warned that between 65,000 and 100,000 aliens could land this year.

However, the policy had a major spanner thrown in the works this month when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) intervened to block the deportation of the seven illegals that the government had managed to get past the UK courts onto the plane.

Though Britain left the EU in 2020, the country remained in supposedly separate European institutions, namely the Council of Europe of which the ECHR is a part of. Brexiteers, such as Nigel Farage, have argued the government to remove the UK from the ECHR and other European institutions in order to fully realise the promise of taking back control of its borders.

The government it seems has opted for a compromise of sorts, introducing legislation to the upcoming British Bill of Rights to allow ministers to ignore ECHR rulings on migrant removals, empowering the UK Supreme Court to have the final say on deportations.

The implementation of such a fix will not take place until later this year, meaning that flights may still be blocked by the European court in the meantime. It also remains to be seen if the British judiciary will be more willing to allow migrant removals to Rwanda given its history of siding with illegal migrants and foreign national offenders.

Meanwhile, the ECHR has been criticised by one of its own judges for so far refusing to divulge the identity of the justice who blocked the deportation flight to Rwanda despite supposedly being a public court.

Speaking to Britain’s The Express tabloid, ECHR Judge Latif Hüseynov said: “It was a public decision so the name of the judge should be published for transparency.”

When informed that the British government, one of the principles in the case, was not even informed as to the judge’s identity, Mr Hüseynov reacted by saying: “Oh wow.”

Conservative MP Robert Halfon said: “You should be able to find out who the judge was in less than five seconds,” adding: “The British public voted to leave the European Union so that Britain could make its own laws and decide what is best for Britain.

“What is the point of leaving the EU if a foreign court which is not accountable is able to override what the British parliament says?”

Follow Kurt Zindulka on Twitter here @KurtZindulka

COMMENTS

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.