Site icon Empoword Journalism

Inflammatory Rhetoric: The UK’s War on Asylum Seekers

Samina Hashimi
Newspaper with headline 'IMMIGRATION', portraying asylum seekers rhetoric.

Samina Hashimi

As the government continues pushing to get the Rwanda scheme off the ground, the rhetoric around asylum seekers and refugees is becoming increasingly inflammatory.

On 15th November 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers. Attempting to save the policy, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak promised to bring in emergency legislation that would overrule this decision.

The Commons has recently passed Sunak’s Safety of Rwanda bill. However, the Rwanda plan controversies are far from over.

Rhetoric before the Rwanda campaign

The rhetoric now being used to discuss asylum seekers reflects that used by the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, during the Brexit campaign. Farage’s poster stated: “We must break free of the EU and take back control of our borders”, and was condemned for its incitement of racial hatred. Yet the latter half of the statement is one that many now see in their daily news feeds.

While recent focus has been on the Rwanda scheme – or rather the repeated setbacks and failures of said scheme – this anti-refugee angle is not new.

In 2015-16, David Cameron came under fire when referring to refugees and asylum seekers as a “bunch of migrants”, only months after having used the phrase “a swarm of people”. In an interview about his comments, Cameron defended his use of the term “swarm”, and added that he wanted to “stop people breaking into our country illegally”.

“Bunch” and “swarm” not only dehumanise a group of people, they also carry connotations of takeover. This is misleading considering only 0.54 per cent of the UK population is made up of refugees, those with pending asylum cases, and stateless persons as of November 2022.

Additionally, Cameron’s use of the phrase “break into our country illegally” likens asylum seekers to burglars, suggesting they intend to rob people of their livelihoods.

While the Home Office repeatedly claims that most people arriving by boats are economic migrants rather than authentic asylum seekers, the fact is that 75 per cent of initial decisions about asylum claims have been a grant of refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK.

A dramatised “Invasion”

Before her dismissal for “stoking tensions” in November 2023, Suella Braverman spearheaded the anti-refugee campaign in the UK.

In October 2022, Braverman addressed the House of Commons, asserting that her party “is serious about stopping the invasion on our southern coast.” She continued: “Let’s stop pretending they are all refugees in distress. The whole country knows this is not true”.

“the term ‘invasion’ is ‘a gross mischaracterisation'”

Braverman’s use of the term “invasion” was condemned by many as being purposefully inflammatory. A Holocaust survivor even compared Braverman’s language to that used by the Nazis.

Additionally, a UN Human Rights Watch said that the use of the term “invasion” is “a gross mischaracterisation that overlooks how the government has all but shut down safe routes into the country.” They added: “The majority of those who cross the English Channel are officially found in need of protection.”

Consequences of Inflammatory Language

Braverman’s use of inflammatory language that paints asylum seekers as a threat to the country has gone beyond causing tensions.

Some linked an arson attack on a migrant processing centre in Dover carried out by a right-wing extremist in part to the language used by Braverman. Additionally, the campaign slogan “stop the boats”, alongside the phrase “end the invasion”, is widespread among banners at far-right rallies.

This was not a one-off event – Braverman and fellow politicians frequently refer to “uncontrollable and illegal migration”. Further to the dehumanising effect, the use of the term “illegal” is legally incorrect and ignores international obligations.

UNHCR states that labelling asylum seekers illegal is inaccurate. This label implies those travelling through Europe have committed criminal offences, violating their right to be recognised as a person before the law. Furthermore, the term is harmful as it promotes the dehumanisation, criminalisation, and suffering of asylum seekers.

Limitation of Legal Routes

The government claim that only those coming into the country via “illegal” (or irregular) routes are under threat of deportation to Rwanda. However, Amnesty International say otherwise. They claim: “There are no safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum.”

Aside from the rare resettlement scheme, the Home Office has stated: “There are no visa routes to enable people to claim asylum in the UK from overseas.” So while the government emphasises the so-called illegality of these asylum seekers, their policies do not encourage any “legal” movements to take place.

Weaponisation of Rhetoric

The UK has been using this inflammatory rhetoric for years. Now the government is weaponising it to justify their inhumane Rwanda scheme. They brand asylum seekers fleeing persecution as criminals, while applauding a country with a track record of human rights abuses as safe.

So as the government holds onto the hope that their scheme will become a reality, it remains to be seen which direction this rhetoric goes.

READ NEXT:

Featured image courtesy of Metin Ozer on Unsplash. No changes made to this image. See image license here.

Exit mobile version