Whenever someone dies attempting to cross the Channel and thus the Franco-British border, you will see a statement from senior members of the UK government saying how sorry they are for this loss of life. But this condolence is often swiftly followed by messaging around stopping illegal immigration and emphasising that the real problem is not the UK’s broken asylum system, but human traffickers based in France.

After the deaths of five people in the Channel in April of this year, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said “this is what tragically happens when they [criminal gangs] push people out to sea…”.

Similar words were spoken by then Home Secretary Suella Braverman in December 2022 after four people died crossing the Channel. She told the House of Commons “"These are the days that we dread. Crossing the Channel in unseaworthy vessels is a lethally dangerous endeavour. It is for this reason, above all, that we are working so hard to destroy the business model of the people smugglers, evil organised criminals, to treat human beings as cargo."

With the recent passing of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 - which allows for the deportation of refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants to Rwanda - the UK government believes that Channel crossings will diminish, although the figures suggest this may be wishful thinking. More people have crossed the Channel in boats from France this year than in the first 6-months of any previous year.

The UK government believes that their Rwanda policy will act as a deterrent, but many think that it will not work. In a recent Collective Aid blog, Emma Richardson explains the basics of the UK government’s ‘Rwanda Policy’ and why it is not effective as a deterrent nor policy.

Increased attempts over the past 10 years by both the French and UK governments to improve border security, through, for example, the purchase of new border patrol sea vessels, have been unsuccessful as well, as numbers of forced migrants crossing have not decreased.

If deterrence and increased border security is not the answer to reducing deaths in the Channel, what is?

Many of those attempting to get to the UK from France have friends or family in the country. They risk their lives to try and join them as it’s impossible to claim asylum in the UK whilst being based in France.

Option 1: Temporary Humanitarian Visas

One potential option to reduce Channel deaths, which has been frequently suggested by campaigners, is for the UK Home Office to issue short-term/temporary humanitarian visas to those living in and around Calais-Dunkirk who wish to seek asylum in the UK. This would allow individuals to travel safely to the UK with a valid visa, via train, plane, ferry, or bus.

Option 2: UK Asylum Centres in France

Another option would be to allow people to make their UK asylum claim in France. This would involve the establishment of UK asylum centres in the north of France where people can claim for asylum in the UK without having to cross the border. Currently, it is not possible to claim asylum unless you are physically present on UK territory.

Calais is seen as the gateway to the UK, but with no UK asylum centre in the French city, the only way for refugees and asylum seekers to claim legal asylum is to get mainland UK and start the process there. If a UK asylum centre was opened in Calais, fewer people would attempt to cross the English Channel.

Advantages

One of the most prominent advantages of both policies is that they would likely lead to an immediate reduction in the number of people crossing the Channel, and as a result fewer deaths. Forced migrants would not need to reach the UK using a dangerous method as these options provide safe alternatives.

There may be concern about the financial feasibility of either proposition, but in comparison to existing policies, they may be a lot cheaper.

In 2022, the UK gave France 72m Euros to increase port security in Calais (Matera et al 2023). And domestically, there are also the examples of the astronomical costs of the £22m Bibby Stockholm barge and the estimated £370m cost of deporting people to Rwanda. This money could instead be put towards cheaper and more humane asylum policies.

Disadvantages

Neither policy advocated here is perfect. The UK and France would need to cooperate fully to ensure success (Klug 2017). In the past, the two countries have occasionally come to blows on actions relating to displaced persons at the Franco-British border. Unsurprisingly, the UK’s exit from the EU has not changed the continued need for border cooperation.

There would need to be a discussion and a concrete plan implemented to support individuals whose asylum claims were rejected by the UK while they remain in France or who are not awarded a temporary humanitarian visa. In these cases, the risk that they may still try to cross the Channel and live in the UK undetected is possible.

The UK would also have to prepare to handle a potential increase in asylum claims. The current system faces significant resource gaps; the number of applicants who have been waiting more than six months for the outcome of their claim has doubled since 2020.

The UK government may say that there are too many claims to handle, but the UK receives a proportionately small number of claims relative to other countries across the world. For these policies to work, there needs to be adequate distribution of staff and resources.

It is also important to mention that if the option of managing UK asylum claims in France was pursued, the conditions under which people live would have to be improved. They cannot wait in informal camp settlements or detention centres with abhorrent living conditions. If displaced persons are forced to wait in camps that are unclean and unsafe, they may still try to cross the Channel in a small boat instead.

Living conditions in Calais offer no incentive for people to stay in France. If they were improved, fewer people would likely attempt to cross the English Channel on small boats.

Safe Passage

If there were safe and accessible methods to reach the UK available to forced migrants who wish to claim asylum, the number of people crossing the Channel would almost certainly diminish (Owen 2020). This could be complemented by other policies for those already on the move; none of these policy options should be enacted alone.

If displaced persons could access safe routes to reach the UK from their home countries, they would not have to risk their lives travelling to Europe, across the continent, and over the Channel in small boats. Currently this is only an option for those from Ukraine and Afghanistan, but it stands to reason that the same effort can and should be made for others fleeing their homes in different countries.

People should not be dying trying to cross borders anywhere in the world; not at the Franco-British border, not at the US-Mexico border, nor at the Turkey-Greece border. There are many ways in which governments and elected officials can put in place systems that prevent forced migrants from having to make perilous and life-endangering journeys. Instead, the UK government spends its time and money scapegoating displaced persons and treating them as sub-human.

A humane asylum system would save lives and save money. Change is needed.
——————————————

References

Klug, A. (2017) Conclusion: Closing Remarks: The Present and Future of 'Boat Refugees' and Migrants at Sea. In: V. Moreno-Lax. and E. Papastavridis, eds. 'Boat Refugees' and Migrants at Sea: A Comprehensive Approach. Brill: Leiden, pp. 435-477.

Matera, M. et al. (2023) Is Australia a Model for the UK? A critical assessment of Parallels of Cruelty in Refugee Externalization Policies, Journal of Refugee Studies, 36(2), pp. 271-293.

Owen, D. (2020) What Do We Owe to Refugees? Cambridge: Polity Press.

How to save lives in the English Channel