 |
| Pix credit here |
If people are not able to settle in our countries, and start to think of themselves as British, American, French, or German, then something is going badly wrong. National identity is not something invented in an ivory tower, or by advertising executives. The nation state has endured because it means something real to almost all of us. And that is true the world over. Given how much it matters, it must be protected. Saying so does not make one anti-immigrant, nor does it mean you’re anti-immigration. I am the child of immigrants. And it’s no betrayal of my parents’ story to say that immigration must be controlled. There is an optimal level of immigration. It is not zero. But there has been more migration to the UK and Europe in the last 25 years than in all the time that went before. It has been too much too quick, with too little thought given to integration and the impact on social cohesion. . (UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman, Keynote Address, American Enterprise Institute (Washington DC, 26 September 2023).
The UK Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, caused a bit of a stir in a keynote address to the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC. by poking a stick at one of the foundational sacred cows of the post 1945 era, the 1951 Refugee Convention (and its 1967 Protocol). Not that all of the sacred cows of the post 1945 era are equally sacred; it is just that emerging orthodoxies have targeted some (neutrality, speech, etc. in the service of a curated social justice construct) but not others--in this case the 1951 Refugee Convention whose evolving interpretive principles form the core of liberal democratic migration policy around which, at least on the ground, much public policy debate has erupted.
The remarks are worth reading. . . and debating. The object is not necessarily to change one's mind about these things, or to advance a particular view. Rather the speech gives voice to a set of sentiments, and approaches that suggest that elite consensus around BOTH the principles of the 1951 Convention and its current interpretive orthodoxies, may not be a core basis for elite solidarity. Indeed, one might suggest that the problem of migration has itself been caught up in the dialectic webs of its own granular agendas. These tend to be off the table when elites meet to take migration. Migratory heresy is among the cardinal sins of modern international convention. That produces conceptual difficulties, for example in distinguishing between settler migration (normatively negative) from other forms of mass migration. More interesting is the possibility of interpreting the 1951 Convention and evolving national constitutional traditions to mandate open borders for different classes of migrants. That, in turn, might morph into a complicated administrative apparatus the object of which is to enforce systems of discrimination in favor of and against certain classes of migration. Of course, such a system would then produce its own politics--and bias legitimated through law. In a sense, the 1951 Convention creates a n authoritative pathway in that direction if ruling elites are willing--and able.
This is not to suggest a particular position. My purpose here is not with positions but with the discursive context in which debate is disciplined and constrained by overarching principles of policy taboo. And it appears that the Home Secretary may have (deliberately) invoked taboo. Certainly the reaction gave the speech a prominence that t might not otherwise have secured. But that is the reflex of orthodoxy. What is clear, however, is that, despite the pieties around the 1951 Refugee Convention, it is likely that change is coming. The Convention itsef is being pulled (normatively) in two impossible to reconcile directions. Those in charge of the apparatus (and discourse) of migration appear to mean to broaden the principles of the Convention to bring it closer to the notion of open borders for movement of peoples between and among nation-states. One sees that in its most refined forms in developed liberal democratic states. At the other end, one sees the development both of ethno-nationalism (and sometimes chauvinism (South Africa is a most ironic case in point) and of the the rise of solidarity based migration (the debate between assimilation and solidarity being a marker, for example in policy and litigation in France). One focuses on the freedom of the human person to go as they might; the other on the collective social person organized as a state to maintain its own solidarity among the human persons that make up its collective. Here, the inclination of collective over individual rights states (Marxist-Leninist states, post-colonial states, developing states) would be to enhance control; that of individual over collective autonomy states (developed liberal democracies mostly but not entirely) would tend to favor the opposite direction in policy. Yet that is precisely the debate that may not speak its name without vilification, ad hominem tropes, and the rhetoric of demonization. All fair in contests fr control, but perhaps less useful for considered democratic governance.
The text of the remarks follow. along with the text of a short Q&A.
I’m Yuval Levin, of AEI. And it’s my pleasure to welcome you to an address
by Britain’s Home Secretary, Suella Braverman.
Like the United States and much of Europe, Britain has been confronting the
realities of global migration in this century. Which has presented challenges on
multiple fronts at once for all of us, humanitarian, economic, political, cultural,
legal, and many more. Every Western government has had to find some ways to
respond to these in a way that lives up to our obligations to people in need of
protection around the world, and to their obligations to their own citizens. And
that has to mean, in part, working together, learning from each other, seeking
some common ways forward.
The US and the UK, given all that we have in common, might particularly
benefit from that kind of exchange of ideas. And that’s the sort of conversation
that we hope to be starting today. As Britain’s home secretary, Suella
Braverman is the UK is leading policymaker on this front, as well as in related
areas like law enforcement, crime, and much of what we here in America would
call Homeland Security. She’s in Washington this week to meet with senior
administration officials, with members of Congress, and others, on the full
range of issues in her home office purview, but especially the refugee and
global migration dilemma. And we’re very pleased that she could take some
time to offer us her thoughts on those challenges today. She will speak for 30
minutes or so, then we’ll have a brief discussion, and a few questions in the
room. And with that, Home Secretary, the floor is yours.
Suella Braverman: Thank you very much for the welcome. It is always a great
pleasure to be here in America. And it’s a particular privilege to be speaking at
the American Enterprise Institute, an organization that has contributed so much
to the intellectual foundations of the conservative movement in the US and the
UK, and to our public life more broadly. Some of those affiliated with AEI have
had a significant impact on my own thinking. Thomas Sowell, James Q.
Wilson, Justice Scalia, and Britain’s Sir Roger Scruton, who was a visiting
scholar here for several years.
Now I’m here in America to talk about a critical and shared global challenge,
uncontrolled and illegal migration. It’s an existential challenge for the political
and cultural institutions of the West. Just as it’s a basic rule of history, that
nations which cannot defend their borders will not long survive. It is a basic
rule of politics, that political systems which cannot control their borders will
have to be a clairvoyant to see how might this all unfold.
To understand the future, cast your mind back a couple of weeks, and a few
thousand miles southeast of here, to the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa,
population then 6,000. Lampedusa, where in a 24-hour period, beginning on the
12th of September, over 120 boats, over 120, 100 boats, carrying more than
5,000 illegal migrants, made the 100-mile crossing from Tunisia in Africa to
Italy. Within 48 hours, illegal arrivals outnumbered the local population. And a
state of emergency had been declared. By the 20th of September, at least 11,000
had landed, with migrants sleeping in the street, stealing food, and clashing
with the police. These 11,000 are part of the estimated 133,000 people who’ve
already come to Italy illegally by sea in the first six months of this year. That
number is almost double the number of arrivals at the same point in 2022. And
in 2022, a total of 330,000 illegal border crossings into the EU were detected,
an increase of 66 percent compared to 2021.
Of course, it’s worth noting that most numbers relating to illegal migration are
approximations. Nobody knows the true number of illegal arrivals, and
estimates in this area very rarely turn out to be lower. America faces similar
challenges. Thousands of people illegally cross the border on a daily basis.
Illegal migration to the US has in recent years gone from just under 2 million in
2021, to more than 2.8 million this year. Illegal migration is not merely an
event driven or cyclical problem, it’s a permanent and structural challenge for
the developed nations in general and the West in particular.
Unless we act, it will only worsen in the years to come. War, political
instability, and climate change will of course, exacerbate migration flows.
According to the UN, at the end of 2022, there were over 108 million forcibly
displaced people globally, with 29 million considered to be refugees by the
UNHCR. But we must be honest. The fundamental drivers of this epoch
defining challenge are economics and demography.
In January, the World Economic Forum said that migration will become one of
the top five global risks in the next decade, ahead of national resource crisis,
geoeconomic confrontation, and environmental disasters. It’s a fallacy that as
countries get richer, emigration from them declines. As the American
economist Michael Clemens has found, emigration from a country tends to rise
until it reaches a level of income of about $10,000 per person, before declining.
World Bank data show that more than 3 billion people live in countries where
the average income is below this threshold. The potential for migration to
migration, legal or otherwise, is likely to surge in the coming years. So, too,
does personal testimony. A 2021 Gallup Poll found that 16 percent of adults
worldwide, around 900 million people, would like permanently to leave their
own country. And those numbers are not evenly distributed around the world.
Thirty seven percent of people living in sub-Saharan Africa, some 481 million
people, and 27 percent of those living in the Middle East and North Africa,
around 156 million, say they’d like to migrate.
The ease with which some of them might reach Europe poses a unique and
deepening challenge. The fact is that our countries are exceptionally attractive.
Four percent of those polled by Gallup, approximately 14 million people,
named Britain as their preferred destination. Eighteen percent, approximately
162 million people, named the USA. These numbers are respectively more than
half of our current total populations. Now, those in favor of a more liberal
approach when it comes to legal migration tend to say at this point, so what?
Isn’t it a good thing that people the world over want to come to the West and
contribute? And why can’t we absorb and welcome them? And wouldn’t the
problem of illegal migration be significantly reduced if we made it easier for
people to come to our countries legally? Well, there are four core arguments in
opposition to uncontrolled and illegal migration, the civic argument, the
practical argument, the security argument, and the democratic argument.
Firstly, the civic argument against uncontrolled and illegal migration. I believe
that the nation state is one of humanity’s great civilizing forces. It creates a
shared identity and a shared purpose. And that does not need to have a racial
component. Typically, it binds people of different racial backgrounds together.
Far from being an ugly emotion, patriotism stirs people to heroism, and to
kindness. It is the belief that we have specific obligations to others, precisely
because they are our fellow countrymen. And in order for nationality to be
sustainable, economically, culturally, and in terms of public support, it needs to
encompass everyone. That, in turn, means that the country cannot grow
exponentially, and still maintain the harmony needed for everyone to feel that
we are all in this together. And let’s remember something that is all too often
forgotten, integration inevitably takes time. If immigration is uncontrolled, it
makes it harder for society to adapt and accommodate new cultures and
customs, and for communities to meld together.
Uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration, and a misguided dogma of
multiculturalism have proven a toxic combination for Europe over the last few
decades. I’m not the first to point this out. In 2010, Angela Merkel gave a
then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister David
Cameron, echoed similar sentiments shortly thereafter. Multiculturalism makes
no demands of the incomer to integrate. It has failed, because it allowed people
to come to our society, and live parallel lives in it. They could be in the society,
but not of the society. And in extreme cases, they could pursue lives aimed at
undermining the stability and threatening the security of our society. We are
living with the consequences of that failure today, you can see it play out in the
streets all over Europe. From Malmo, to Paris, Brussels to Leicester. It is 13
years since Merkel gave her speech. And I’m not sure that very much has
changed since.
If people are not able to settle in our countries, and start to think of themselves
as British, American, French, or German, then something is going badly wrong.
National identity is not something invented in an ivory tower, or by advertising
executives. The nation state has endured because it means something real to
almost all of us. And that is true the world over. Given how much it matters, it
must be protected. Saying so does not make one anti-immigrant, nor does it
mean you’re anti-immigration. I am the child of immigrants. And it’s no
betrayal of my parents’ story to say that immigration must be controlled. There
is an optimal level of immigration. It is not zero. But there has been more
migration to the UK and Europe in the last 25 years than in all the time that
went before. It has been too much too quick, with too little thought given to
integration and the impact on social cohesion. And the fact that the optimal
level is hard to define, and will vary across time and for different countries,
doesn’t change that fundamental fact. Nor should it blind us from the simple
truth. If cultural change is too rapid and too big, then what was already there is
diluted. Eventually it will disappear.
Secondly, the practical argument against uncontrolled and illegal migration.
The unprecedented rise in illegal migration to the UK via small boat crossings
from France has put unsustainable pressure on the UK asylum system and the
British taxpayer. Approximately, 109,000 people have illegally crossed the
channel via small boats since 2018, including 45,000 alone last year.
Consequently, the cost of the UK asylum system has roughly doubled in the last
year, and now stands at nearly £4 billion. A decade ago, the total cost to the
taxpayer was around £500 million. The UK is now spending £8 million a day
on accommodating migrants in hotels. And we are not unique in these
challenges, of course. In March, roughly one third of all hotel rooms in Ireland
were being used to accommodate asylum seekers and refugees. And New York
New York’s Democratic Mayor, Eric Adams, exclaimed that the migrants crisis
will destroy New York City. Recent analysis suggests that it will cost New
York approximately $10 billion annually to support the roughly 110,000
asylum seekers, who have arrived there after crossing the southern border this
year.
Unless countries can prevent or rapidly remove illegal migrants, pressures on
the state will compound over time. Accommodation cannot be magicked out of
thin air. Nor can new schools, improved roads, extra police officers, additional
health care, or any of the other public services upon which people rely.
Immigration is behind at least 45 percent of demand for new housing in
England. More than one in five births are to foreign born mothers. Due to
immigration and high birth rates among foreign born mothers, English
secondary schools will need to find an extra 213,000 places by 2026 compared
to 2020. And then of course, there are the direct financial costs. A 2014 study
by University College London concluded that almost no illegal migrants end up
paying in taxes what they gained from the state in benefits.
Thirdly, the national security case against uncontrolled and illegal migration.
Illegal migration also poses obvious threats to public safety and national
security. UK police chiefs have warned me of heightened levels of criminality
connected to some small boat arrivals, particularly in relation to drug crime,
exploitation, and prostitution. People who choose to come across the channel
illegally from another safe country have already shown contempt for our laws.
President Macron claimed that illegal migrants or those waiting for a residence
permit accounted for more than half of crime in Paris. Illegal migration is
increasingly a tool exploited by hostile states and those acting on their behalf.
Vladimir Putin weaponized migration in 2021, sending thousands of asylum
seekers via Belarus to try to cross into Poland and Lithuania. In March, Italy’s
defense minister said the exponential increase in the migratory phenomenon
departing from African shores is also to a not insignificant extent, part of a clear
strategy of hybrid warfare that the Wagner division is implementing, using its
considerable weight in some African countries.
And fourthly, and perhaps most critically, the democratic case against
uncontrolled and illegal migration. Opinion polls and successive national votes
could not be clearer. People the world over want their governments to control
their borders. The British public backed the UK-Rwanda partnership and the
government’s recent Illegal Migration Act by margins of about two to one. Six
in 10 in red wall seats support stopping migrants’ small boats from illegally
citizens are in favor of reinforcing EU external borders. And more than half of
Americans said there was an invasion at the southern border when polled in
August 2022.
Who we allow to come into our country and become one of us is a fundamental
issue. Without public consent, immigration is illegitimate. Dismissing as idiots
or bigots, those members of the public who express legitimate concerns, is not
merely unfair, it is dangerous. Europe is at a critical juncture. The EU must find
a way to meet the challenge of illegal migration. Ursula von der Leyen’s recent
visit to Lampedusa demonstrates the Commission’s recognition of the severity
of the situation. Because failure to do so will, I fear, undermine the legitimacy
of democratic institutions and create the conditions for more extreme politics.
The UK is working closely with our European allies, both on the continent and
in joint efforts upstream, to combat the smuggling gangs and better secure
Europe’s borders. And we will always look for ways to deepen our cooperation
on security. The most recent example is our new working arrangement with
Frontex.
To address where the solution to all of this might lie, I must first broach a
taboo. One of the most significant, but underappreciated factors contributing to
the global migration crisis is the global asylum framework. By this, I mean the
various well intentioned legal conventions and treaties that say in effect, if you
are fleeing persecution somewhere, you are entitled to make a claim for asylum
anywhere. And irrespective of whether you arrived illegally, or passed through
multiple safe countries along the way, a country must consider it. According to
the UN, an estimated 50,000 people have died attempting dangerous and illegal
migration since 2014. Although the actual figure is almost certainly higher.
About half of these deaths occurred while attempting to cross the
Mediterranean. A thousand people died last year, trying to cross from Mexico
to the US. And some 150 people have died attempting to cross the channel by
small boat, lorry, or other clandestine means in the last five years.
All of these people were no doubt seeking a better life. Some, perhaps many,
were genuine refugees. But not all of them were. Seeking asylum and seeking
better economic prospects are not the same thing. Seeking refuge in the first
safe country you reach, or shopping around for your preferred destination, are
not the same thing. Being trafficked, i.e., transported against your will, perhaps
to be sold into sex slavery, and being smuggled, i.e., asking someone to sneak
you into a country, are not the same thing. The extent to which the global
asylum framework enables the obscuring of these categories creates huge
Refugee Convention. It was created to help resettle people fleeing persecution
following the horrors of World War Two and the Holocaust, and was initially,
at least, centered around Europe. It was an incredible achievement of its age.
But more than 70 years on, we now live in a completely different time.
Jet travel has transformed the cost and comparative ease of moving around the
world. The internet has made people acutely aware of how different life is and
how much higher wages are in other parts of the world. Smartphones enable
smugglers to facilitate operations with great ease and smooth communication
between those who have undertaken a journey and others who might like to.
When the Refugee Convention was signed, it conferred protection on some 2
million people in Europe. According to analysis by Nick Timothy and Karl
Williams for the Center for Policy Studies, it now confers the notional right to
move to another country upon at least 780 million people. It is therefore
incumbent upon politicians and thought leaders to ask whether the Refugee
Convention and the way it has come to be interpreted through our courts, is fit
for our modern age or in need of reform.
Article One of the Convention defines the term refugee as applying to those
who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political
opinion, cannot safely reside in the country of their nationality. Elsewhere, the
Convention speaks of life or freedom being threatened. I think most members
of the public would recognize those fleeing a real risk of death, torture,
oppression, or violence as being in need of protection. However, as case law
has developed, what we have seen in practice is an interpretive shift away from
persecution, in favor of something more akin to a definition of discrimination.
And there has been a similar shift away from a well-founded fear towards a
credible or plausible fear. The practical consequence of which has been to
expand the number of those who may qualify for asylum, and to lower the
threshold for doing so. Let me be clear, there are vast swathes of the world
where it is extremely difficult to be gay, or to be a woman. Where individuals
are being persecuted, it is right that we offer sanctuary. But we will not be able
to sustain an asylum system if in effect, simply being gay, or a woman, or
fearful of discrimination in your country of origin, is sufficient to qualify for
protection.
Article 31 of the Refugee Convention makes clear that it is intended to apply to
individuals coming directly from a territory where their life was threatened. It
also states, where people are crossing borders without permission, they should
for any illegal entry. The UK, along with many others, including America,
interpret this to mean that people should seek refuge and claim asylum in the
first safe country that they reach. But NGOs and others, including the UN
Refugee Agency, contest this. The status quo where people are able to travel
through multiple safe countries, and even reside in safe countries for years,
while they pick and choose their preferred destination to claim asylum is absurd
and unsustainable. Nobody entering the UK by boat from France is fleeing
imminent peril. None of them have good cause for illegal entry. The vast
majority have passed through multiple other safe countries, and in some
instances, have resided in safe countries for several years. There is a strong
argument that they should cease to be treated as refugees during their onward
movement.
There are also many whose journeys originate from countries that the public
would consider to be manifestly safe like Turkey, or Albania, or India. In these
instances, most are simply economic migrants, gaming the asylum system to
their advantage. In Europe, we’ve added, through the European Convention on
Human Rights, additional human rights laws. The global asylum framework is a
promissory note that the West cannot fulfill. We have created a system of
almost infinite supply, incentivizing millions of people to try their luck,
knowing full well that we have no capacity to meet more than a fraction of the
demand. Tragically, the ease with which this system can be gamed by those that
don’t really need it means it is the most vulnerable, women, children, those
without the money to pay people smugglers, and those not fit enough to make
arduous journeys, that lose out.
In the UK, roughly 70 percent of those arriving illegally on small boats are men
aged under 40. This is a hypocritical position for the West to maintain. And by
creating a market for people smuggling, it is leading to considerable human
suffering. So why has the international community so far, collectively failed to
explore any serious reform of the global asylum framework? I think there are
two main reasons. The first is simply that it’s very hard to renegotiate these
instruments. If you think getting 27 EU member states to agree is difficult, try
getting agreement at the United Nations. The second is much more cynical. The
fear of being branded a racist or illiberal. Any attempt to reform the Refugee
Convention will see you smeared as anti-refugee. Similar epithets are hurled at
anyone who suggests reform of the ECHR or it’s court in Strasburg. I reject the
notion that a country cannot be expected to respect human rights if it is not
signed up to an international human rights organization. As if the UK doesn’t
have a proud history of human rights dating back to Magna Carta, and the
ECHR is all that is holding us back from becoming Russia. America, Canada,
New Zealand, and Japan seem to manage just fine.
None of this is particularly novel, nor should it be particularly controversial. As
Home Secretary, Theresa May called for Britain to leave the ECHR, and it was
Conservative Party policy under Michael Howard to leave the Refugee
Convention. I’m merely advocating for reform. Now, while the underlying
framework is both a contributing factor to the problem and a barrier to certain
fixes, some countries have been more successful in tackling illegal migration
than others. Australia had to cope with two major waves of illegal maritime
migration across the Pacific in the last two decades. In the last wave, before
they stopped the crossings, more than 52,000 unauthorized maritime arrivals
and around 1100 deaths at sea, were recorded between 2008 and 2014.
Operation Sovereign Borders saw migrant boats intercepted, and then those on
board were either returned whence they had traveled, or taken to immigration
detention centers in third countries. There were some 400 illegal boat crossings
in 2013, the year the operation was enacted. Within a year, the problem was
eliminated.
Denmark, between 2015 and 2016, announced a range of measures intended to
make their asylum system significantly less attractive as a destination for illegal
migration. The result was a reduction in claims from 21,000 in 2015, to 6000 in
2016, and 1500 in 2020. For every one asylum seeker that arrived in Denmark
in 2021, three arrived in Sweden on a per capita basis. So unilateral and
bilateral solutions and policies of deterrence can and do work. This is the route
the UK has chosen to go down. In 2022, some 12,000 Albanians entered the
UK illegally via small boat. In response, we strengthened how we worked with
Albania, including improved data sharing, closer operational working, new
expedited returns arrangements, and financial support. These measures have
seen the number of Albanian small boat arrivals fall by 90 percent so far during
2023. We also work closely with France. Last year, the prime minister signed a
historic bilateral agreement to deepen our cooperation in combating illegal
migration. That included significant investment to increase frontline staffing
and policing levels in northern France, better real time intelligence and data
sharing, supported by embedded UK officers, and improved intelligence
cooperation to increase disruptions, arrests, and prosecutions.
This sort of cooperation is necessary, but not sufficient in terms of results.
Overall crossings are down more than 20 percent so far this year, compared
with 2022. The system that we are working to deliver through our Illegal
Migration Act is one that, within the limitations of the broader rights-based
framework, says the only route to asylum in the UK must be a safe and legal
route. Anyone who enters the UK illegally will be deemed inadmissible to our
asylum system, and following assessment, will be detained and swiftly removed
to their home country if that’s safe, or to a safe third country if not. In 2021, we
signed our groundbreaking Migration and Economic Development Partnership
with Rwanda. Under this agreement, Rwanda will accept physical and legal
responsibility for illegal migrants relocated from the UK, and look after all their
needs while their claims are considered, with a full package to support their
integration into Rwandan society. We always knew that our partnership would
be challenged in court, and we remain confident that the UK Supreme Court
will uphold the legality of the scheme later this year, enabling us to start putting
it into operation.
While our political opponents, NGOs, and others dismissed the partnership as
an immoral gimmick when it was first announced, it is striking how many
countries run by governments of varying political hues have now expressed, in
public and in private conversations, their support for this model. Many are now
pursuing variations of their own. The UK will continue to prioritize policies of
deterrence and border hardening, alongside the maintenance of safe and legal
routes. At the same time, we will look to build consensus for more fundamental
reform of the asylum framework at the international level. The goal for reform
must be to embed certain principles in the global asylum framework. Deterring
illegal migration must be an aim. Countries must have a say in what volume of
refugees they are capable of resettling each year. Support and protection should,
to the fullest extent possible, be rendered in neighboring safe countries where it
is most efficient to deliver, and able to reach those that need it most.
The only route to resettlement should be via safe and legal routes. People must
claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The definition of who
qualifies for protection must be tightened. And policies of externalization, such
as our partnership with Rwanda, must be recognized as appropriate. I don’t
accept the false choice between acting unilaterally or even bilaterally to protect
one’s border and solving this problem through multilateral cooperation.
International cooperation is essential if we are to find enduring solutions to the
challenges of global migration, and deliver an asylum framework fit for the
modern age. But nations cannot simply sit on their hands while a reform of
process plays out. It is right that they act in their national interest. I have, in
recent weeks, been meeting with fellow interior ministers in Europe. I will
continue doing so in the coming months, and hope to bring together partners to
a forum where we can begin discussing some of the matters that I’ve touched
on today.
Is the Refugee Convention in need of reform? Would a revised global asylum
framework work? And how would it look? How can we better balance national
rights and human rights, so that the latter do not undermine national
sovereignty? Could the ECHR be more transparent and accountable in how it
interprets human rights, and give greater power to nation states to make
arguments and present evidence? What are the appropriate criteria for being
labeled a refugee these days in the 21st century? How can we stop human rights
laws being gamed by smugglers? Are we delivering safe and legal routes in an
efficient and effective manner? And while we may have different views as to
the solutions, I hope we can at least agree on one thing, that we are living in a
new world, bound by outdated legal models. It’s time that we acknowledge that.
Thank you.
Yuval Levin: How do you think about how those models have become
outdated? The words on the page of the UN Convention have not changed, at
least since the one protocol in the late 1960s. And yet, as you say, the practical
forms they’ve taken and the actual practice of dealing with refugees all around
the West, all around the world have changed dramatically. How does that
happen? And how would changing the words on the page actually address that
problem?
Suella Braverman: I think a lot of the challenges we face are because of the
jurisprudence and interpretation by courts. And a more forward leaning and
expansive approach taken by judiciaries around the world. So, whether it’s in
the context of the ECHR, we can see Article Three, which is the prohibition
against torture, or Article Eight, the right to family and private life, being
stretched beyond all recognition to what the original intent of that convention
was. In the context of the Refugee Convention, whether it’s the definition of
refugee as I set out in my speech, or whether it’s the definition and
interpretation of reformance, onward travel. Those who have both been subject
to unforeseen and expansive interpretations by courts. And that jurisprudence
and case law has then imposed greater burdens, I’d say unsustainable burdens,
on governments around the world.
Yuval Levin: Maybe we can untangle two elements of the way that you
describe this in your remarks. The question of national sovereignty on the one
hand, and the actual specific content and substance of the treaty commitments.
You may know the United States was not an original signatory of the UN
Convention on refugees. The Truman administration in the 50s decided that it
was too much of a violation of American sovereignty. And the United States
stayed out of the treaty for 17 years, until the late 60s. The objection there was a
matter of sovereignty. They argued that the treaty would take immigration
policy out of the hands of the US government. The argument you’re making
seems to be more that the specific substance of the multilateral commitment is
the problem. You do seem to think that there can be a multilateral way to deal
with refugee issues. That there is a way for nations to agree on rules without
losing control of their immigration policy. Is that right? You think
multilateralism is the way to ultimately frame refugee policy?
Suella Braverman: I don’t think these are mutually exclusive choices. I think
there needs to be an international level approach, which is consistent and has an
equitable approach instilled throughout it. And that’s why I’m calling for a
renewed global conversation about the substance of some of these international
conventions. And I believe that the nation state, its very concept and existence
is dependent on nationally elected governments, which are held to account by
the electorate, to take their own decisions, unilaterally or bilaterally, in the way,
for example, that we’ve done in the UK with our partnership with Rwanda. Or
defining and rolling out particular and bespoke domestic legislation.
Yuval Levin: So what is the right definition of refugee? In a sense, you put
your finger on the problem that there really are people, many people, who really
are endangered, really are in a position that is like the one that these treaties
were intended to address. There are also people who are now covered by those
definitions that are not in that position. If it were up to you, or if the process
you’re calling forward to start, what definition of refugee you think would work
in the 21st century? Who is a refugee now?
Suella Braverman: I mean, again, as I’ve pointed out in my speech, I think the
definition has expanded beyond what is a reasonable and sustainable approach.
And what we are seeing in the UK, at least in the EU, is that economic migrants
are falling under the umbrella of refugee. Whether through kind of illegitimate
claims being made to mask the fact that they are economic migrants or
otherwise. And we have seen in our case law and what’s been played out in the
courts, a disproportionate allowance being made for economic migrants under
the guise of asylum law. And that line has been blurred. As I’ve said, people are
leaving a safe country like France, coming to the UK and claiming asylum on a
prima facie interpretation of the international text that should not be allowed.
But jurisprudence, case law, practice, convention has built up over time to
render that, you know, not the case. So that’s one very simple example of where
. . .
Yuval Levin: A reaffirmation of the existing definition is what would be
[crosstalk 00:41:32].
Suella Braverman: Yes, yes. I think we do need to review that and look at it in
the context of increasing numbers, increasing ease of travel, and pressures on
countries.
Yuval Levin: So you’re here to talk about these issues with your American
counterparts. You’re meeting with the Attorney General, and the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and others. Do you have a sense of how they will respond
to this argument? Do you have a sense of the Biden administration’s attitude
about the need to modernize the refugee arrangements, or in general, a sense of
their response to the situation they’re dealing with at the southern border here?
Suella Braverman: Well, listen, I value the very good dialogue and
relationship operationally that I have with my opposite numbers in the US
administration, Secretary Mayorkas and Attorney General Garland. And, you
know, the UK and the US, we share so many common values, and we’re both
grappling with this challenge in very similar ways. I’m keen to start this
conversation. I have talked about it in other international for a, with other
international counterparts. And that has been something that’s been met with,
you know, some level of support. So I hope that we can start amplifying this
kind of global level conversation amongst likeminded nations. But listen, I
commend Alejandro Mayorkas for the approach that is being taken here in
America. For example, you know, agreements with Mexico, very similar to
how we’ve been working with France and with Albania to try and ease the
flow. It’s an incredibly complex, you know, challenging situation. And it’s very
difficult to find nations who can declare victory on this problem.
Yuval Levin: We’re going to take a couple of questions here in the room. But
before we do that, just maybe one reflection on your own background as a
daughter of immigrants. How does that shape how you approach these kinds of
questions? These are obviously intense, contested questions in the UK as much
as in the US. What do you think that background brings to the table for you?
And how do immigrant communities in Britain think about the refugee question
at this moment?
Suella Braverman: Well, I have a somewhat personal experience of migration.
My father came to the UK as a very young man. I think he was about 19, 18. He
was effectively kicked out by Kenya in 1968. He always tells me movingly of
the cold February morning that he stepped off the plane at Heathrow Airport.
No friends, no money, no family, nothing but his British passport. And it was
his British passport that was his symbol of hope. And he made his life in the
UK, never once went back to Kenya. And I always think about the vulnerability
that he must have experienced then. And my mother, she was recruited by the
NHS as a girl of 18 in Mauritius. And she came over because the NHS was a
symbol of excellence, of opportunity. And she came to contribute to the UK to
make a better life. This is post war in the 1960s. And they both signed up to
British values wholeheartedly. They’re fiercely proud of Britain, the British
empire.
They’re from former colonies. And being part of the UK, in a full and, you
know, energetic way. And they came here lawfully. They came to the UK
lawfully, by the rules, occupying their place in the queue. And I think it’s
informed my view of migration. And what I think angers many people in
Britain, whether they are from a migrant background or not, is the sense of
unfairness, that people are jumping the queue, that they are breaking our rules,
that they are coming here, you know, gaming the system. The sense of
unfairness, the sense of injustice, I think, is what really angers people in the
UK, myself included.
Yuval Levin: Let’s take a couple of questions in the room. We have just a few
minutes. We can start back here. There’s a microphone coming your way, just a
moment.
Mark Stone: Thank you very much, Home Secretary. I’m Mark Stone, I’m
from Sky News. Thank you for doing this. I just wanted to pick up on the
anecdote you just gave, a very eloquent anecdote about your father. That he had
no friends, no money, no passport, he wanted a better life. Do you accept that
that is the story replicated throughout this migration journey, every single one
of those people has the same story that your father had? And I wonder how you
could square that with your views that you have outlined this morning. And just
a follow up, if I can, some have called your speech here, grandstanding. And
you can kind of see why. This is a very, very small room in America. You’re
speaking to a very small audience. And I wonder if this is perhaps more about
your leadership ambitions of a party that’s really quite struggling at the
moment?
Suella Braverman: Well, just in the first issue, I mean, what you’re suggesting
is because I’m the child of immigrants, I have to adopt a position which is pro
migration and pro the status quo. And I totally and fundamentally refute that. I
think that is totally at odds with the challenge that we are facing today.
Unprecedented levels of people coming to our country illegally, with no right to
be there, gaming our system, pretending to be refugee, pretending to be fleeing
persecution, to come to the country illegitimately. And I mean, that cannot be
how we conduct this conversation. We need to be honest with the British
people. And we need to be honest about the challenges and the solutions. And
just because I have an immigrant background does not exclude me from this
conversation. And my job as Home Secretary is to be honest with the British
people, to tell them that the system, as it currently stands internationally, is not
working. We need to start working towards a solution that is sustainable and
fair.
Listen, I’m incredibly honored to be here at the AEI. The AEI represents the
forefront of thought leadership and policymaking in the US U.and actually
internationally. And to be hosted here to talk about migration in the
international context, followed by meetings with my American counterparts, is
really, again, part of my day job, part of my duty as Home Secretary. I want to
lead this conversation globally. And I want to work with likeminded partners to
find a solution.
Yuval Levin: Let’s take one last question, if we can, right over here at the end.
Tony Diver: Thank you, Home Secretary. Tony Diver from the Daily
Telegraph. Can I ask, if you don’t agree with the UN Refugee Convention as it
is, you accepted in your speech that it’s incredibly difficult to reform because of
the number of signatories. Can I ask, would you consider leaving the
Convention all together if it is too difficult to reform? And just a short follow
up. With the Rwanda policy held up in court as it is, I know you discussed that
as well. Can I ask you how realistic you think it is that the government would
still be able to reach the Prime Minister’s pledge of stopping the boats by the
next election?
Suella Braverman: Listen, just because multilateral negotiations are difficult,
is not a reason not to engage with international partners who are grappling with
similar challenges and asking elemental questions about whether the
frameworks are fit for purpose. And so, I am seeking to build a consensus
internationally. And ultimately, the Prime Minister himself has said, “We’ll do
whatever it takes to stop the boats.” And that’s my position. And that illustrates
the resolve, the intent, and the commitment of the UK Government to fix this
problem, whatever is required. The second question was about . . .
Tony Diver: How realistic do you think it is for the boats to be stopped. The
Prime Minister [inaudible 00:50:04].
Suella Braverman: Listen, I mean, we’ve made progress this year. You know,
we’ve passed the largest piece of legislation, the largest changes, set of reforms
to our migration laws in a decade. We’ve passed our legal migration. Many
people said we wouldn’t be able to get that enacted, and we achieved that goal
earlier this year. We are now awaiting the decision, the hearing and the decision
of the Supreme Court on our Rwanda agreement. I’m confident in the
lawfulness of our agreement. I’m reassured by the fact that the lord chief
justice, the most senior judge outside the Supreme Court, found in the
government’s favor, the High Court found in the government’s favor. And I
hope that if we are successful in the Supreme Court, we will be in a position to
operationalize flights, to enable people to be removed and relocated to Rwanda
as soon as possible thereafter.
Yuval Levin: Well, that’s our time, Suella Braverman, Britain’s Home
Secretary. Thank you very much for being with us.
Suella Braverman: Thank you
No comments:
Post a Comment