Britain praises itself on its track record of offering protection to refugees plus others seeking safety and congratulates itself as having a proud and generous history. A contemporary example that is often cited by politicians, migration advocates or the media is the Ukraine ‘refugee’ scheme or the British National (Overseas) scheme for Hongkongers. However, dig a little deeper, and they’re not quite as generous as we’re led to believe. These schemes seem perfect; they ultimately still highlight the limits and conditional protection afforded to certain migrants through the creation of these schemes as a status separate from formal refugee status, yet distinct from other migrant visas.
The Ukrainian schemes
Ukrainian Family Scheme
People who arrive via the Ukrainian Family Scheme are not classed as people seeking asylum or refugees but receive a temporary status. Ukrainians who have family members with British citizenship or settlement in the UK are eligible. This visa route is free, including exemption from the health surcharge, and people are able to claim benefits. This scheme does not include a path to settlement in the UK. This route closed to new applicants on 19th February 2024.
Homes for Ukraine
There is also the Homes for Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme, where, again, people are not classed as asylum seekers or refugees, but instead receive a temporary status. People with British or Irish citizenship or who settled status in the UK are able to sponsor Ukrainians by providing accommodation. This must be provided for at least 6 months, but the visa can last for up to 18 months. The same conditions as the Ukrainian Family Scheme around fees and settlement apply. This route is still open to new applicants.
Hong Kong (BN(O)) visa
Hong Kong citizens that arrive through the British Nationals (Overseas) route are not labelled as people seeking asylum or ‘refugees’. Applicants must have BNO status or a close family member who does. Unlike the Ukrainian Family Scheme and refugee routes, there is a charge for this visa plus the health surcharge, but it is cheaper than other visas. There is also largely no access to public benefits for people on this visa, who will need to prove that they can support themselves for 6 months (£2000 as a single adult, which rises to at least £3100 with a family). However, due to the requirement of having BNO status or a close family member who does, there is a pathway to settlement after five years in the UK.
What’s the difference?
People who migrate under these ‘protection’ routes are immediately able to work and rent, and are therefore not entitled to temporary accommodation in government-provided housing. These schemes are typically easier and quicker to apply for than applying for refugee status. They are also not counted in government statistics of refugees.
However, as they are not legally classed as refugees, they are not entitled to refugee protections. This could include the right to not be penalised for irregular entry into a country and, depending on the visa scheme, access to benefits and a pathway to citizenship. These schemes are much narrower in their scope, in terms of who is eligible to apply.
Safe route
An alternative can be a visa route to claim refuge. This would enable someone to travel to the UK through regular routes, avoiding the dangerous and often exploitative journeys than many migrants using irregular routes experience.
Otherwise, a person seeking asylum must immediately apply for refugee status when they enter the country, or as soon as they feel they are at risk of persecution, if already in the UK on another visa. They will then have a screening interview and likely be placed in Home Office accommodation until they have their asylum interview and their claim is decided.
Under the Refugee Convention, it does not matter how an asylum seekers gained entry into the country they submit their application in. However, the inhumane Migration Act has removed this protection, which could mean that we see more asylum seekers returned to unsafe countries. It could also see people seeking asylum sent to third-countries where they are detained and their claim is processed, like the Rwanda Plan. As the Supreme Court judgement noted, this may result in more unfair deportations of people to unsafe countries of origin. This Act therefore serves to lessen protections for refugees and people seeking asylum.
All migrants, including refugees, deserve safety and protection, including in the routes they use to get to the UK. While we welcome limited schemes that allow for this for specific nationalities, we call for them to be expanded to cover all those seeking asylum.