Asylum Seekers Come On Boats Because We Told Them To

 

The law requires them to reach our shores—so why are we punishing them for it?

By Sean Ash

Every day, headlines shout about the small boats arriving on British shores. Politicians speak of invasion, media outlets stir public outrage, and many citizens are left wondering why this is happening and who is to blame. But behind the noise and confusion lies a truth that very few are willing to confront. This is not a crisis imposed on Britain by the outside world. It is a situation created by Britain itself. The system that now brings desperate people across the Channel is not a foreign invention. It is a British design, rooted in our own laws, treaties, and political choices.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Britain played a central role in drafting the 1951 Refugee Convention. This legal document was created in response to the horrors of war and genocide, particularly the plight of Jewish refugees who had been turned away by countries that refused to offer them safe haven. The Convention established the definition of a refugee and outlined the obligations of nations to provide protection to those fleeing persecution. Britain not only signed this Convention, we helped write it. We helped shape the global consensus that to be a civilised country meant recognising the right to seek asylum.

One of the central features of this legal framework is that a person must be within a country’s territory or at its border in order to claim asylum. There is no provision in British law that allows a person to apply for asylum from abroad. Contrary to what many believe, British embassies are not open to non-citizens wishing to claim asylum. Embassies are designed to serve British nationals overseas, not to process refugee applications. We have not established any official humanitarian visa routes that would allow someone fleeing war or persecution to apply from another country. This is not an oversight. It is the system we deliberately put in place.

When Britain was a member of the European Union, it participated in the Dublin Regulation. This agreement allowed countries to return asylum seekers to the first EU nation they entered, placing the burden of responsibility on countries like Italy and Greece. The UK used the Dublin Regulation to avoid processing many asylum claims. However, with Brexit, we left the EU and therefore lost access to this mechanism. We can no longer return people to other EU countries under the Dublin rules. This was a direct consequence of leaving the European Union. We chose it. It is not something forced upon us. Since leaving the EU, the number of people arriving by boat has risen so dramatically that it clearly shows we had far greater control over our borders while inside the EU than we do outside of it. 

So what remains? A legal system that we created, which demands that people be physically present in the UK before they can ask for asylum, yet offers no legal way for them to arrive here. We have closed off almost every official route. We issue very few resettlement visas, and our criteria are extremely narrow. The result is simple. If you are fleeing war, dictatorship, or persecution, and you want to claim asylum in the UK, you must find a way to reach British soil. The only option left for many is to climb into a small boat and cross the Channel.

Once they arrive, we call them criminals. We say they are invading our country. We ask why they did not go somewhere else. But we are the ones who told them they must come here in order to claim protection. We are the ones who shut every other door. The boats are not evidence of a broken system. They are evidence that the system is working exactly as we designed it. And now, having created a narrow and treacherous path, we turn on those who take it.

This is not just a legal issue. It is a moral one. A nation cannot demand that a person step onto its territory in order to request safety, then condemn them for doing just that. We have written the rules, withdrawn from the agreements that helped manage claims, and removed all safe alternatives. We have told people what they must do to survive, then punished them for listening.

So the question is not why they come by boat. The question is why we have made that the only way. Until we are honest about the part we have played, we will continue to blame the victims of a crisis we engineered, and we will fail to live up to the very values we once claimed to stand for.