THE media attention surrounding asylum-seekers and refugees of late has culminated in divided communities, protests and attempts to curtail the rights of those fleeing persecution.

This article aims to outline the significance of refugee as a legal status; how Britain’s refugee history can help us make sense of current sentiments; and why those who believe in the rights and dignity of those fleeing persecution should stand firm in their principles.

What is a refugee?

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which Britain is party to, defines a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” While an asylum-seeker is somebody who is yet to have their claim to be recognised as a refugee determined.

The convention emerged after World War II, with atrocities fresh in the minds of European policymakers, and protections for those escaping persecution were deemed unequivocally necessary. The 1951 convention included reference to “events occurring before January 1 1951,” which was interpreted to limit the convention to “events occurring in Europe.”

As such, the sole amendment to the convention, in the form of the 1967 protocol, created the provision for the convention to apply universally by removing the geographic and time-based constraints.

Before the international obligations of the convention, Britain had notably displayed the humanitarian impetus of asylum with the Kindertransport, the thousands of Basque children accepted into the country following the fascist bombing of Guernica in 1937, and the welcoming of foreign political dissidents, including Karl Marx, to name but a few instances.

Refugees in Britain

One may be inclined to draw upon this proud history of compassion for plight, but in doing so, one must not overlook the tireless campaigning that brought these victories about and the persistent opposition faced. Those campaigning for the rights of refugees have historically faced a torrent of obstruction. What we see today is nothing new.

The Kindertransport, perhaps one of Britain’s most notable instances of granting asylum, concerned Jewish children fleeing the horrors of fascist Germany.

The children were brought to Britain, parentless, on strict prerequisites “that (1) their stay would be temporary; and (2) a £50 bond per child [would be] posted with the Home Office, to ensure that children allowed into the country would not be a burden on the public purse.”

Further, “voluntary organisations were responsible for organising the transports and making arrangements for the children to be cared for once they arrived in Britain.”

Similarly, no British government support was contributed towards Basque refugees; the maintenance of the children was entirely funded by voluntary public donations. In respect of political exiles, the Aliens Act 1920 made provisions for the removal of “foreign trade union radicals and labour activists.”

The contradiction of support and opposition to refugees has been a perennial dispute for our country. Despite this, the narrative of Britain as a historical safe haven for those fleeing persecution is a prevalent one.

As noted in Refugees In An Age Of Genocide, “People feel that the country should maintain asylum for genuine asylum-seekers, but they’re always in the past, never today.” Britain’s history and present-day view of refugees is a contradiction of empathy and indifference, but it is perhaps encouraging that history has vindicated the former.

The application obstacles

There are severe issues with the asylum application system, evidenced by the applications backlog, the number of appeals lodged and the self-reported lack of training for those making asylum application decisions.

The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found in his 2024 report on asylum casework that more than half of asylum decision-makers found that training did not equip them to make refusal decisions effectively. By contrast, Switzerland utilises qualified lawyers for the same role.

The sheer lack of competence and political will from successive governments has been displayed through Silicon Valley-inspired “hackathon” suggestions and the lean towards AI (as if the Horizon Scandal is a distant memory). The lack of direction in dealing with the backlog seems to be a notable headline for each government of recent memory to grapple with, as the right lurches towards ever more dubious proposed solutions.

Successive years of corner-cutting have led to an underqualified workforce, unable to deal with the demands of the growing need for qualified caseworkers. The decimation of legal aid also lends itself to the crisis with the lack of available lawyers, seeing a rise in self-representation.

Appeals also add significantly to the backlog, with it being found that 76 per cent of main applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and 33 per cent of determined appeals were allowed between 2004 and 2021.

Application numbers

It would be wrong to negate the woes many have with our asylum system and the classist branding of racism on anybody who dares espouse a view that is not simply an endorsement of open borders.

Although some may push a narrative of an ever-growing number of people rushing to exploit our lax asylum systems, the number of people coming to Britain to seek asylum fluctuates, as does the approval rate for granting asylum.

The official Home Office statistics show that in 1988, there were just under 4,000 applications for asylum; in 2002, the number of claims was more than 84,000, although the actual figure would have been higher as dependants were not recorded, only heads of households.

The spike in applications around 2002 can be explained by the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. The figure then dropped to 17,916 in 2010, dispelling the notion that the figures are only ever increasing, but rather, are heavily dictated by international instability.

The Home Office reports that the number of asylum applications has been high by historical standards in each of the past three years. In 2024, 47 per cent were granted at initial decision. The annual grant rate was lowest in 2004 (12 per cent) and highest in recent times in 2022 (76 per cent).

The creation of bespoke humanitarian routes for those from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong can explain the peak of successful application rates in 2022 and somewhat explain the higher application rate of 81,130 applications, relating to 99,939 people. Only somewhat, as the nationalities of those seeking asylum around this period do not all correspond with the humanitarian schemes created.

Perhaps, rather than decontextualised asylum application figures, the analysis should shift to why people are fleeing their countries.

Britain, war and arms

In some sense, we are all anti-refugee. In holding our governments to account for their warmongering policies, we are opposing the policies that create refugees.

It is grotesque to see people who have fled persecution face persecution of another kind for exercising their legal right to seek asylum in Britain. Those who cherish the rights and dignity of all must not be deterred. We must be emboldened by our past as a nation, recognising the challenges those who came before us faced when standing up for justice.

As pointed out this week by Jeremy Corbyn, “From what we see across most of our media, you’d think that there is a consensus that refugees aren’t welcome. This could not be further from the truth.”

Anti-refugee sentiments are nothing new, but neither are the principles of those who stand up and tackle these sentiments.