It is the prevention of asylum, not seeking it, which is illegal

It is the prevention of asylum, not seeking it, which is illegal and we would work towards putting an end to these practices.

Despite rhetoric from other parties and much of the media, it is not illegal to arrive without permission if the individual is arriving to seek asylum as per the Refugee Convention that the UK not only helped write but has been a signatory to since 1951.

What is illegal under international law is stopping people from claiming this right, which the UK does alongside all other industrialised countries. While this can look like a Coast Guard ship pushing a dinghy back into open water, as has been seen in Greece, the much more common prevention tactics are through carrier fees and visas.

Carrier fees are heavy fines imposed on transport companies who do not ensure all passengers have the right to arrive in their destination country, while visa impositions mean that it is much more difficult for people from certain countries to travel, as they will apply for – and often be promptly denied – visas while others can travel freely. The list of nationalities which require visas is frequently reviewed and revised, with a direct correlation between new visa impositions and rising conflict.

It is crucial to remember that, much like granting asylum itself, the decision to impose visas on certain nationalities is always political – for example, Australians can travel freely to the UK despite the fact that Australians are thought to be the single-largest group of visa overstayers in the UK. We support the right of Australians to travel freely and we would re-imagine the visa system to allow citizens from other countries to have this right as well.

Unfortunately, the UK pioneered the global use of both carrier fees and visas to prevent those seeking asylum from arriving in a given country, which is not a legacy we are proud of. Carrier fees were first imposed for ships in the early 20th century against Jews escaping Czarist Pogroms, while the use of imposing visas on countries with rising conflicts to prevent asylum applications was first imposed against Sri Lanka – a former British colony whose problems can be partially traced back to the Empire, and a current Commonwealth member – in the 1980s.

We should not be actively closing the door to those who we clearly deem are at a higher risk of danger and who, via Visitor visa applications, are trying to use the correct channels. We should instead fulfill our moral and legal obligations to provide refuge for those in need.