Opinion: The Stance of China Compared to the UK in Regards to Immigration Laws and Policies
Immigration is a fascinating issue with many countries adopting polarising views on it - with some being significantly in favour, whilst others stand firm against it.
Particularly, the rise of the migrant crisis, as the vulnerable flee from their home country due to war, has exposed the true facade of some states - in which the UK can be argued to be one. The introduction and enforcement of the Illegal Immigration Act 2023, as a means of controlling small boats crossing, has reinforced the UK’s tough stance towards border controls, to the extent in which it can subsequently be argued that the UK seeks to deter immigration overall. There is an argument that the UK only seems to be accepting of ‘skilled’ migrants as elucidated by their ‘points-based’ immigration policy, and thus neglectful of the refugees who genuinely require assistance. Thus, it draws parallels to China who also prioritises migrants with ‘exceptional talent’, as seen by their visa policies. The fact that China doesn’t even see refugee assistance as a foreign policy priority suggests that immigration serves only the purpose of economic benefits, similar to the Uk but perhaps to a greater extent. Hence, despite the UK being a developed country whilst China is still emerging, there is a consensus towards their attitudes towards immigration. This piece aims to outline the different immigration policy approaches of both countries and their reasons accordingly.
The UK government’s implementation of the Illegal Immigration Act 2023 seems to build upon its previous Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The latter Act created significant provisions, such as a two-tier asylum system whereby those who arrived into the UK via irregular means received less support for their residence. Clause 11 of the Nationality and Borders Act categories refugees as Group 1 or Group 2. Particularly those who entered the UK via Channel crossings in small boats tend to have limited rights to welfare benefits and legal protections, resulting in some refugees having more rights than others. Moreover, refugees who have committed serious crimes will have their stages of appeal removed as well as there also being penalties for late submissions of evidence. It is clear that the government’s stance from the onset is to deter illegal immigration, yet it does not realise that those who arrive into the UK through irregular means tend to be vulnerable refugees without other choices. The Rwanda asylum plans, complimentary to the Act, establishes offshore processing whereby asylum seekers are sent to countries with less infrastructure and resources to support their applications. It runs contrary to the Refugee Convention and thus, it makes the Illegal Immigration Act 2023 appear even more brutal as it worsens the situation for refugees further, by forcing those who came to the UK through alternative routes, to be treated with prejudice. The Illegal Immigration Bill became law on the 20th of July 2023 with an aim to deter unsafe migration. The Bill will alter the law so that those who enter the UK illegally will not be able to stay and will instead be detained and removed to either their third world country like Rwanda or back to their home country. The Bill also makes it easier to remove people permanently from the UK if they are found to have travelled illegally. Undoubtedly, this caused public outrage, as people who were forced into the UK on small boats as a last resort, were held behind bars out of choicelessness. Hence, reinforcing the argument that the UK seems only to care for immigrants who could provide ‘economic advantages’ rather than refugees which they are obliged to accept under the Geneva Refugee Convention 1951. Indeed, the UK’s newly introduced ‘points-based immigration system’ in 2022 consolidates this view. Under this system, visas are awarded to those who gain enough points by meeting the set of requirements e.g having a salary threshold of £25,600 or having a licensed sponsor. The main purpose of this system is to improve the UK’s labour market by acquiring a skilled workforce, hence the minimum number of points needed to apply for work in the UK is 70 and involves speaking English at a required level. Thus, only ‘talented individuals’ would be able to apply for work visas under this system, leading to mass criticisms - one of which include potential exploitation where workers rights are infringed at the workplace within the settled country, due to disclosure of their immigration status.
It is clear that the immigration policies of the UK significantly favour the economically advantageous rather than the vulnerable refugees in need of immediate help. Recently the Government introduced the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Draft Bill addresses the legality of sending migrants to Rwanda to process their Asylum applications. Section 1(2)(b) deems Rwanda to be “a safe country” for refugees to be sent. However, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it was unlawful because refugees may be subjected to persecution which contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 3, prohibiting torture and inhuman treatment. The stance of the UK towards immigration currently, is greatly criticised for its cruelty and brutality.
China on the other hand, although in recent years has expanded its humanitarian aid to assist refugees, there is little evidence to demonstrate that they are allowing refugees to immigrate into their country. China has increased funding to UN agencies to support humanitarian responses to crises, in 2023 its Government provided a cheque of US$1 million to the UNRWA to support the Agency’s education programme targeted at 5,300 Palestinian Refugee children in schools. However, when considered in the broader context of the Asia-Pacific region, Japan and India trumps China on this basis by a large extent. Interestingly, despite China being party to the Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol since 1982, China has not established a national mechanism for determining who qualifies as a refugee. Moreover, Chinese law contains no outline on which organisation or government body is responsible for refugees and their needs. Like the UK, China is lacking in its foreign affairs outreach and efficiency, perhaps to an even greater extent because internationally it is recognised as doing the least in regards to helping Refugees settle within a third country or their own. As China develops economically, cross-border immigration has also increased simultaneously as the country becomes an attractive hub for employment seekers. A system of visas has been implemented to encourage the migration of ‘exceptional talent’ such as the R visa for foreign nationals, valid for a maximum of 10 years. Yet, alongside this, there has also been a rise of illegal immigration where those who work in China without proper documentation are labelled as the “three illegals” and have been targeted as creating social instability. China’s 2012 Exit-Entry Administration Law developed the sections on national security and irregular immigration to combat this issue. Whilst the law has strengthened the government’s stance on immigration, the rights of migrations and the problem of integration within the country still stands. As Xi Jinping took office in 2012, he attempted to establish reforms to the mobility of immigration and social integrations. Nonetheless, the framework for doing so, to this day remains incomplete. Here, it is seen that China draws many parallels to the UK in that both wish to extend the rights of migrants and aid their transitions but are hamstrung by economic limits and priorities, drawing attention away from the social issues at hand. This is the main reason why both China and the UK favour migrants of ‘exceptional’ talent, because in reality it is only feasible.
Despite a country’s level of development, immigration policies and laws tend to be an issue that unites all. Economic restrictions often means that states must adopt a particular stance towards immigration - favour it in one aspect whilst limiting it on another. Socially, it may raise criticisms but through the lens of the state, its desire for advancement will mean that refugees will never gain priority over potential economic wealth.
This Opinion Piece is written by Inspire Law's Lead Writer, Li Xiao Ying.
Comments