We must take more responsibility for Syrian refugees

The UK has a long record of admitting and supporting refugees.

The UK has a long record of admitting and supporting refugees

With nearly 55 million people internally displaced or living as refugees, forced migration is at a 15 year high. Syria is the source of the world’s largest refugee crisis and its neighbouring countries are struggling to cope with nearly 3 million refugees.

In the past governments in developed countries would have offered sanctuary to some of the most vulnerable refugees from any large-scale refugee crisis.

But this is not happening.

Despite promises made in January 2014 to set up a new Syrian resettlement programme, the Refugee Council has revealed that just 50 Syrian refugees have been admitted to the UK through this route.

Throughout British history, governments have, at certain times admitted groups of forcibly displaced people who are deemed particularly vulnerable. Three hundred years ago this country admitted 13,000 impoverished Germans who had been displaced by failed harvests and the 1701-1714 War of Spanish Succession.

This group became known as the Poor Palatines and debates between Whigs and Tories about their settlement may seem familiar to the modern observer.

As refugee protection regimes developed in the 20th century, vulnerable groups of displaced people admitted through quota systems became known as programme refugees. They have included Poles (1946), Hungarians (1957 via Austria) and 24,500 Vietnamese refugees admitted between 1979 and 1992.

The latter group were accepted under the successive Thatcher governments, despite her initial reluctance to bring them to the UK. Many of the children of these Vietnamese refugees are now enjoying considerable career success.

More recently, 2,500 Bosnians and 4,000 Kosovar Albanians were evacuated to the UK, with the UK government and local authorities working with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to organise their settlement.

Today, most refugees coming to the UK are not admitted through quota schemes, rather they arrive as individuals or as a family and have to apply for asylum. On the basis of this application they are granted refugee status, other types of leave to remain or are refused asylum.

Asylum applications have decreased significantly from the early years of the 21st century and there were 23,507 lodged with the Home Office in 2013, of which 1,669 came from Syrian nationals. Other EU countries have received larger numbers of Syrian asylum-seekers, including in 2013 Sweden (23,500), Germany (29,940) and Bulgaria (3,225).

Over the years the UK has also given offered sanctuary to small groups of programme refugees, outside the large evacuations such as the 1999 Kosovar Programme. This arrangement was increased and formalised by home secretary David Blunkett through the Gateway Protection Programme.

Vulnerable refugees are identified by UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration. Many of them have spent years languishing in camps after fleeing conflicts in countries such as Burma, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan.

On arrival in the UK these refugees are entitled to a 12 month integration programme delivered by local authorities and non-governmental organisations such as the Refugee Council. There is an annual quota of 750 people admitted through the Gateway Programme, small in comparison with the United States where 70,000 refugees are admitted through quotas.

Nevertheless, there is cross-party support for the programme and at a local level councillors from all the main political parties have voted to take in these refugees.

It can be seen that the UK has a long record in admitting and supporting vulnerable refugees. Its generosity has usually been measured in thousands. That this government has only admitted 50 Syrian refugees seems particularly parsimonious and a break with past tradition.

Over 80 per cent of the world refugees live in poor countries and one of the founding principles of United Nations is that its member states should share responsibility for humanitarian problems. A desperate UNHCR has appealed for EU countries to take in 30,000 vulnerable Syrian refugees.

Next week, Parliament will again debate the UK’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis. Those who consider that sharing responsibility for supporting refugees is an important and progressive principle can ask their MPs to attend the debate and push for greater generosity.

Jill Rutter writes on migration and is vice-chair of the Migration Museum whose exhibition on German migration opens in September. She is also a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward.

Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for £5 a month?

7 Responses to “We must take more responsibility for Syrian refugees”

  1. swatnan

    If the ‘Rebels’ hadn’t been envcouraged by outside subversive elements, then there wouldn’t be this Crisis in Syria, and the need to take in Refugees. Syria was a pretty ‘civilised country before the Spring, as ‘civilised’ any any Arab country could ever be.

  2. Dave Roberts

    Ms Rutter. A very open ended article as is usual from people like yourself. Specific questions for you. How many refugees should we take from Syria? Where do we house them? Where are the children to be educated and who pays for the whole thing?

    As you are an expert on immigration how many refugees from around the world should the UK take?

  3. Leon Wolfeson

    Assad started the civil war.

    Your conspiracy theory is misplaced, and blaming the refugees for Assad’s actions….erm….

  4. swatnan

    Civil Wars usually start with a rebelion against the establishment.
    The English Civil War started when the King provoked Paliament into rebelling.

  5. Leon Wolfeson

    That in itself as a “usually” is not agreed by historians.

    Moreover, the cause of the civil war here – Assad cracking down because of fear of the Arab Spring – isn’t even really debated by said historians!

    That you think the pretty nasty regime there was as “civilised” (and I also note your usage of quote marks, and your leanings there) really does highlight your thinking. Take Jordan…

  6. Leon Wolfeson

    Er…not really. We failed to intervene, and some of them will blame us for it (I think they have a pretty good moral case based on our espoused (but not followed) values – which does not excuse the likely results, of course – that’s how people react though).

    We should be working to get countries out there to accept them as citizens.

  7. cole

    Oh really? Ever hear of the Hama massacre by old man Assad,in which tens of thousands were killed? And the generally brutal regime which caused the uprising in the first place.

Leave a Reply