UK's migration reform plans come under fire

The United Kingdom government's latest plan to stop illegal migration continues to draw fire from human rights groups, charities, and policy experts, who have questioned its effectiveness and morality.

According to a recent report by UK charity the Refugee Council, more than 190,000 people, including up to 45,000 children, could be locked up or forced into destitution in the first three years of the policy's implementation, as the government has proposed that anyone who arrives in the UK illegally, such as by crossing the English Channel in small boats, should not be accepted as an asylum seeker, and should be detained and removed, regardless of their circumstances.

In that time, the report said, more than 9 billion pounds ($11 billion) would be spent on detaining and accommodating people, based on an estimate that 50 to 100 percent of them would be held for an average of 28 days.

Even if they are recognized as refugees under international law, tens of thousands of people would lose protection, the report concluded. The charity added that its projection was likely to be "conservative", based on its experience working with people who are already in the UK.

A Home Office spokesperson responded that it did not recognize the report's figures, and claimed the UK "has a proud history of supporting vulnerable people" who came to the country through "safe and legal "routes, such as on travel or study visas, or the resettlement program set up by the United Nations' refugee agency, the UNHCR.

However, people facing war or authoritarian governments are usually unable to obtain legal visas, nor would they have the chance to be resettled by the UNHCR, as availability is limited, news website the Independent reported.

"The (1951 Refugee) Convention explicitly recognizes that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly," said the UNHCR. "The legislation, if passed, would amount to an asylum ban."

Apart from moral issues, some members of Parliament, including former prime minister Theresa May, have questioned whether the bill will be workable in reducing illegal migrant numbers.

In a recent debate in the House of Commons, May said the bill would require "extra detention capabilities" and "assurance" that no one can abscond, and if the Home Office wishes to remove people and send them to other safe countries, it faces legal challenges, as they can still petition to the European Court of Human Rights, or ECHR, against deportation.

"Policies of deterrence do not work when you are trying to target people who are fleeing torture, war and persecution," Sonya Sceats, chief executive of the UK charity Freedom from Torture, told broadcaster CNN.

Despite ongoing opposition, Home Secretary Suella Braverman, is still pushing the bill. Last weekend she visited Rwanda to talk to government officials there about sending illegal asylum seekers to the African country, a project the British government announced almost a year ago, but which has yet to be put into action.

Braverman called talks with the ECHR over lifting the deportation ban "constructive," but Alice Donald, associate professor of human rights law at Middlesex University, told the Guardian newspaper it was "hard to believe that the court would be willing …for the UK to be let off from complying", calling it "government spin to suggest that".

Zheng Wanyin contributed to this story.