First Safe Country for Refugees and UK Immigration

Mohammad Alkhateeb

The Issue

The illegal mass-crossing of Moroccan citizens into the Spanish exclave of Ceuta is only a page in the long story of Europe’s grapple with migration. Debate has long been raging and sentiments have run high in the UK surrounding the illegal arrival of people into the UK on small boats across the English Channel. Nevertheless, issues become conflated and perceptions of law become the subject of confusion. Immigration, the lives of migrants and people seeking refuge have become subject of ‘political football’, and the law is lost in the process.

A claim is repeatedly made in public discourse, which has long gone unquestioned, that a person fleeing war or persecution (as permitted under international law), must stop transiting from a country to another when they have reached a safe country. The source of said confusion is a misunderstanding of the term ‘safe country’. The rule in UK law also differs from that provided in international law, where it governs the question of refugees.

Fact or Fiction?

It is important to note that there is no basis in international law for requiring asylum seekers to stop in the first safe country. The UK is at the northern end of the continent, meaning that people claiming asylum in the UK have, in many cases, travelled through numerous countries.

South Africa finds itself in a similar situation. The country is at the southernmost point in Africa, with more than 242,000 refugees and asylum seekers in 2021. By contrast, the UK has received 108,000 asylum claims in 2024 (its highest number since records began in 1979). In South Africa’s case, people tend to have transited through many countries which would objectively be seen as safe, those include Tanzania, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Zambia and others.

UK law does not allow a person to claim asylum in the UK if they have travelled from a safe country. International refugee law does not forbid countries from imposing additional requirements, but if those additional requirements fundamentally stand against the spirit and goals of the Refugee Convention, they can be said to be illegal.

What is a safe country?

It is essential to note that not all persons having arrived in the UK on small boats are in the same legal category. People arriving for economic reasons are not, according to international law, asylum seekers[1] or prospective refugees[2]. To legitimately be considered a refugee, a person must have a well-founded fear of persecution and be unwilling or unable to return to their country of origin due to such fear. The fear must have strong grounds in the risk of persecution or risk to life, for which there must be evidence.

With regard to asylum seekers arriving into the UK, whether on small boats or by other means, a safe country is not to be understood in the ordinary sense of the word. The Refugee Convention (the main international legal text governing the matter of refugees and asylum seekers) requires a host country to respect the dignity of persons seeking asylum, uphold and protect their human rights, they must have access within reasonable time to the right to work, healthcare, education and courts… Above all, arbitrary deportation (refoulement) and inadequate processing of asylum claims stand against the spirit of the Refugee Convention.

Where a country does not respect the requirements imposed by the Convention, that country cannot be said to be a safe country for an asylum seeker and prospective refugee, as they will remain exposed to a risk of ill-treatment, abuses of human rights and potential deportation which exposes persons to the risk of persecution and danger. France is objectively a safe country, yet Human Rights Watch reported in 2015 on ‘harassment and abuse’ of asylum seekers and migrants in Calais. Similarly, Amnesty International had reported in 2024 on the detention of asylum seekers in Italy, with conditions that do not guarantee human dignity nor health. These are clear violations of specific provisions of the Refugee Convention, which guarantees freedom of movement as a natural human right, as well as all other human rights.

When such conditions of life are imposed on an asylum seeker in a country through which they are transiting, the country’s objective status as a safe country does not negate the existence of conditions which no human being would willingly endure. France and Italy are safe countries for most visitors, nationals and many residents. Yet, they may well be unsafe for asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, meaning that their journey towards the UK or to the Nordic countries is a natural continuation of a human being’s pursuit of his or her rights and natural dignity, as guaranteed by International Refugee Law.

Final Thoughts

The Principle of the First Safe Country has no basis in international law. Its imposition by individual states, whether the UK or others, is not in itself a violation of international law. It does, however, become a violation when the principle is applied incorrectly, and when the term ‘first safe country’ is not applied with careful consideration of what a ‘safe country’ specifically means for asylum seekers and refugees.

Given reports of abuses of human rights and refugee law in France and Italy for instance, it is entirely possible that onward journeys to the UK are a protected right under the Refugee Convention, and the refusal of such applications on the ground that people have travelled from France, may well be a violation of international law.

 —————————————————————————————————

[1] An asylum seeker is a person seeking international protection after fleeing war, persecution, human rights violations or other circumstances for which they are unable to return to their country of origin. An asylum seeker is also a person whose application to be recognised as a refugee has not yet been approved.

[2] A refugee is a person who had been an asylum seeker and who has been officially recognised.