A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE VALUE OF DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY?

We are currently debating the question, ‘who wants to be a refugee?’, in particular the question of criminalising asylum seekers who arrive in the UK from France in boats: https://ourdecisiontoo.com/Issue/363

There is no doubt that this is illegal:

“When your claim might not be considered

Your claim might not be considered if you:
• are from an EU country
• travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’
• have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylum

Generally, a safe third country is one that:
• you’re not a citizen of
• you would not be harmed in
• would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed”
https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility

There is also no doubt that some of the illegal immigrants are desperate, for whatever reason:

"A person’s need for protection should be judged on the dangers they have faced"
Statement by Mike Adamson, chief executive, British Red Cross

“We are deeply disappointed that the Nationality and Borders Bill will be passing into law because of the detrimental impact it will have on people seeking asylum in the UK.
This should have been an opportunity to address fundamental issues within the asylum system by creating more safe routes, improving asylum decisions and making sure people live in dignity with the support they need. It’s an opportunity that has been missed.

We believe a person’s need for protection and therefore their ability to claim asylum should be judged on the dangers they have faced and not on how they enter this country. Alongside the recent announcement to remove people to Rwanda on a one-way ticket, there are ever increasing barriers to refugees receiving protection in the UK.
We have heard directly from many people seeking asylum of the distress and anxiety the proposals in this Bill has provoked.

Our goal is now to support men, women and children seeking asylum as best we can, working with them to mitigate the worst aspects of this new law, as well as continuing to advocate for a fairer, better funded and more humane asylum system.” https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/migration-and-displacement/refugees-and-asylum-seekers/nationality-and-borders-bill-statement

THE NATIONALITY AND BORDERS BILL

This is from the Red Cross, again:

What has happened to the UK's asylum system?

At the end of April 2022, the Nationality and Borders Bill was approved by Parliament and has now been passed into law.

At the British Red Cross, we believe a person’s need for protection and therefore their ability to claim asylum should be judged on the dangers they have faced and not on how they enter this country.

What are the changes?

According to the bill, for the first time, people arriving in the UK seeking protection as a refugee will have their claim assessed based on how they arrived into the country, rather than the dangers they have fled.

Under the proposed changes, those who arrive in an ‘unofficial’ way such as by crossing the channel will no longer receive the same protection even if they then go on to be recognised as a refugee.

Instead, they will have ‘temporary protection’ in the UK with limited rights to reunite with their families or access welfare support.
https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/migration-and-displacement/refugees-and-asylum-seekers/why-changes-to-the-asylum-system-would-be-a-dangerous-step-backwards

DOES THIS CALL FOR A CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY?

Shouldn’t this matter be the subject of a dedicated Citizens’ Assembly or similar deliberative consultation?

Given that this issue is complex in many ways, and replete with both values and evidence, would it not be perfect for an organised process in which randomly selected citizens could learn the background intricacies and reach informed judgements that might be fed into a practical democratic outcome?