Priti Patel’s fantasy of sending asylum seekers ‘somewhere else’ is unworkable. But here’s why she’s pushing it anyway

The home secretary has fallen victim to the affliction of anti-immigration politicians through the ages: Why can’t we send asylum seekers far away while we decide what to do with them?

The affliction starts off with quite short distances. In 2003, Oliver Letwin, who was then shadow home secretary, proposed to detain asylum seekers in prison ships moored off the coast.  

Then various Australian governments started taking people claiming refugee status to detention centres on Christmas Island and Nauru.  

Now Priti Patel has gone one further, by asking her officials to “explore the construction of an asylum processing centre on Ascension Island, a British overseas territory more than 4,000 miles from the UK in the south Atlantic”, according to the Financial Times.  

The affliction even appears to have a name, with Patel’s allies being quoted as saying that she wants to learn from other countries’ “offshoring” policies. Well, “offshoring” is one word for it. The psychology behind it is crude and rather unattractive: namely to push a problem as far away as possible in the hope that people will think that it has been solved.

The politics are pretty crude and unattractive too. Patel probably knows that the plan is unworkable, but calculates that being seen to be trying to expel asylum seekers “offshore” will appeal to a section of the electorate.  

Indeed, the home secretary’s allies admit that she was prompted to investigate the options after talking to Tony Abbott, the former Australian prime minister who made a name for himself by pursuing a restrictive policy towards would-be refugees in Australia. However, the same allies claim that it was not she who suggested Ascension Island – that came from the foreign office, they say.

That location appears to have been dropped, but Downing Street sources confirmed today that the government is still examining plans for “offshore asylum processing centres”, although they are likely to be closer to Britain – a suggestion that sent journalists scurrying to look at maps for other islands that are under British jurisdiction. They were quickly reduced to such unlikely candidates as Sark and Canvey Island.  

That is probably as far as the idea will go, because it is unworkable. It is also morally wrong, as well as contrary to international law on the treatment of refugees, to treat asylum seekers as criminals. Britain, like any civilised nation, has an obligation to assess claims of refugee status fairly and promptly. Forcibly removing people who claim a well-founded fear of persecution to a remote prison cannot be justified.  

Of course, processing asylum claims is difficult. The arrival of desperate people in dinghies and inflatable swimming pools across the Channel, many of whom have been trafficked by gangs, produces awkward headlines for a government keen to persuade voters that it runs a firm and fair immigration policy.  

But the idea that asylum seekers can simply be shipped off to Somewhere Else while their claims are assessed is a fantasy. It is no substitute for an efficient and fair system of discharging our obligations to those fleeing war and persecution.