London (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Leading doctors have placed Britain’s immigration system as a “public mental health concern” that imposes harm on asylum seekers, and threats “re-traumatising” those already impacted by psychological distress.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsch) has urged UK ministers to review immigration regulations introduced by the last government, expressing that Labour had a “moral and ethical obligation” to safeguard the mental health of those pursuing sanctuary in the UK. “A strong immigration policy can still be guided by human kindness, that is honest and compassionate,” said Dr Lade Smith, the RCPsch president.
Why do doctors view immigration as a mental health issue?
Smith expressed many asylum seekers had left countries where they had undergone violence, rape, imprisonment and torture, before bearing further trauma on hazardous trips to the UK, sometimes at the hands of people traffickers. As a consequence, it was unsurprising that many asylum seekers underwent mental illness and were at risk of re-traumatisation because of the treatment they accepted on arrival. It was the UK’s duty to make their lives “better and not worse”, she stated.
While the new administration had made some welcome policy changes, including scrapping projects to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, a raft of immigration legislation raised since 2022 remained in place, she said.
What criticisms does the RCPsch have regarding detention conditions?
A report to be issued by the RCPsch criticises conditions in asylum seeker hotels and some “prison-like” detention buildings in which physical and social isolation, sleep deprivation and surveillance of residents are familiar. It cautions that the new government has not abolished the Illegal Migration Act which paved the way for asylum petitioners to be sent to Rwanda. This leaves open the chance it might in the future push through compelled removals to so-called “safe third countries”.
“The government has a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure all immigration legislation explicitly defends and supports those with a mental condition,” it adds.
Smith stated: “As is clear from our report, we particularly welcome the government’s commitment to repeal the Rwanda legislation, as it did not allow those seeking sanctuary to be appropriately assessed and treated for any existing mental illness.”