A blanket ban on citizenship for refugees who arrive by irregular means undermines the UK’s values

Every human being deserves dignity, respect, compassion and empathy.

And how we treat one another is a basic measure of us as a people and society.

That is why I was keen to host a Westminster Hall debate on Refugee Citizenship Rights.

There have been significant amendments made to the good character requirement guidance for British citizenship earlier this year and this will have a lasting impact on thousands of refugees already here in the UK.

These people have been granted protection status because they fled persecution and violence.

Now, they will likely be denied citizenship just because of the way they arrived in the UK, whether by small boat or other means.

Keep in mind these people have made a new life in Britain, contributing to our economy and culture.

Unlike what certain people think, many refugees want to integrate themselves into our society and British citizenship is a key building block in that process.

People need citizenship to have the right to vote, to stand for election, to travel in and out of the UK without restriction or fear or detention and it is a requirement for many government jobs.

Under this new policy, which did not receive any government scrutiny until I secured the debate, anyone who arrived in the UK via a dangerous journey or entered irregularly will normally be refused citizenship.

It is a blanket ban and refugees will have to argue that there were exceptional circumstances.

It will not matter how long they have lived in the UK or how well they already integrated into our society.

The policy also does not discriminate between refugees, victims of trafficking and children. Nor does it consider the unique vulnerabilities and complex backgrounds of those seeking protection.

Many have fled horrific circumstances us in the west could only imagine.

Let me give some examples of the hardships people have faced and continue to face as people’s personal experiences illustrate it best.

Mohammad, a Sudanese refugee, said that he feels like a perpetual outsider, being vulnerable to deportation despite years building his life here.

Sabir Zazai, the chief executive office of the Scottish Refugee Council would be facing the blanket ban if he were applying now.

He has three honorary doctorates and an OBE. It would be hard to imagine a more compelling example of someone integrating into the UK.

Yet, because he arrived from Afghanistan in the back of a lorry, he would be excluded under the updated good character guidance.

Then there is Gulan, a refugee from Iraq, who shared how she escaped torture with her young children, risking death to survive.

She feels like this policy makes her a second-class member of society, despite years of integration and contribution to her new local community.

There are many more and I want to acknowledge the Scottish Refugee Council and Together with Refugees for supplying these case studies for my debate last week.

I also want to highlight that the change in guidance has not gone unnoticed on the international stage either.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed serious concerns on the good character requirement. It risks breaching Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

This article makes clear that there shall be no penalties imposed on refugees fleeing persecution on account of their illegal entry or presence.

Another concern is the sky-high cost of applying, a non-refundable £1,630.

Interestingly, the then British Government is widely credited with incorporating another article into the convention decades ago, requiring states to facilitate – as far as possible – the naturalisation of refugees and stateless persons.

This change in guidance undermines the values the UK has sought to uphold in past decades. Values of cohesion, unity and fairness.

Now, refugees will have to argue for an exemption from the blanket denial of citizenship.

I believe it would make a much fairer, and effective, policy if all applications were treated on a case-by-case basis.

In the debate, I put it to the government that it should reconsider its stance to ensure the good character requirement is not applied in a way that is contrary to our international obligations.

We should also uphold the best interests of children and young people by prohibiting the consideration of their irregular arrival and remove retrospectivity.