Asylum Denial Beyond Borders: The International Dimensions of British Responses to Tamil Asylum Seekers in the 1980s
Year: 2024
Type: conference-paper
Abstract: On 13 February 1987 sixty-four Tamils fleeing persecution in Sri Lanka arrived in London via Dhaka seeking asylum. They had no visas or passports. The Home Office concluded that they were ‘bogus Tamil asylum seekers’ whose claims to refugee protection were ‘clearly abusive’ and ‘manifestly unfounded’, and decided to return them to Dhaka on the flight leaving London on 17 February.1 Amid frenzied scenes and freezing temperatures, some of the Tamil men stripped off their clothes and refused to board the plane in what came to be known as the ‘trousers down’ protest. Security personnel eventually forced them inside, but just minutes before the plane departed the High Court granted an injunction order preventing the Tamils from embarking. Such hasty and contradictory responses from the British government to Tamils seeking asylum were not exceptional, especially in the light of the general hardening of asylum regimes in response to the mass exodus of refugees across the globe, despite the long-standing connections between Britain and Sri Lanka. Turning to the often-neglected international dimensions of asylum denial, this article draws on a range of sources – diplomatic correspondence, petitions, court cases, and human rights reports – to examine how the British government rejected Tamil asylum seekers in the 1980s, the reasons for this, and how Tamils themselves responded. In bearing witness to the injustices, diaspora Tamils exposed contemporary military ties with the Sri Lankan government which continued to violently marginalize Tamils. Twentieth-century refugee historians have insisted on the need to understand government responses to asylum seekers and refugees by focusing on both domestic and international aspects;2 Peter Gatrell in particular has highlighted the importance of the international political machinations that explain the varied responses to the arrival of refugees.3 Just as Jewish refugees in the 1930s fell victim to international complacency and other diplomatic priorities, so refugees in the post-World War Two period have suffered because of diplomatic manoeuvring. Historians of the Cold War period have noted that Western states welcomed the arrival of refugees fleeing communist regimes in keeping with their anti-communist foreign policy and security concerns. Britain’s responses to the arrival of Vietnamese refugees were entangled in the enduring nature of its imperial legacy which included its financial and political concerns relating to its anti-communist stance.4 Finally, scholars are observing the importance of colonialism in explaining the ongoing refugee protection crisis across the West.5 Connecting international dimensions with domestic responses, this article draws attention to the rising importance of international dimensions in asylum denial during the late twentieth century. With asylum seekers increasingly viewed as a threat to economic and political stability and a force to be excluded, it became essential for host states to implement tougher immigration restrictions, while also mobilizing international efforts to address the root causes of forced migration. The Tamils in the 1980s were the first to face the raft of restrictive measures by the government that signalled Britain’s entry into the age of mass asylum seeking.6 Although the number of Tamil arrivals in the early 1980s was low and racial distinctions were already deeply ingrained into the heart of immigration law,7 the Tamils became new targets for immigration authorities. Their numbers grew rapidly; they consistently ranked in the top four groups seeking asylum, and by the second half of the decade they were the largest single group of asylum seekers.8 In May 1985 they became the first Commonwealth citizens to require a visa to enter the UK.9 Just over a year later, in July 1986, the Home Office applied the Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) policy to Tamils rather than granting them asylum, which gave the state to and it the in Sri Lanka was for in response to the arrival of Tamils in the government the which for or whose were domestic responses were for both and in of from diaspora and human rights groups was of British ties to the Their petitions, and reports how the of Tamil asylum seekers British to the Sri Lankan government in their persecution of Tamils in the Britain the Sri Lankan government as an in the and was to the and persecution claims of Tamil asylum seekers in British on their forced diaspora Tamils that Britain to the Tamils. responses to the Tamil and which were not so from the international as and The British to Tamils refugee as its to violently across of protection by in its as as The enduring nature of state and the of Tamil asylum seekers to Britain’s to this article also to a general in the British responses to asylum has on Britain’s responses to asylum seekers during the late twentieth and the of responses, which in both and racial attention to Tamils has the measures by the British government Tamils the of as as the of diaspora Although the British granted Sri Lanka in it continued to be and in Sri Lanka the has historians to that the was a on for in both rather than a from the Britain has had to with the of Sri foreign which were a policy of The of Sri in the from its in to the order in its the in from Britain to and to the and the Sri Lankan state no viewed Britain – or Western – as its to to and the Britain with Sri Lankan and were seeking and the 1980s, the arrival of numbers of asylum seekers fleeing and persecution on Britain not to its but to its with the in the and in the of of asylum, British colonialism the In British to Lanka as it has known which in with and to for an that racial between had for the whose political on the and to in the period that Tamils and other political to this was its which from and to as the Sri Lanka was and by the and the a for political to the of four military and and Tamil The political in the that the had by the early of of had political They that was In this examine how international state and responses to Tamil asylum seekers in Britain the that the British of Tamil asylum seekers during the 1980s to with the in Sri Lanka that was and Tamils. The international to Tamil asylum denial the Sri Lankan government in its the were and continued to be by the Tamil asylum denial was not by domestic but to Britain military and economic the of the which and its ties with the Sri Lankan international dimensions were not on Tamil in this the British in their which the asylum denial a of British and Tamils. to the the to which has by and has in of the during the both the and British applied to the in order to it for entry into The applied to and were seeking to to the to immigration on In the continued of in with the restrictive the which states – a that became deeply with the arrival of asylum seekers the of the twentieth century. on state and responses to Tamil asylum seekers in the 1980s as a which to examine the of the domestic and international dimensions of asylum how the state Tamil persecution in the while the Sri Lankan which the of by diaspora Tamils to Britain’s in Tamils. The and that the Tamils to the government how and of Tamil asylum arrivals in the 1980s are of the ongoing of dimensions the and of the British state and in examine the of which the of the refugee exodus to July a in British responses to the arrival of Tamils. Sri Lankan with to Tamil and on a the of and its and the they and of Tamil and They and Tamil leaving Tamils and in refugee or to the and in Tamils viewed it as for the and of by of the Tamil a for the of Tamil the this known as and it as the of the between Tamil and the Sri Lankan which while this was not the first – in and Tamils in the – the that from the of the mass exodus of Tamils. The its that Tamils not be to Sri but it of that they the of the its reasons included the from to during the 1980s, which the on Tamil despite to the security of to Tamil asylum seekers fleeing as refugees Britain and other host states to protection the that the of the was to Tamils were the largest group to asylum in with just over asylum but of be to the Britain’s to Tamils refugee protection was its of the which by Tamil was for to the for refugee was for Tamils to that they were and the – for with this – the of in the immigration it was the of the visa in May 1985 that a in Britain’s of Tamil claims to refugee Tamils arrived were granted refugee has host states their protection to domestic and international rather than political in Britain was by political and to the Sri Lankan state to Tamils. The and Commonwealth Office with the were that policy responses to the arrival of Tamils need to with British responses to the of Although the government rejected by the Sri Lankan government for military during the in July it in the Tamils by granting to British to military to the Sri Lankan to the Sri Lankan for in British that they not the they them in and for military to be from The that British military the of British in the of a was by that the was In the military be by the government as a of the military already in were also in to for the as the for be for the and this, the British High in as as and that the government was not in the while for both in and the it was to the that military not Sri Lankan British government a international to the asylum British over this that British for was Lankan and also that the had was to the Sri Lankan despite in their that in the of for as or other which not have a have no for it was in their a to as as to to Sri were not but rather by for a between was a of Sri Lankan and the British of on February on of the to from the and to as and a were of that Britain was to political that and not the Tamils had with the Tamils of were the in the and that British of Tamil asylum claims was essential the on the to government in were a to what to and Britain to to their was not an but rather a British and Sri Lankan state in which the of Tamils – seeking and protection in Britain – was by both be international were the of British they responses to the arrival of Tamil asylum In the to the of the new visa for Tamils in a from to granting political asylum to Tamils because it Lankan the by the by and with the and and efforts to stability return to that of this, the visa was the to the arrival the of numbers of Tamils not for and to the on immigration and on the and in for the and of was in the of asylum that were on Tamils refugee but it was that Britain’s response was to a of protection denial that the by a and Sri Lankan the 1980s, Britain’s to Sri Lankan regimes had a in its domestic to Tamil asylum Tamil asylum seekers in the 1980s were with the of the British state and the of its to that was a general hardening of asylum regimes during this The British government to the exodus of fleeing from as and so by the number of seeking asylum and focusing on the of their With the of a Britain to the on government the and the of with a for other asylum to Tamils was no to this to the the of the the sixty-four Tamils arrived in February 1987 were the to a for asylum, but was to a of them were and with while the were on the – a immigration the of in On 1987 a the of the with the and into its before it The Tamils and other asylum seekers were and to the government granted them protection on this the Home Office of the it had an Tamil was and by the Sri Lankan to the The state the political in Sri and by the persecution that Tamils to asylum in the were by an immigration and the Home the had no in the of refugee which with the of rather than with be in the Court are a to examine the by which the in Sri Lanka was as an that not Tamils – a that had for asylum was that claims to refugee protection were and on the of British of the and of Tamils. over of the and the to which Tamils in Sri Lanka to their In a which eventually its to the of of for the Home Tamils their asylum that the of an has a of on the of a the of that has to be On 1987 refused an for of the denial of the Tamil asylum claims on the that was no of persecution on the reasons of and on 1987 the Court of and the of to the of of the was The in the was the of article of the The were that were not as to the for a to refugee their of the The from the of was that the of the asylum seekers of was an that the of state was to as this were the heart of in the 1980s, the of both the the of asylum denial, which the to which Tamils for their in the to asylum to the court as to the and for and in Sri Lanka. over claims to refugee to the but the to asylum. so as to state that the of the have it had that the which Tamils to for their from the that the or were of a particular as the state on a of with seeking to refugee and not to to be with the it by the that a of persecution The that the of state was their despite to the to that the asylum seekers not face persecution to Sri Lanka. In other cases, as of and the of asylum was in to state across period the state from refugee entry to that it for asylum seekers to their persecution The of refugee groups as and was with in the as a of was to it to enter Britain and asylum The first of this new came in in response to the sixty-four Tamil asylum seekers arrived in in the that it was this which the for the of which a for in the the this the government to its and of asylum seekers across the and the of this of was the to the Tamils as of refugee not in the of was by that Sri Lanka was for despite the that Tamils consistently ranked the number of asylum and the of human rights to the government a in a of between and The to Tamils was that the government had a to Sri Lanka early that year which concluded of the were because of between Tamil and government – and between Tamil – the of the and was and for Tamils. from be by and was the international it be that rejected were to the and not to a and that it was the or not on from an of to of The government had in of the that the noted that the Tamils were a than the were the other group seeking asylum. was an for and that the Tamils are because they are the and because the are them to Sri to the in Sri Lanka by the The that the of Sri Lanka was for Tamils the that Tamils from the were across the and in some of the British immigration their of Tamil asylum seekers they in their in was to Sri Lanka on before the had in of Britain’s international an concluded that this had by the which had on both in the and in other of the and to have of the of the for were the concluded that the to was that was not in and that were no to a visa to return to was not so an as a to the of British asylum policy Tamils during the 1980s as a the to the of Sri Lankan state persecution of which both the of the state and the British state of immigration British in to the Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) they concluded that while the number of Tamils visas had to Tamils to their In this they to as the Tamil to have to Sri Lanka the visa had that be to return were as was a visa on that had not to return to Sri Lanka. the was in have a but this was not the The be as of a that the policy on May 1985 was and other Tamils to be that in of return to Sri Lanka has to be and that are no that in Sri Lanka for in Sri it to to for a as immigration were no in the despite reports that was an of on the of both government and the Tamil groups were seeking to a state in the and of the the of was that Tamil not in were of of human rights and The relating to with the has to return to the in which In May in had for to and what of in had for this and that had or with a on had by had had to to to to this the security the in and for a to for a visa to return to were no British in the was in with the Sri Lankan British military in the of Sri Lankan was increasingly during the 1980s, which the range of military Sri Lankan a military in Britain in the both and have an to the Sri and the of to in the a and Sri Lankan military a was to military with the that it be both Tamil and groups the security in Sri which for Britain In with this just the government to Tamils to Dhaka in February the British government gave for to to the Sri Lankan via to Sri Home the British state the that Tamil asylum despite no general persecution of Tamils in the by the of to to despite to of the refugees in the to persecution as a for in it was of on to that of Western the that Tamil in Sri Lanka in of their but this as to the of the Tamil in over their and the of the Sri Lankan government in a which that to has that no Tamil asylum be or in to Sri Lanka and no to as have no that Tamils are to or in July and in racial was by human rights Britain was and in the stability of the Sri Lankan state the of Tamils because its not be in the was in the security in the and had and so had the British with Sri Lanka. was by international of the Tamil as on and to and the Tamils they had to British concerns the Tamil were a as were mass human rights Tamil the the Tamil explaining to that are and while that be for a of the which was a British by the Sri Lankan has British were in with the to the Tamils were to that Britain’s and of the was a in its response to the arrival of Tamil asylum this connections between Britain and Sri Lanka. of the of Tamil to British asylum was the ‘trousers down’ on the in 1987 with which this article an by diaspora Tamils. Tamils were of their in the of the British government in the Tamils in the and for the protection of new The of Tamil as the for the of the Tamils of from and other of and the Tamil became during the 1980s in the British of foreign and domestic Tamils. groups to that their the which the of in their to the Such Tamil exposed the of the British and its with political for its and its be a of increasingly diaspora in their and as as the refugee claims of asylum seekers – from and from the to and from and Tamils and from The of diaspora Tamils was to with the state as and as citizens in the ongoing of They petitions, and to attention to the colonialism that had them to which they but from as both and of their by this to Britain’s contemporary for the Sri Lankan they Britain in the root of Tamil asylum In that their were of the of were to the of domestic racial by of the in their which had their The Tamils were not in the connections between Britain and their with the of The that in the 1980s the to the of both and the as on the was of the first to the of from the to in to the of of the of the and of the of which and Western as economic and the the between became in the 1980s, as the British government the Tamils in its of asylum claims while the Sri Lankan government to Tamils. were to the in the and that Tamils to the The Tamils the continued of that they had Sri Lanka from British with some had in their became in the Tamils that in as the for their were the was by the the of the Tamils were from their government had to in no in the the have into their this the that in the early 1980s was not rather it was the of of which what has as the of Britain in this not that this an of a and that not British the The Tamils are not for from British was it the to the but of which in them in In the of the that in the 1980s by to the of British colonialism in and Tamil rights in also the of Tamil to The Tamils have to Britain the The first Tamils came to for and but were to return to the to the of as the of which over the and Tamil Tamils to and their in in Sri Lanka during this period have its and the of the as a the early a second of Tamils had to Britain to the Tamils in and the the Sri Lankan government Tamils the in July Tamils of a for the Tamil for a state in the and became the response to which had them of the and by Britain’s on its international to the in to Tamil asylum seekers its for the Sri Lankan state which the for the refugee the restrictive measures of the 1980s be viewed as as the of Britain’s to Sri Lankan of colonialism was to the by the British which the Tamil and the on Tamil Tamil it on the of the Office to that the of the with The Tamil not with this which to to or The of and in the into the to which Sri Lanka was in that the Sri Lankan state was its the of Tamil to the of which the of the and of and imperial the on the of the which the of new states and and with Britain and of the Sri Lanka to be but for the Tamils to be their of the period In the of from British to in of and political The Tamils attention to of their which was to and was to them that the of their be to the to the of by the and its on racial which eventually in the and the exodus of Tamils. was not Tamils insisted on Britain in the Britain into of reasons for the in in July British for in Sri both British and are the to Sri Lanka as a in the and the in Britain has a to the of in in the and in the it was as the and of the Sri Lankan to be included for the of to the Sri Lankan government the which are in of by and which are of the the on the of to which of the themselves are as international Tamil human rights not in the human rights which were Tamils to asylum in Britain – human rights reports – they also that international from Britain was not into the Sri Lankan to Their to British and to its and was to and to to Tamil the of be by the and Sri Lankan the Tamils and the of diaspora Tamils the of the Sri Lankan as as its on international it was that the Sri Lankan government was to the In were already for Tamils by for the between from and Tamil and both the and the Tamil the of British and the British and to the of Although not have a for Sri have a of that the British to the state of of a Sri with a Tamil Britain has a and it the of the British government to this Britain Sri Lanka to the of and this to the Tamil to the Tamil – in other the British the Sri Lankan government on a policy of the Tamil in Sri Although sources the rather than the of asylum in Britain’s in Sri Lanka diaspora Tamils exposed the its British in colonialism and contemporary political machinations as the root causes of Tamil the entangled that the Tamils across and to explain the asylum denial as and to 1980s British – in the of diaspora – not of Tamil persecution in the 1980s be from the of which granted political to the of in and has its a the international dimensions of other of and that British government with has a in the of whose was viewed as a the from Tamils in Britain and their be in the of the by Tamil asylum seekers in the 1980s in with the state to asylum and especially the their efforts to their which a the of the 1980s the High in a of Britain’s policy Tamils. noted that Tamil were in and men were fleeing to in numbers to forced into groups in the and and ongoing In May was from for of the Sri Lankan in this of political the British the British in Sri Lanka light on the of human rights asylum were with military to the as it the and The denial of Tamil asylum seekers during the 1980s the of the British fleeing and and as and the state the of refugee protection for Tamil asylum seekers Tamils this with the by despite reports from international human rights the in the and were of a of British connections with Sri the asylum seekers the from this period – between petitions, and from Tamil – how the denial of Tamil asylum both the legacy and the of to their in both their and between the and were also by some British concerns the The that the not asylum but also in the from which the Tamil asylum seekers were the British in the the in the Tamils. The of the importance the British government on ties with Sri the of to in the of a it be to Britain’s response to the historians of refugees have noted that the or new In the of it to Britain’s in in the which explain its with the of the Sri Lankan from Sri Lanka and a on the Tamil a by the Tamil in government the of Tamils the of exposed the and they both the and in their In bearing witness to the in their and with the arrival of asylum the Tamil in Britain not they petitions, and to the British on to the not as a as with the of but also as a and their the Tamils highlighted the and of in Sri the of that became whose of to the of order and and in the racial of by the of of by the arrival of asylum seekers and the Tamils in the Tamils in Britain and the and They the of British dimensions of and Britain’s in the in Sri Lanka. their also British of the and in the – a asylum military and diplomatic and which to the of the British a in the of and the dimensions of refugee international and an of international responses to in the during the twentieth and of forced across from the to the
Source: History Workshop Journal
DOI: 10.1093/hwj/dbae025
Author: Niro Kandasamy
Institution: The University of Sydney
Language: English
Subfield: Sociology and Political Science
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $4,194
OpenAlex ID: W4404128500