Hello and welcome to today's lesson on refugees and asylum seekers in modern Britain.

This lesson is part of a broader inquiry looking at how far migrants were welcomed in modern Britain.

Now, in the course of this inquiry, we'll cover lots of different things, but the focus for today are refugees and asylum seekers in this period.

Now, in order to do this lesson, you're going to need a piece of paper and a pen.

If you don't have one, absolutely fine.

Just pause the video now, go and get everything you need, and then come back and press Play when you're ready to go.

Great.

So now you've got everything you need, we can have a look at our lesson outcome, and I'm hoping that by the end of this lesson, you'll be able to explain the changing patterns of migration of refugees in the modern period, including the impact of changing laws and attitudes.

Now, in order to achieve this outcome, we're going to need some keywords.

And for today, we've just got two.

The first is the 'Cold war,' and that was an ideological conflict between the USA and the USSR, also known as the Soviet Union, that lasted from the 1940s until the 1980s.

And our second key word is 'civil war.

' That's a war between citizens of the same nation.

Now, we'll see these words again in the context of the lesson, and I'm sure that'll be even more helpful.

But for now, we can get started by looking at refugees in the early 20th century.

Now, in 1900, laws that controlled migration into Britain made no distinction between refugees and other migrants.

This changed with the 1905 Aliens Act.

This act made a distinction between refugees and other migrants.

It defined migrants as people who were seeking entry to Britain, solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious or political grounds.

And it was stated that they were a group that should not be refused entry to Britain according to the new act.

So it's important to know that before 1905, there was no legal distinction between refugees and other migrants, but this act was a huge turning point because it made a very clear distinction, and it states that refugees should not be refused entry to Britain according to this new law.

Now, before we go on to look at how this changed things in the 20th century, got a quick question for you.

So our first question of the day, which of the following is the correct definition of a refugee according to the 1905 Aliens Act? Pause the video now and just make a quick decision for me.

Brilliant.

I'm hoping that you said A.

It defined refugees as people who are seeking entry to Britain solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious or political grounds.

Now, it was just prior to the outbreak of World War II that the British government permitted one of the first waves of refugees to Britain since the introduction of the 1905 Aliens Act.

Despite drastically changing attitudes towards Jewish migrants from the mediaeval to the industrial period, the British government looked to ease restrictions on the migration of Eastern European people in order to support the idea that Britain was a liberal and tolerant nation who opposed Nazi rule.

However, nearly all British government ministers opposed the idea of admitting entry to a large number of Jewish refugees.

Instead, they looked to offer protection to Jewish migrants who were skilled and can make a significant contribution to the economy.

However, as the persecution of Jewish people in Europe worsened, the British government needed to be able to offer immediate support.

And so the Kindertransport Programme was introduced.

And under the Kindertransport Programme, from 1938 to 1940, 10,000 children from Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland arrived in Britain.

And we can see a statute commemorating these Jewish refugees here on the slide.

However, this was out of the 50,000 that applied.

These children also had to have guaranteed payment for their care from private citizens or organisations.

These children would have to travel without their parents and would sadly often never see them again.

Many of the 40,000 children who were not permitted entry into Britain or other countries were killed in the Holocaust.

So we can see in the early 20th century, there are laws that suggest changing attitudes towards refugees.

We can see that the British government showed some willingness to relax laws on migration to allow some Jewish refugees to settle.

We can see that through the Kindertransport programme, 10,000 children from Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland were permitted to settle in Britain.

But in reality, this was 10,000 of the 50,000 that applied, and there was very strict requirements on those who were allowed entry, and many of those children never saw their parents again.

So before we go on to consider the whole picture of refugees in the early 20th century and put what we've learned so far into practise, I have a couple of questions for you.

First, let's have a look at this statement.

"The British government were willing to ease restrictions on immigration for Jews facing Nazi persecution during World War II." Is this true or false? Excellent.

We do know that this statement is true, but now I need you to tell me why.

So pause the video and just get down a quick sentence to explain to me why this statement is true.

Brilliant.

Hopefully, you said that they wanted to support the idea that Britain was a liberal and tolerant nation who opposed Nazi rule.

So we've had Andeep sitting with us.

Andeep has said that the Kindertransport showed some openness towards refugees, but also continued hostility from the British government.

Now, what I'd like you to do for me is explain why Andeep statement is correct.

So again, pause the video, give yourself a couple of minutes to explain why this statement is correct.

Brilliant.

Hopefully, you included some of these points, if not all: "The British government responded to growing persecution from the Nazis by giving refuge to 10,000 Jewish children.

But this 10,000 was only one fifth of the 50,000 who applied, and that those who were accepted had to have their care guaranteed by a private citizen or organisation, and they often never saw their parents again." So we can see that it's clearly quite a complicated picture.

So for our first task today, I'd like you to have a look at Jacob's statement.

He says that the British government treated refugees the same as migrants in the early 20th century.

They were entirely hostile towards them and were not willing to change their attitude under any circumstances.

Now, I'm sure as you were reading, you've already had a thought that Jacob is clearly incorrect.

But what I'd like you to do is to explain why Jacob's statement is incorrect using at least two examples.

So pause the video, give yourself 5 to 10 minutes to complete this task, and then come back when you're done for me, please.

Brilliant.

Hopefully, your answer looks a little something like this.

"Jacob's statement is incorrect for two main reasons.

The first is that the government introduced the 1905 Aliens Act to distinguish between refugees and other migrants, with refugees defined as people who are seeking entry to Britain solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious or political grounds and could not be refused entry to Britain.

This shows that they did distinguish between refugees and other migrants.

Jacob was also incorrect as although the government had had changing attitudes towards European Jews, they agreed to permit the entry of some Jewish refugees to support the idea that Britain was a liberal and tolerant nation who opposed Nazi rule.

Although not all government ministers agreed, from 1938, 10,000 Jewish children arrived in Britain as part of the Kindertransport Programme." So really well done.

Hopefully, we are able to give those two clear examples that show that Jacob's statement was not correct.

So in the second part of the lesson, we are going to be looking at refugees in the later 20th century.

Now, although the British government resisted accepting large numbers of refugees during World War II, the end of the Cold War saw a significant change in attitudes.

As a result of the 40-year long war between the USA and the USSR and their allies and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, many nations faced a great deal of political and economic instability as they attempted to find their place in the New World order.

In the 1990s, this political and economic instability led to the outbreak of several wars.

As a result of these wars, large communities fled conflicts around the world in search of safety and protection.

They were considered refugees under international human rights legislation.

Different British governments took different approaches to the situation.

As in other countries, people's refugee status was not simply accepted.

People asking to be treated as refugees were classified as people seeking safety from danger or asylum in the UK.

If checks by immigration officials proved their refugee status, then those people were allowed to stay in Britain.

So before we go on to look at a specific example, I just have a quick question for you.

So I'd like you to have a discussion here.

If you're doing this lesson by yourself, then have a go at articulating response out loud.

If you're doing this lesson with someone else in a classroom, have a go at having this discussion in pairs.

So the question here is, why did the end of the Cold War lead to increasing numbers of refugees around the world? Pause the video now and make sure everyone has enough time to contribute, or you have a good go at articulating a response out loud, recalling as many details as you can.

Brilliant, so hopefully, you mentioned some of the following: "So after the collapse of the Soviet Union, many nations face a great deal of political and economics instability as they attempted to find their place in the new world order.

In the 1990s, this political and economic instability led to the outbreak of several wars, and that the wars led to large communities fleeing conflicts around the world in search of safety and protection." Really well done.

If there was anything that you missed that you'd like to make a note of so you don't forget next time, by all means, pause the video now and just make a note.

So you might have already guessed, looking at the picture from the slide earlier, that the example of refugees that we are going to look at from the postwar period of refugees from Afghanistan, and they first began to flee their country after it was invaded by the USSR, also known as the Soviet Union in 1979.

Although the Soviet Union began to withdraw their forces from Afghanistan in 1987, the nation went on to face a series of civil wars, which resulted in the continued migration of Afghan refugees.

From 1994 to 2006, there were around 36,000 Afghan refugees who claimed asylum in Britain, including a significant number of unaccompanied children.

So those were people under 18 arriving on their own.

No asylum seekers from Afghanistan will return to Afghanistan until 2003, with most arriving in the 1990s not granted refugee status, but given permission to remain in the UK for a set period, up to three years in most cases.

Then in 2021, after the outbreak of another war, a further 20,000 Afghan refugees were given asylum in Britain.

This was a significant difference to the acceptance of refugees during World War II when Jewish children were forced to migrate without families.

So we can see here that just by comparing those two groups, there is a hugely different attitude from the government towards refugees and asylum seekers if we're comparing the earlier 20th century with the later 20th century.

Now, before we put what we've learned here into practise, I'd like you to have a look at a couple of questions for me.

So the first is here.

I'd like to tell me which two of the following statements are correct.

Is it A, Afghan refugees began to flee the country during the Cold War.

B, Afghan refugees first began to flee the country after the Civil War.

C, a series of civil wars after the Soviets left led to an increase in refugees in the 1990s and early 2000s, or D, a series of civil wars after the Soviets left led to a decrease in refugees in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Pause the video, make a decision, and come back and press Play when you've got an answer for me.

Brilliant, hopefully, you said A and C.

Now, we've got Izzy here.

She said that the treatment of Afghan refugees from the 1990s was identical to the treatment of Jewish refugees in the late 1930s.

Now, we know the Izzy statement is incorrect, and I need you to explain why.

So pause the video and jot down a couple of ideas for me, please.

Brilliant, so hopefully, you mentioned the following: "The Afghan refugees in the later 20th century were more welcome, as seen by the greater numbers being allowed to settle in Britain.

But also, from 1994 to 2006, around 36,000 Afghan refugees claimed asylum in Britain and another 20,000 when war broke out again in 2021." This is compared to the 10,000 children that were allowed to settle in Britain under the Kindertransport Programme.

Now, in order to put this all into practise, I'd like you to have a look at this statement: "There was more change than continuity in the British government's attitudes towards refugees between the 1930s and the 1990s." How far do you agree with this statement? And in your answer, I'd like you to consider Jewish refugees in the 1930s and Afghan refugees in the 1990s.

So pause the video now and give yourself about 10 minutes to complete this task.

Brilliant, let's have a look at what your answer might have looked like.

So you might have said, "One similarity, or continuity, was that the British government accepted that it needed to offer asylum for those facing persecution in both Germany in the 1930s and Afghanistan in the 1990s.

In the 1930s, this included the Kindertransport policy, which rescued 10,000 unaccompanied Jewish children from Nazi persecution.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, 36 Afghan refugees came to the UK for asylum.

Therefore, in terms of allowing large numbers of refugees to migrate to the UK for safety, there was continuity between the 1930s and 1990s.

However, refugee policy appears to have changed and become less strict over this period.

For example, the Kindertransport scheme had 50,000 applications, but only 10,000 applicants were accepted despite increasing Nazi persecution, suggesting that the British government did far less than it could have done.

In contrast, in the 1990s, Afghan asylum seekers will not return to Afghanistan, even though very few of them were granted full refugee status.

While UK policy changed in the early 2000s, I therefore agree with the statement as government attitudes towards refugees became less severe by the 1990s compared to the 1930s." Really, really well done.

Hopefully, we're able to identify areas of change and continuity, but reach an overall judgement.

So in the third and final part of our lessons today, we are going to be looking at the restrictions placed on the migration of refugees.

Now, although the case of the Afghan refugees made it appear that Britain had become more open and tolerant to refugees in the later 20th century, the reality is actually much more complicated.

A rise in undocumented or illegal migration became associated with asylum seekers.

This was because people who came to the UK without official permission often claimed their asylum when they arrived.

This put a lot of pressure on the process of deciding whether asylum claims were valid or not.

During which time, undocumented migrants found places to live and work and then often became hard to locate.

From 1993, the government introduced laws to control who was considered a refugee, therefore restricting the numbers of asylum seekers who would be allowed to settle in Britain.

The 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act stated "that to be considered a refugee under the law, you would have to have a well-founded fear of persecution." At this time, increasing numbers of asylum seekers reached the UK illegally, often smuggled into the country in lorries.

In 1996, the Asylum Immigration Act institutes penalties for UK employers who hired illegal workers, hoping to make the UK a less attractive place for migrants who did not have official permission to stay.

Three years later, the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act reduced the support given to refugees and gave them a choice on where they would settle on entering Britain.

And that wasn't the last law introduced.

But before we go on to look at more recent changes to government attitudes towards asylum seekers shown in changing laws, I have a couple of questions.

The first isn't quite a question, but it's deciding whether this statement is true or false.

After 1993, the British government made it easier for people to claim asylum in the UK.

Nice and easy.

Is the statement true or false? Great, we know that it's false, but I need you to explain why.

So now take a couple of minutes to just jot down in a quick sentence why is this statement false.

Okay, hopefully, you've written something like this: "In 1993, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act meant the claims for asylum would be rejected if people could not prove that they really faced persecution if they returned to their home country, clearly making it more difficult to seek or claim asylum in the UK." Now, I like you to answer this question.

How did the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act aim to make it harder for undocumented migrants to stay in the UK? Was it by introducing a points-based immigration system that favoured skilled migrants? Was it by penalising employers who employed undocumented migrants, or was it by creating a new citizenship and language test for those wishing to become British citizens? Pause the video now and make a decision, please.

Brilliant, hopefully, you said B, that they wanted to make it harder for undocumented migrants to stay in the UK by penalising employers who employed undocumented migrants.

Now, in addition to the laws that we've looked at already, things would continue to become increasingly hostile towards refugees.

Now, in addition to the laws we've looked at already, the government would continue to become increasingly hostile towards refugees.

In 2012, the then home Secretary Theresa May announced that the government would create a hostile environment for people who had not gained the right to stay in Britain.

This policy made it very difficult for people to get jobs or access services such as housing support in the NHS if they could not prove they had the right to live in the UK.

This policy ended up causing a political scandal after over 80 members of the Windrush generation, British subjects who had never received official confirmation of their rights to live in the UK were forced to leave the country despite decades of living in the UK and making valuable contributions to its economy, to society, and culture.

And remember, this wasn't because they'd migrated illegally.

The laws had been different when they migrated, and they had not been given any official documentation on arriving, although they had done so within the confines of the law, many of them often migrating as children under their parents' passports.

Now, in addition to this, there were further border controls in 2018, which meant that it became harder for migrants to enter the UK without official permission, while restrictions on immigration made it much harder for migrants to get the documentation they needed to get to the UK to make a claim for asylum.

In response, migrants began crossing the channel, a narrow stretch of sea between France and the UK in boats, many of them in dinghies that were unsuitable for such a dangerous crossing.

And to discourage people from making this crossing, to discourage people from making the crossing, the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a new plan in 2022, that people seeking asylum in Britain, and those classed as illegal migrants would be relocated to Rwanda in Central Africa where their claim for asylum would be processed and where they would be settled.

No migrants were ever relocated due to legal changes.

And in 2024, a new government cancelled this Rwanda asylum plan in favour of a strengthened border security.

Now, before we move on to our final practise task for today, I've just got a couple of quick questions about the policies we've looked at.

So first, why do plans to create a hostile environment for undocumented migrants cause a scandal in 2019? Was it because A, members of the Windrush generation were deported despite being British subjects and longtime residents? B, many migrants had come to the UK as a result of conflicts that the UK had been responsible for starting, or C, there was very little support in the UK for reducing the number of people claiming asylum? Pause the video now and make a decision for me.

Brilliant, hopefully, you said A.

Now, Sofia has been listening in on our lesson, and she said that laws introduced since the 1990s to restrict the numbers seeking asylum in the UK have followed the same approach.

We know that's not quite true, but what I would like you to do is explain why her statement's incorrect.

So pause the video now and take a couple of minutes to write down some key ideas that help explain why Sofia is incorrect.

Brilliant, so hopefully, you said, "The laws introduced after the 1990s have aimed to restrict asylum seekers in different ways.

So for example, the 1993 Act required proof that people were really in danger in their home countries, whereas the 2012 hostile environment policy looked to make life difficult for people in the UK who did not have official documentation of their right to live in Britain.

So for our final task today, what I'd like you to do is to complete this table by summarising the impact of each act.

So pause the video now and give yourself 5 to 10 minutes to complete this task.

Brilliant.

Your table should look a little something like this.

For the 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act, you might have summarised the impact as it was harder to claim asylum because of the requirement to prove fears of persecution were well-founded.

The 1996 Asylum Immigration Act introduced penalties for UK employers who hired illegal workers, which made it more difficult for undocumented migrants to get work.

The 2012 hostile environment policy made it difficult to get a job, housing, or access to services without the proof of the right to live in the UK and impacted many migrants who had never received such documents, not necessarily because they had migrated illegally.

And the 2012 Rwanda asylum plan had little impact as no migrants were actually ever to Rwanda under this plan, as there were many legal challenges to the scheme.

So really well done if this is what your table looks like.

If instead of explaining the impact, you just summarised what each act did, don't worry, just pause the video now and you can take a minute to add these extra details so your table really clearly shows the impact of each act, not just what it did.

Brilliant.

So before we wrap up for today, let's look at a summary of what we've covered.

So first, we learned that the 1905 Aliens Act was the first law to distinguish between refugees and other migrants, with the restrictions on migrants in the act not applying to those seeking asylum from persecution.

We also learned that despite increasing Nazi persecution of Jewish people, Britain resisted taking in large numbers of Jewish refugees, though 10,000 Jewish children were accepted under the Kindertransport scheme.

And finally, we learned that international instability after the end of the Cold War increased the migration of refugees to Britain.

Public concern over the rise of asylum seekers increased after the 1990s and resulted in a series of laws, restricting the numbers of asylum seekers allowed to stay in the UK.

So really, really well done for today's lesson.