THE UNITED SOCIALIST PARTY
A Party that always campaigns for a fair and just society for all in Britain
Asylum and Immigration in the UK
Separating the facts from the myths
Introduction
A society that allows one particular group or section to live in poverty when it has the material means to
maintain a decent standard for everyone, is failing to meet its civilised reputation, it could be argued.
The large scale movement of people due to war, political tyranny or through the ongoing climate change
resulting in drought or deluge has increased significantly in the last decade.
People fleeing in the hope of a better life have inevitably led to population increases in neighbouring
countries, a minority of these people arriving in the UK. Although this percentage is small compared to
other European countries’ intake, they are demonised by the media as being a burden on society.
Scape-goating the unfortunate or innocent is not a new phenomenon with which to distract the population
from economic issues. Indeed, in the past, blame was apportioned to West Indians, Irish, Bangladeshis
and people from India and Pakistan. ‘Asylum Seeker’ has been turned into an insulting term, often
implying that crime and ever decreasing public services are somehow as a result of their presence.
This report will separate the facts from the myths surrounding the issue of immigration and asylum.
In part 1, we set out a survey of the asylum and immigration system in the UK and its human effects.
This has been sourced from publicly available data, largely accessible from the Internet. We would advise
readers of this survey, to pose themselves the questions, “Who’s next?”, “What other sections of society,
and of the working class in particular, could find themselves being treated in this way in future, if the
regime we describe becomes acknowledged as an acceptable way to treat human beings?”.
In part 2, we look at the position of asylum seekers, based upon interviews and research conducted by a
TUSP member in Liverpool, which is one of the UK’s two locations at which asylum claims are assessed.
We concentrate on the poverty conditions that many people are compelled to survive, despite having
skills and labour to offer and their wish to contribute to society, in return for a decent standard of living.
Part 1: A survey of the UK asylum and immigration system
a)
Detention camps and prisons
Over 2600 people are locked up in immigration detention camps and in ordinary prisons in the
UK, without trial, without time limit and with no automatic right to bail.
10 detention camps currently operate: Campsfield, Colnbrook, Dover, Dungavel,
Harmondsworth, Haslar, Lindholme, Oakington, Tinsley, and Yarlswood. Those detained are
subject to arbitrary transfer between camps.
The Government has a programme for building new detention facilities with a target
capacity of 4000. The Home Office detains roughly 2,000 asylum-seeking children with their
families each year. The detention estate is largely manned by private contractors.
Britain has the second largest private prisons market in the world.
“It is not appropriate for people to profit out of incarceration. This is surely one area where a free
market certainly does not exist.” - Jack Straw, then Shadow Home Secretary, March 1995”.
“If there are contracts in the pipeline and the only way of getting the [new prison] accommodation
in place very quickly is by signing those contracts, then I will sign those contracts.” - Jack Straw,
Home Secretary, May 1997”.
b)
Deportation
The Government claims that it is currently deporting one person every 8 minutes from the UK. To
achieve these targets, a policy of dawn raids is applied.
“It’s 6.15am and on a nondescript south London street the fleet of unmarked vans could belong to
any number of early risers, builders perhaps or council workers. The Immigration Services arrest
team don't announce their arrival relying instead on undercover intelligence and the element of
surprise”.
For enforcement officer, AR, it’s a day like any other. At 21, A is the youngest member of the
team. A PCS representative and former human rights caseworker he is both authoritative and
compassionate in his approach to the task in hand. It’s a worthwhile job, he says, definitely
worthwhile but dealing with the family cases can be hard.
A and his colleagues operate at the sharp end of the asylum system; arresting and removing
failed asylum seekers. These are the cases that have come to the end of the line; turned down by
the Home Office they reside in Britain illegally”.
“6am. A cold autumn morning. A young woman and her two children (age 2 and 4) are woken by
loud banging at the door. They know who it is, this is what they have been dreading for months
since the last time it happened. 8-10 large, burly, aggressive men are outside......”
"Outsourcing Abuse” – a report on nearly 300 alleged assaults against asylum deportees, by
Birnberg, Peirce & Partners, Medical Justice and NCADC, published 14 July 2008, describes an
alarming number of injuries sustained by asylum deportees at the hand of private “escorts”
contracted by the Home Office. It reveals evidence of widespread and seemingly systemic abuse
of vulnerable people who have fled their own countries seeking safety and refuge and that assault
claims have largely been brushed off by the Home Office.
Assistance to the civil power:
“The armed forces are normally used to render assistance to the civil authorities only in
emergency situations. Yet, in a repetition of an exercise first carried out in September 2006, on
12 February 2007 38 Iraqi Kurdish asylum seekers were forcibly deported to Erbil in a military
aeroplane from RAF Brize Norton. The International Federation of Iraqi Refugees (IFIR) reports
that the whereabouts of some of these deportees are now unknown”.
The Campaign to Stop Deportations to Iraq reports that, since 2005 approximately 500 Iraqi
asylum seekers have been deported to the Kurdish region of Iraq. In that year the UK
government, Iraqi government and Iraqi Kurdish Regional government signed an agreement that
the KRG would accept forcible deportees from the UK.
“An illegal immigrant being held at a Doncaster detention centre has been jailed for nine months
for refusing to be deported. In what is believed to be the first case of its kind, Shamil Shakirov
admitted failing to comply with a Secretary of State's regulation to send him home”.
c)
Welfare and destitution
Since 2005, asylum seekers awaiting decisions on their applications have been refused the right
to work. Welfare provision for asylum seekers has been hived off from the Department of Work
and Pensions to the National Asylum Support Service branch of the Home Office. The level of
support received is 70% of Income Support level.
Upon rejection of an asylum application, applicants and their families are subject to eviction from
NASS provided accommodation and removal of all benefits. If there are compelling reasons why
they cannot immediately return to their country of origin, (e.g. it is unsafe!), but only if the
refusee has signed an agreement to accept deportation, temporary “section 4” support –
accommodation and food vouchers, no cash - may be provided. The reality for hundreds of
thousands is destitution.
An Independent Asylum Commission report published in summer 2008 calculated that there are
currently 283,500 failed asylum seekers living homeless in the UK.
“A Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust report today calls for urgent Government action after
exposing a 180% rise in the number of destitute asylum seekers and refugees in just 18 months”.
“The government says illegal immigrants should not get most NHS care
By Nick Triggle, Health reporter, BBC News”
What Medical Justice has found in Immigration Removal Centres:
*
Torture Victims – neglected and re-traumatised by detention in the UK.
*
HIV - unplanned disruption to their treatment in detention, denied HIV tests and results.
*
Hunger strikers – detainees in imminent danger of organ failure.
*
Tuberculosis (TB) – a number of detainees found to have TB and denied appropriate
medical care.
*
Denial of treatment and access to hospital – many detainees are denied treatment for
serious medical conditions.
*
Harm on Removal – detainees subjected to excessive and/or gratuitous force in the
removal process with injuries including fractured bones, nerve damage and sexual
assault.
*
Children in Detention - the UK is the only EU country to indefinitely detain children,
sometimes referred to by guards as “child male” and “child female”.
*
Death
d) Justice
Lack of legal representation for detainees
In 2006, the Home Office refused 88% of applications from Iraqis at initial decision-making stage.
[Source: Home Office, asylum statistics: 4th quarter 2006]
“97% the proportion of Afghan asylum applicants Canada granted protection to in 2001. 19% the
success rate for Afghans trying to enter the UK”
“Labour's tough stance on immigration may have forced courts to send asylum-seekers back to
their home countries to face "torture or death", one of the most senior judges in England and
Wales has warned.
Lord Justice Sedley, a Court of Appeal judge, accuses the Government of threatening the
independence of the judiciary by imposing a rule that obliges judges to dismiss an asylum-
seeker's story if that refugee has fled their home country using a false passport. Sir Stephen
Sedley, writing in the London Review of Books, warns that such a measure "is a serious invasion
of judicial independence.
The judge, who caused controversy this year over his call for a national compulsory DNA
database, said: "As is obvious, many people fleeing persecution have no option but to travel on
false papers. An enactment which may have the effect of prescriptively requiring a judge to
disbelieve an individual's otherwise credible story, and so possibly send them back to torture or
death, is a serious invasion of judicial independence.
Sir Stephen is supported by immigration judges and other members of the senior judiciary, as
well asylum campaign groups.
The law was first brought in under the 2004 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants,
etc) Bill, which also proposed ending an asylum-seeker's right to appeal against their asylum
decisions in court. That part of the Bill was thrown out after MPs raised a political storm.
Asylum groups say scores of refugees may have been sent back to face further persecution
because of the legal direction on false documents. Many asylum- seekers fleeing torture have
little choice but to use false travel documents, they said.
In his article on the legal problems of introducing a written constitution in the UK, Sir Stephen
said the "false-passport" rule illustrated the strains between the executive and the legislature in
passing law. He said of the impact of the passport rule: "Immigration judges for the most part
manage to minimise its effect, but it is not the proudest moment for humanitarian protection or
judicial independence in the UK”.
Sham wedding powers ruled illegal:
“Law Lords have ruled the home secretary cannot use controversial powers to stop sham
marriages as they discriminate against foreigners in the UK.
They said the Home Office had interfered in an "arbitrary and unjust" way in the rights of 15,000
people”.
Zimbabwe: “The Home Office has been engaged in a High Court battle to deport up to 13,000
failed asylum-seekers to Zimbabwe, despite warnings that they face persecution there for having
sought asylum in Britain. State-sponsored violence surrounding the presidential election run-off
has resulted in the murders of several opposition activists. Last month Gordon Brown denounced
Robert Mugabe's regime as a "criminal cabal", and the Foreign Office has warned against all
travel to Zimbabwe. Campaigners have criticised the Government's "double standards".
Darfur: “The Government lifted its ban on deporting asylum-seekers to Darfur this month despite
warnings of widespread murder and torture of dissidents. Deportees say they were detained for
months and beaten. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees says Darfuris returned to
Khartoum face torture or death, and campaigners say attacks by rebels near Khartoum made all
Darfuris in the capital vulnerable to persecution. Deportation of Darfuris to Sudan stopped last
year as the Home Office fought a legal battle with protest groups. The Government promised to
halt removals while it reviewed new evidence”.
Part 2: Asylum Seekers – real lives
The Media myths
Asylum seekers are made to feel ashamed and alienated; largely due to the image the media portrays
them. The main culprits were the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, stereotyping people coming to the UK
to claim asylum as predominantly threatening young males. A total of 51 different terms of abuse have
been used to describe these individuals such as ‘illegal immigrant’ and ‘asylum cheat’. The tone or
language used is usually negative without any reference to the skills or knowledge that these people bring
with them and the economic contribution that they could bring to the UK.
Many of the articles printed in the tabloids have been furnished by the anti-immigration organisation
Migration Watch without any checking of statistics which would show them to be distorted or untrue.
Research carried out by Cardiff School of Journalism found that the views and opinions of asylum
seekers were only quoted 34 times out of 182. Out of these there were no direct quotes and no
explanation or queries as to why these people had actually fled their countries of origin. There is little
mention of the 221 asylum seekers and migrants who have either died in the UK or trying to reach here in
the last 17 years.
Interviews
All the interviewees were under the age of 25 and all had arrived in this country through illegal means,
usually either on or in haulage vehicles. They were asked reasons for being here and their hopes for the
future.
‘D’ was 21 years old and from Kurdistan, in Iran. He had no possessions and spoke no English when he
arrived.
“I fought against the Iranian army, was part of the resistance. I had been wounded in a battle and when
well enough had to flee for my safety”.
‘D’ had met a local girl, was supported financially by her and had become a father. He was asked if it was
more difficult for him here with no money or back home in Iran.
“Nobody here is after me with guns, I just want to be able to work and provide for my family”
‘M’ was a 24 years old Iranian.
“I arrived with a rucksack. I had to leave because of political differences. Any country was better than my
own; the lorry I was travelling on was coming to the UK and I already spoke a little English”
‘M’ was asked about his living conditions here.
“I have no income at all. I am sharing a house with some friends, I live entirely on charity but it is safer
here than Iran. I would like to be able to work at my trade (auto electrician) and have a better life”.
‘H’ was a 23 year old Iranian from the Kurdistan area who left due to political problems. He is a qualified
welder, knew some English but spoke to me through a translator.
“Any country would do, I arrived with nothing and receive no money at all. I am provided with food and
accommodation by the church. I just want to live like a human being”.
‘Z’ was from Kurdistan/Iraq, 17 years old student and had fled to escape physical threats. He received
£33.33 per week and was provided with accommodation by the Home Office.
“I just want to lead a decent life. I want to be an Englishman. I would like to be allowed to work and earn
money”.
‘L’ was a 24 year old Iranian who felt compelled to flee his country amidst fear for himself and family. He
spoke some English and was helped in the interview through a translator.
“I had to leave, it wasn’t safe. I didn’t want to leave my friends and family but there were people with
guns, I was threatened. I had to find somewhere else to live. I used to work and have a good life but at
least here I still have my life”.
Asked about his living conditions here he replied, “It is not easy. I have no income and rely on charity. I
live with friends who share their food. I hope one day I can repay them”.
Poverty Indicators
The guideline for determining the threshold of low income poverty is 60% of the average UK household
income of that year. The most recently compiled data available is from 2006/07. In that year this was
worth:
*
£112 per week for single adult with no dependant children
*
£193 per week for a couple with no dependant children
*
£189 per week for a single adult with two dependant children under 14
*
£270 per week for a couple with two dependant children under 14
(Joseph Rowntree Foundation)
These figures are after tax and housing costs have been deducted and represent what is left to spend on
food, heating, travel and entertainment.
Conclusions
It is clear from the data collected that people seeking asylum in this country do not have an acceptable
standard of living. They are forced to exist on a pitifully small income, many relying purely on charitable
organisations and individuals. Many of these people have skills which would benefit the host country if
they were allowed to use them.
The present government policy of enforced destitution of asylum seekers is unworkable. It is also,
arguably, in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. Despite their impoverished
lifestyle most asylum seekers prefer to live in poverty rather than risk returning home where they fear
persecution or even death. The reason most people flee their country of origin is because of the lack of
human rights, conflict and political instability.
Asylum seekers, along with undocumented migrants, are the most vulnerable section of our society. They
are prevented by UK law from entering legally and working to sustain themselves and are often denied
justice by the asylum system. They are excluded from most of the basics in life such as social care,
welfare and housing. Those managing to acquire a means of supporting themselves, sometimes illegally,
are also excluded from laws covering health and safety and minimum wages.
The conditions that many asylum seekers are forced to live in, often result in a less than dignified
appearance. Vilified by the media and castigated as being a burden on society adds to the burden that
these people have to carry. If the UK as a host country is to benefit from the skills and labour made
available from people granted asylum then a more positive government approach would be not only
affordable but profitable.
Bibliography
Source: barbedwirebritain.org/
Source: PCS View feature, November 2003, magazine of PCS union
Source: No One Is Illegal campaign, leaflet to PCS union conference delegates, 2007
Source csdiraq.com/
Source: No One Is Illegal, A Trade Union Programme noii.org.uk/2006/02/02/trade-union-
Source: Joseph Rowntree Trust News Release, 24 July 2008
Source: PCS View feature, November 2003
Source: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7533566.
Source: Institute of Race relations 2003
J.P & P.F August 2009
TUSP Statement.
The Government’s figure of deporting one asylum seeker or illegal immigrant every 8 minutes
from the UK means in real terms that they deport on average some 14,400 of those people every
year from our shores. This figure takes account of an eight hour day, five days per week and a 48
week period per annum.
The government also states it has only 2,600 places at ten deportation centres around Britain.
On average two hundred and sixty deportees per holding facility.
Yet the Government on average deport 14,000+ per year or 1,400 for each of the detention
centres. The government also states “the new detention centres will house a further 4,000
detainees”, in total some 6,600 people. 54% shortfall in new accommodation for the deportees.
. Not only are we herding them in to overcrowded deportation centres now and in the future but
we do not give them or their dependants sufficient financial support to sustain life and this lack of
welfare of an asylum seeker and or their dependants moves them on to destitution.
At present some 283,000+ asylum seekers are without any means of support in the UK and have
been classified as destitute and living on handouts.
We state that anyone including our own people would revolt if they were treated in the same
manner. We also state that it’s no wonder these unfortunate people try to ‘disappear’ when
confronted by the current government’s tactics.
We cannot go on hiding the facts from the people in Britain any longer. We would not condone
the unemployed or those on benefits to these measures. Then why are we allowing this situation
to continue and fester, because they are asylum seekers or immigrants? If we are to condone this
practice by our government, then we are no better than Hitler was in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
If we allowed asylum seekers and immigrants to work in the UK, as we allow our own people
to work. Then we would get ‘A Quid Pro Rational’ i.e. for every £1 they earned 20p+ would be
recouped through taxation and National Insurance contributions, and would lower the burden of
welfare to this group of individuals.
