Dispelling the asylum myths
anti-racist | 17.03.2003 02:22
Bulletin No. 2
Asylum
Ten questions and answers
1 What is the scale of the problem?
From 1992 to 1997 about 30,000 applications were received each year. This number rose sharply to 80,000 in 2000, fell slightly to 72,000 in 2001 and rose to record levels by the third quarter of 2002.
This total does not include dependants. The Home Office only counts dependants who arrive before the initial decision on asylum is taken. These dependants added 30% to the totals. Other dependants, fiancés and spouses follow later but are not identified as such in Home Office statistics.
2 Why do so many come to Britain?
The Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons in their report "Border Controls" (January 2001), identified the following "pull factors":
• family, cultural and historical links
• English language
• job prospects
• availability and perception of social security benefits
• more generous interpretation of asylum law
• slow decision-making on asylum cases
• lack of an efficient removal system for people refused asylum
• access to public services such as free health, education and housing
• scope for living in the country without documentation
• general economic prosperity
3 Is Britain a "soft touch" compared to Europe?
Obviously. That is why asylum seekers are queuing up at Channel Ports. In 2001 we were top equal with Germany, each with 88,000 applicants. France had 54,000. Italy and Spain both had 9,000.
There are 4 major reasons for this:
• The prospects of being granted asylum are higher. In Germany 3% of applicants are granted asylum; in Britain, nearly 30% are granted asylum or its close equivalent Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR). In France, the chance of an Algerian receiving asylum is 5%, in Britain it is 80%.
• Even if the application fails, there is no effective removal system. Nearly nine out of ten stay in Britain.
• The process of decision making takes so long that applicants can, and do, disappear into their own communities, often in city centres. Thereafter, they can live without documentation and can benefit from free health, education and housing. In Germany and France, for example, police carry out sweeps, examining documents and deporting illegal immigrants.
• There are no effective checks on illegal employment. Asylum seekers can therefore work to repay the cost of their passage, sometimes extortionate, or to send money home.
4 Where do asylum seekers come from?
There is quite a wide geographical spread. In the year 2001 the breakdown was:
Europe 14,000
of which former Yugoslavia 3,200
Romania 1,400
Turkey 3,700
former USSR 1,300
Africa 20,700
of which Somalia 6,500
Middle East 11,200
of which Iraq 6,700
Iran 3,400
Rest of Asia 23,500
of which Afghanistan 9,000
Sri Lanka 5,500
China 2,400
Pakistan 2,800
India 1,800
Others 2,000
--------
Total 71,400
5 Are asylum seekers "genuine"?
From 1993-2001 only about 17% of the cases decided were granted asylum (including on appeal). Another 15% were allowed to stay, mainly because of difficulties in returning them - for example to Somalia.
81% are males with an average age of 27.
6 What happens to those refused asylum?
Most stay on anyway.
At present rates about 50,000 - 60,000 are refused every year, but in 2001, only 9,000 were removed or left voluntarily. This is consistent with past patterns. In the 10 years 1991 to 2000, 240,000 applicants were refused but only 44,000 were removed or departed voluntarily. The Home Office claim that others leave without telling them but there is no evidence of this occurring on a significant scale.
This, naturally, is a major incentive for others to come to Britain.
7 What does the asylum system cost?
The Home Office estimate for the year 2000 was £1,235 million made up as follows:
Payments to Local Authorities
for accommodation and subsistence £ 575 million
Processing asylum claims £ 484 million
Voucher scheme £ 115 million
DSS benefit payments £ 56 million
Other £ 5 million
-------------------
£1,235 million
For the sake of comparison, this is almost as much as the bilateral overseas aid which Britain gave in the same year (£1.446m)
8 What about illegal immigrants?
Illegal immigrants are those who enter the country clandestinely or on forged documents.
It is, by definition, impossible to be sure of the numbers but 47,000 were detected in the year 2000. An estimate of 50,000 a year for undetected illegal immigrants would, therefore, be conservative.
There is a connection with asylum since many of those who are detected claim asylum; they know that the process is long drawn out and that they can, if necessary, subsequently disappear.
There is a further connection since, if the asylum procedures were to be successfully tightened up, many would remain illegal rather than apply for asylum. The Government's decision to deny state benefits to those who do not apply "as soon as reasonably practical" may have this effect.
9 What is the outlook?
Some of the key "pull factors" mentioned in question 2 cannot be changed - for example, the English language - or should not, such as general economic prosperity.
Others are likely to strengthen - such as the existence of family links.
The pool of those who might wish to come to Britain is enormous. The top 9 countries of origin have a combined population of 350 million. The tenth, China, has 1.2 billion.
The trend has been sharply upward for 5 years. Radical measures will be needed if it is to be reversed.
10 What can be done?
Within the present legal framework, we can only seek to reduce the "pull factors" identified in the answer to question 2.
This would involve:
• Clearer identification and recording of claimants.
• Speeding the process to reduce the scope for "disappearing".
• Acting against employers of illegal labour.
• A massive increase in the number of removals.
• Action to reduce widespread fraud in connection with National Insurance numbers.
• Measures to ensure that only those entitled have access to health and other services.
• Effective arrangements with our European partners to return applicants to the first country of refuge.
• The introduction of Entitlement Cards
• Imposing a penalty in the 80-90% of applicants who destroy their documents to impede their removal.
• Increasing development aid to improve conditions in source countries.
• Increasing our contribution to the UNHCR which runs refugee camps.
The asylum and Immigration Act 2002 seeks to accelerate the legal processes but, without a major increase in removals, this is futile. It also provides for Accommodation Centres but the three proposed will fill in ten days. Nor will there be anything to prevent applicants from disappearing if they anticipate refusal.
The floodgates have well and truly been jammed open for us to be swamped with dross from all over the 3rd world until we are Britain no more. The plague of disease ridden, criminal and terrorist asylum seekers flooding in remains until someone has the guts to grab this problem and sort it out forcefully. We're sick of the germs, sick of the terror, sick of the criminality, and sick to death of being taken advantage of here! Send them ALL back.
Asylum
Ten questions and answers
1 What is the scale of the problem?
From 1992 to 1997 about 30,000 applications were received each year. This number rose sharply to 80,000 in 2000, fell slightly to 72,000 in 2001 and rose to record levels by the third quarter of 2002.
This total does not include dependants. The Home Office only counts dependants who arrive before the initial decision on asylum is taken. These dependants added 30% to the totals. Other dependants, fiancés and spouses follow later but are not identified as such in Home Office statistics.
2 Why do so many come to Britain?
The Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons in their report "Border Controls" (January 2001), identified the following "pull factors":
• family, cultural and historical links
• English language
• job prospects
• availability and perception of social security benefits
• more generous interpretation of asylum law
• slow decision-making on asylum cases
• lack of an efficient removal system for people refused asylum
• access to public services such as free health, education and housing
• scope for living in the country without documentation
• general economic prosperity
3 Is Britain a "soft touch" compared to Europe?
Obviously. That is why asylum seekers are queuing up at Channel Ports. In 2001 we were top equal with Germany, each with 88,000 applicants. France had 54,000. Italy and Spain both had 9,000.
There are 4 major reasons for this:
• The prospects of being granted asylum are higher. In Germany 3% of applicants are granted asylum; in Britain, nearly 30% are granted asylum or its close equivalent Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR). In France, the chance of an Algerian receiving asylum is 5%, in Britain it is 80%.
• Even if the application fails, there is no effective removal system. Nearly nine out of ten stay in Britain.
• The process of decision making takes so long that applicants can, and do, disappear into their own communities, often in city centres. Thereafter, they can live without documentation and can benefit from free health, education and housing. In Germany and France, for example, police carry out sweeps, examining documents and deporting illegal immigrants.
• There are no effective checks on illegal employment. Asylum seekers can therefore work to repay the cost of their passage, sometimes extortionate, or to send money home.
4 Where do asylum seekers come from?
There is quite a wide geographical spread. In the year 2001 the breakdown was:
Europe 14,000
of which former Yugoslavia 3,200
Romania 1,400
Turkey 3,700
former USSR 1,300
Africa 20,700
of which Somalia 6,500
Middle East 11,200
of which Iraq 6,700
Iran 3,400
Rest of Asia 23,500
of which Afghanistan 9,000
Sri Lanka 5,500
China 2,400
Pakistan 2,800
India 1,800
Others 2,000
--------
Total 71,400
5 Are asylum seekers "genuine"?
From 1993-2001 only about 17% of the cases decided were granted asylum (including on appeal). Another 15% were allowed to stay, mainly because of difficulties in returning them - for example to Somalia.
81% are males with an average age of 27.
6 What happens to those refused asylum?
Most stay on anyway.
At present rates about 50,000 - 60,000 are refused every year, but in 2001, only 9,000 were removed or left voluntarily. This is consistent with past patterns. In the 10 years 1991 to 2000, 240,000 applicants were refused but only 44,000 were removed or departed voluntarily. The Home Office claim that others leave without telling them but there is no evidence of this occurring on a significant scale.
This, naturally, is a major incentive for others to come to Britain.
7 What does the asylum system cost?
The Home Office estimate for the year 2000 was £1,235 million made up as follows:
Payments to Local Authorities
for accommodation and subsistence £ 575 million
Processing asylum claims £ 484 million
Voucher scheme £ 115 million
DSS benefit payments £ 56 million
Other £ 5 million
-------------------
£1,235 million
For the sake of comparison, this is almost as much as the bilateral overseas aid which Britain gave in the same year (£1.446m)
8 What about illegal immigrants?
Illegal immigrants are those who enter the country clandestinely or on forged documents.
It is, by definition, impossible to be sure of the numbers but 47,000 were detected in the year 2000. An estimate of 50,000 a year for undetected illegal immigrants would, therefore, be conservative.
There is a connection with asylum since many of those who are detected claim asylum; they know that the process is long drawn out and that they can, if necessary, subsequently disappear.
There is a further connection since, if the asylum procedures were to be successfully tightened up, many would remain illegal rather than apply for asylum. The Government's decision to deny state benefits to those who do not apply "as soon as reasonably practical" may have this effect.
9 What is the outlook?
Some of the key "pull factors" mentioned in question 2 cannot be changed - for example, the English language - or should not, such as general economic prosperity.
Others are likely to strengthen - such as the existence of family links.
The pool of those who might wish to come to Britain is enormous. The top 9 countries of origin have a combined population of 350 million. The tenth, China, has 1.2 billion.
The trend has been sharply upward for 5 years. Radical measures will be needed if it is to be reversed.
10 What can be done?
Within the present legal framework, we can only seek to reduce the "pull factors" identified in the answer to question 2.
This would involve:
• Clearer identification and recording of claimants.
• Speeding the process to reduce the scope for "disappearing".
• Acting against employers of illegal labour.
• A massive increase in the number of removals.
• Action to reduce widespread fraud in connection with National Insurance numbers.
• Measures to ensure that only those entitled have access to health and other services.
• Effective arrangements with our European partners to return applicants to the first country of refuge.
• The introduction of Entitlement Cards
• Imposing a penalty in the 80-90% of applicants who destroy their documents to impede their removal.
• Increasing development aid to improve conditions in source countries.
• Increasing our contribution to the UNHCR which runs refugee camps.
The asylum and Immigration Act 2002 seeks to accelerate the legal processes but, without a major increase in removals, this is futile. It also provides for Accommodation Centres but the three proposed will fill in ten days. Nor will there be anything to prevent applicants from disappearing if they anticipate refusal.
The floodgates have well and truly been jammed open for us to be swamped with dross from all over the 3rd world until we are Britain no more. The plague of disease ridden, criminal and terrorist asylum seekers flooding in remains until someone has the guts to grab this problem and sort it out forcefully. We're sick of the germs, sick of the terror, sick of the criminality, and sick to death of being taken advantage of here! Send them ALL back.
anti-racist
Comments
Display the following comment