If you are liable to detention
and deportation - you must
. . . . .
Never Doubt
Latest newszine
Help wanted
for campaigns
Images of resistance
NCADC email list
NCADC Needs Financial Help!
Archives
Disclaimer |
NCADC news archive
Newszine Number 18 April - May - June 2000 |
"What the Papers
Don't Say" About Asylum
Seekers and Refugees
Publicity in February surrounding the asylum applications of the Afghan
'hijackers' initiated another cycle of hostility towards refugees
and asylum seekers in the UK. The media provided a platform for the
usual myths about asylum seekers as 'benefit scroungers', 'economic
migrants', 'taxpayers' money wasters' to be repeated like a mantra
without challenge.
How Soft is 'Soft Touch' Britain?
"They come here to claim our generous benefits"
- is the most common allegation against asylum seekers and refugees.
Apart from being false, this statement is utterly offensive and racist.
The belief that people claim asylum in the UK so they can live on
benefits 30% below the poverty line for UK citizens implies that they
do not deserve better because of who they are and where they from,
and that 'our' poverty is too good for them.
Statistics concerning asylum seekers' level of education and skills,
or numbers in employment are never quoted or readily available - and
probably do not exist. Somehow those attacking refugees fail to mention
that asylum seekers are not allowed to work for the first six months
- and they do not take into account how difficult it is to get out
of the benefits trap, especially for disadvantaged groups. Information
about torture, rape and trauma refugees experienced is also not readily
available.
The Numbers Game
When numbers are introduced into the argument we often hear about
the size of the backlog and the rise in the applications for asylum.
These numbers are accurate - so what is the problem?
It is the context and interpretation of the numbers that is crucial.
Even a shallow analysis of the number of asylum applications in the
UK gives a different picture from the one painted by the media.
Asylum applications in 1999 were around 71,415. Within the EU this
is second only to the number of asylum applications in Germany (95,331).
But let's put these numbers into context. One way of doing that is
to look at the number of asylum applications in relation to the number
of inhabitants. This approach brings the UK down to 9th and Germany
to 12th place in Europe. (Source: UNHCR).
Looked at this way, during 1999, Liechtenstein received the highest
number of asylum seekers - 16.3 per 1,000 inhabitants, followed by
Luxembourg (6.8), Switzerland (6.5), Belgium (3.5) and the Netherlands
(2.5). The UK ratio for 1999 was 1.5 asylum seekers per 1,000 inhabitants
and Germany's was 1.16. (Source: UNHCR).
The numbers in global context are even more illustrative. The latest
available figures are for 1998 (produced by the US Committee on Refugees
(USCR)), when around 58,000 asylum seekers reached Britain. In the
same year for example Iran had received 1.9 million refugees (1.4
million came from Afghanistan). Jordan received 1.4 million; Pakistan
received 1.2 million refugees. Gaza Strip had 746,000 refugees, Yugoslavia
(FR) had 550,000 refugees and the US had 491,000 applications for
asylum in 1998, followed by Guinea (430,000), Sudan (365,000), Russian
Federation (324,000) and Ethiopia (313,000).
If we add to this that the UK is rated as the 4th richest country
in the world - it can be concluded that it has seriously under performed
in asylum responsibility sharing compared to the above countries.
From Bogus to Abusive Asylum Seekers
Another myth that deserves attention is the label of the 'bogus' and
'genuine' asylum seeker. The most obvious problem with this myth is
that it treats asylum seekers as an organic group. It implies that
there is an organised movement somewhere in the world of all asylum
seekers from more than 50 countries, who conspire to 'abuse the soft
touch UK system'. No one really bothers to report where these asylum
seekers come from and why.
Afghanistan is a country ravaged by 20 years of occupation and civil
war, not to mention the Taliban government (unrecognised by the UK),
with the most appalling human rights record. 2.6 million refugees
have fled from Afghanistan and almost 1 million are internally displaced.
This number is second only to number of Palestinians dispersed around
the world (3.8 million), according to the US Committee for Refugees.
Around 23,000 Afghans managed to escape to Europe last year and 3,985
sought refuge in the UK. Afghan asylum seekers around the world are
recognised as Convention refugees and allowed to stay - not because
the system is soft - but because it was made for cases like theirs.
Unfortunately, Britain, as well as other EU states, has adopted an
exclusive interpretation of the Geneva Convention, which means that
they are looking for the reasons why one should not be given refugee
status. The institution of political asylum is even further restricted
by the Safe Third Country Rule so the majority of asylum seekers lose
their asylum cases based on these legal technicalities. The burden
of proof is usually so unreasonable that asylum seekers do not stand
a chance and their claims are branded as bogus.
Setting
out the true picture
It is unfortunate that the public has been carefully guarded from
facts and are instead bombarded with myths about 'bogus benefit scroungers'.
The media is not interested in sad stories of asylum seekers and their
struggle for justice, freedom and democracy. Great number of them
ends up being deported and that figure also gets lost in the public
debate on asylum. Last year 37,375 persons were deported from the
UK.
These myths and number games indicate double standards of human rights
and liberties acceptable or affordable for 'them' and for 'us' and
it is about time to give such attitudes their real name - racism -
and to start challenging these myths on those grounds.
It has never been easier to gather information about the countries
generating refugees or to access statistics, but for the greater part
of the British press one click of the mouse sometimes proves to be
too much hard work.
Country reports describing human rights practices in the countries
generating refugees:
USA Country Reports: www.state.gov
Amnesty International Reports: www.amnesty.org
Human Rights Watch Country Reports: www.hrw.org
1999 UK Asylum Applications
by Country of Origin
EUROPE
BULGARIA 85
CYPRUS 20
POLAND 1,855
ROMANIA 1,995
FORMER USSR 4,110
TURKEY 2,850
YUGOslavia (FR) 14,375
OTHERS 3,190
TOTAL 28,480
AMERICAS
COLOMBIA 1,000
OTHERS 1,025
TOTAL 2,025
MIDDLE EAST
IRAN 1,325
IRAQ 1,795
LEBANON 235
OTHERS 805
TOTAl 4,160
AFRICA
ALGERIA 1,385
ANGOLA 550
CAMEROON 255
DR CONGO 1,230
ETHIOPIA 460
GAMBIA 30
GHANA 190
IVORY COAST 190
KENYA 480
LIBERIA 70
NIGERIA 940
RWANDA 825
SIERRA LEONE 1,120
SOMALIA 7,500
SOUTH AFRICA 95
SUDAN 275
TANZANIA 85
TOGO 60
UGANDA 425
ZIMBABWE 230
OTHERS 2,050
TOTAL 18,445
ASIA
AFGHANISTAN 3,985
BANGLADESH 535
CHINA 2,650
INDIA 1,365
PAKISTAN 2,610
SRI LANKA 5,130
OTHERS 1,230
TOTAl 17,505
unknown 780
TOTAL 71,395
Source:HO Research Development & Statistics Directorate (provisional
figures subject to revision)
Statistics can be found on the following web sites:
US Committee for Refugees (USCR): www.refugees.org
UNHCR: www.unhcr.ch
The Home Office: www.homeoffice.gov.uk |
|
