GMLC campaign volunteer Millie Booth takes on six comments commonly made online about asylum seekers and refugees.
- The UK takes too many refugees!
Compared to who?
The UNHCR state that as most UK refugees (4 out of 5) stay in their region of displacement, they are usually then hosted by developing countries instead of coming to the UK.
Statistics show that Turkey hosts the largest number of refugees, with the UK intake not even in the top five countries who house refugees.
In 2021, the UK received 48,540 asylum applications compared to Germany’s 127,730 applications.
People who came to the UK originally seeking asylum made up only 0.6% of the UK’s total resident population in 2019 – and that includes everyone who arrived in the UK seeking asylum over the last half-century. Is that too many?
- You can just turn up here and say you’re an asylum seeker and you’ll get support from the government.
People who come to the UK for economic reasons aren’t asylum seekers.
Asylum seekers have to show that they have had to leave their country because it is unsafe and they fear persecution if they return. Most asylum seekers come from countries we know to be dangerous or where certain classes of people are at risk (Iran, Eritrea, Albania, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Afghanisatan).
Asylum seekers must apply for asylum as soon as they arrive in the UK or as soon as they think it would be unsafe for them to return to their own country. An application is more likely to be denied the longer they wait.
- Asylum seekers only come here for the benefits!
On arriving in the UK, asylum seekers are not entitled to work or claim benefits.
If they are destitute (homeless and without any money) then they can apply for asylum accommodation and support. The amount of money is set as low as possible to try to deter people from coming to the UK. Currently it’s £40.85 a week – just £5.84 a day to cover food, travel, clothing, and communication.
Asylum seekers and refugees come to the UK fleeing war, persecution, political repression or natural disasters in their nations or regions. Despite the government trying to prove that factors like welfare payments are a “pull” factor attracting asylum seekers to Britain, previous Home Office research has shown that this is a myth: “[Asylum seekers] are guided more by agents, the presence or absence of family and friends, language, and perceived cultural affinities than by scrutiny of asylum policies or rational evaluation of the welfare benefits on offer.”
- Asylum seekers and refugees get to the top of the Council’s lists for housing.
Asylum seekers are not entitled to Council or Housing Association housing.
Asylum accommodation has only to be adequate and can be anywhere in the UK. Asylum seekers don’t have a choice where they go.
Private companies such as Serco are paid by the government to provide accommodation and generally choose to house asylum seekers in the poorest areas where rent are low and the company has the best chance of making a profit. Some areas also get more asylum seekers than others because the government allows councils to opt out and refuse to take any.
It is only after the UK authorities have accepted that an asylum seeker is entitled to Refugee status in the UK that they are entitled to apply for Council or Housing Association Housing, work and claim benefits.
They are given 28 days’ notice to leave their asylum accommodation and when they become homeless they get no special treatment by the Council. Their cases are treated in the same way as British citizens meaning that single refugees without serious health problems are generally not entitled to any accommodation duties. A report from the Independent found that one in four homeless people using night shelters in Manchester, London and Leicester are refugees, meaning refugees are disproportionately represented in the homeless population.
- Asylum seekers live like kings on our money!
Asylum support is designed to have a deterrent effect and there is no trace of luxury in the current regime. The government looks for opportunities to lower standards whenever they can.
In June 2021, the High Court found that the Napier Barracks (abandoned army accommodation) in Kent provided inadequate accommodation for asylum seekers as the conditions were overcrowded, lacked ventilation, contained run-down buildings, communal dormitories during a pandemic, significant fire risks, ‘filthy’ facilities and ‘decrepit’ isolation blocks not fit for habitation. Regardless of this judgement, the Napier barracks will continue to be utilised to house asylum seekers until 2025 by decision of the Home Office.
Even those outside the barracks are living below the poverty line on an incredibly low income. Evidence from Asylum Matters shows this income to be inadequate to ensure a dignified standard of living, with 84% of people seeking asylum not always having enough money to buy food.
As a result of Home Office delays asylum seekers can remain on this level of support for a long time. After claiming asylum the person has to wait for an appointment for an initial screening interview. After this the Home Office will decide whether their claim can be considered in the UK, if they decide it can, there will then be a substantive interview with a caseworker – though the wait between the screening interview and substantive interview can be over a year. The government claim that after this interview, a decision on the application will usually be made within 6 months, but Right to Remain have highlighted that, in 2019 for example, most decisions took more than 6 months and many people waiting for years.
- Asylum seekers get an easy ride of it in Britain!
Asylum seekers are not treated kindly or leniently by the UK government. Many recent laws are designed especially to control and manage them in ways most people would find utterly unacceptable if a British national was being treated that way.
The recently enacted Nationality and Borders Act arguably penalises most refugees seeking asylum in this country, as it creates an asylum model that undermines established international refugee protection rules and practices.
UNHCR contends that the Act undermines the 1951 Refugee Convention that has protected refugees for decades. The legislation removes any deadline for how long an asylum claim can be suspended on the grounds of inadmissibility, and it allows the Secretary of State to return people to other countries without the country’s consent.
Additionally, the Act details new unreliable age assessments for children and young people, whilst also enabling the deprivation of nationality without notice, leading to a risk of statelessness (meaning no state takes responsibility for upholding an individual’s rights). The Act deters the seeking of asylum by relegating refugees to a lesser status with few rights and a constant threat of removal. This is definitely not an ‘easy ride’.
___
Image credit: malachybrowne, Flickr, 2016
The fence in Calais blocking the ferry port to the UK.
