Still Human Still Here

Prospects for an intelligent debate

Julian Baggini is a co-founder and editor of The Philosophers' Magazine and author of 'The Pig that Wants to be Eaten and 99 other thought experiments' (2005). He has been running a series of ‘thought experiments’ at the party conferences to gain an insight into how political activists think about asylum.

The prospect of senior politicians having an intelligent, public debate about refused asylum seekers currently seems as far-fetched as the possibility of Mohammed Al Fayed accepting it was just an accident after all.

However, having had some very candid discussions on the subject behind closed doors at the party conference, I'm entertaining the possibility that it’s the Tories who are best placed to change the terms of the debate.

Despite their progressive proposal for a limited amnesty, the Lib Dems just don’t have the clout the force the agenda to change. Meanwhile, Labour are in power and desperate not be seen as soft on any issue relating to, or even vaguely sounding similar to, immigration.

The Tories, however, have room to be progressive on asylum that Labour just doesn't. They don't have to prove they are tough on Johnny Foreigner: if anything, they have to prove they have a heart. The party has the same kind of licence on asylum that Labour had on privatisation in its early years of power. Because people didn't believe new Labour had a secret agenda to destroy the welfare state, they could introduce policies like the Public Finance Initiative much more easily than the Tories could have done.

Unlike the Lib Dems, the Tories also might just hold power in the foreseeable future and hence be able to turn progressive policies into action. But even if they don't, a shift in rhetoric from the major party of opposition could change Labour policy in a way that no number of Lib Dem announcements could. The Tories could make it safe for Labour to be more open and practical by ceasing to take the role of the knee-jerk opponent to progressive change.

Most intriguing, however, is how a more refused asylum-seeker friendly policy could fit with avowed Tory values. This week David Cameron et al have been talking about being the party of aspiration. So what of the many people born outside the UK who aspire to make a contribution to their host country?

Interestingly, in a meeting of mainly young Tories, there was widespread support for the idea of giving people an opportunity to prove their worth as citizens and contribute to society. Indeed, a straw poll showed more support for offering a route to some kind of regularisation for refused asylum seekers than a simple round 'em up and send 'em back policy.

Tories are also supposedly fans of community and faith-based voluntary action. And guess what? It is precisely these kinds of groups who are doing the most to help refused asylum seekers on the ground. This suggests a large part of the Tories' natural constituency is more sympathetic to the plight of refused asylum seekers than might be thought.

In short, there is an opportunity for a fresh-thinking, senior Conservative to seize the initiative on refused asylum seekers and address the issue fairly and humanely, within a broad framework which is neither punitive nor bleeding heart. It sounds unlikely, I admit, but if the Conservatives really do want to show they’ve changed and do something unexpected, this is their chance. Over to you, Shadow Minister for Immigration Damien Green?

Government policy is a mass of contradictions

Harris Nyatsanza is a prominent UK campaigner for justice in Zimbabwe. He has recently achieved refugee status in the UK after periods in detention, having lost his case initially, living without income for years after his application had been refused. He is working with the Wales for Africa Project.

I find it puzzling and a contradiction the contrast in the foreign policy of the United Kingdom and the Home Office Policy. The Foreign policy of the United Kingdom in countries where there are oppressive regimes like Zimbabwe, Iran, Burma and many others is to offer support to those oppressed. Through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of International Development the United Kingdom is empowering civil society, women, youth, student and trade unions to challenge the regimes in their countries. I applaud the objectives of such a Foreign Policy which seeks to restore ‘Good Governance’, increase ‘Accountability’ and offer the ordinary citizens of these countries an opportunity to experience ‘Freedom’.

My problem with the United Kingdom is its failure to recognise that such a policy of actively promoting accountability and challenging oppressive regimes comes with a heavy price to pay for the ordinary citizens. Oppressive regimes like that in Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan will not give up without heavy loss of life and persecution of those who are seen or ‘suspected’ to challenge their existence. We know and so do those in Government here in the United Kingdom that it is not only those who are politically active who are targeted by these brutal regimes. Even those who choose to remain silent are made to suffer as food aid on which many in these countries rely on becomes politicised, access to health , education and the few jobs available also become politicised only accessible to supporters of these regimes.

Inevitably as a result many ordinary citizens are forced to flee either because of a ‘Profound Fear of Persecution’ as a result of their political activities or opinions , but many also leave because they become victims due not to actions of their own but face persecution as a result of the paranoia of these brutal regimes. The point I am labouring to bring to your attention dear reader is that for every person who comes to the UK (notice a huge majority of these are from countries we all recognise there is a conflict, human rights abuses or civil war) seeking refugee there must be a fundamental reason that forced them to make that difficult decision to leave their country, their parents, children, spouses and partners beyond seeking a good life.

There are many reasons that people are refused refugee status in the UK, ranging from poor legal representation , miscarriage of justice, communication problems by those seeking refugee themselves, Poor decision making by Immigration Officers and the ‘NARROWNESS/RESTICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION’. We might disagree about the weight given to each of the reasons I have written above, but we will not disagree on the fact that more and more people are being refused refugee status in the UK. To punish those refused refugee for either the reasons I have presented is just the same as the Regime of Mugabe which makes its own citizens destitute because they disagree with the style of government in other words making those refused refugee destitute is a ‘Violation of the Fundamental BASIC Human Rights to a Decent Living’. In my view the UK should reconcile its Foreign Policy with the Home Office Policy that makes the most vulnerable sections in this society destitute.

People must be offered the chances to make decisions about whether to return to their home country without force or coercion of destitution. Imagine if the Leaders of the ANC many who travelled to the UK through Zimbabwe many without even their own passports (Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, Walter Sisulu) had been made destitute whilst here because they had travelled on a false passport or through a third country. South Africa and the World would have been robbed of these great Statesman and Women. We know the UK gave many who were leaving from the Brutal Regime of Idi Amin refugee here many who have gone on to contribute to this great nation in the Government , Politics, Media and Business. Imagine if all these Refugees had made destitute and forced to go back to their oppressors.

Whilst at the Labour Party Conference last week Wednesday, I was almost brought to tears after watching a documentary made by Amnesty International for the Still Human Still Here Coalition that showed the extent of destitution among people refused asylum seekers. The meeting which was well attended and afterwards there was unanimity among those who attended to lobby Parliamentarians on this issue of destitution. If Prime Minister Brown is serious that the UK will actively support the rebuilding of Zimbabwe once the regime of Mugabe is gone (I am sure he would make the same commitment to those from Sudan, a country which he is passionate about, Iran, and others) then he must ensure that those who have fled these regimes are never made to suffer hardship whilst here. The leaders of this country and its citizens must be proud that more people want to come to the UK not because it’s a soft target but because they feel a deeper sense of security whilst here.

What should we do about destitute refused asylum seekers?

Jan Shaw is the Refugee Programme Director at Amnesty International UK and author of 'Down and Out in London: The Road to Destitution for rejected asylum seekers'.

In January 2006 I attended a meeting about destitute refused asylum seekers. Although no one could put an exact figure as to how many people there were in this situation we knew that it involved hundreds of thousands, a life of abject poverty, living a hand to mouth existence on the charity of others.

During the first six months of last year, I carried out research on the affects of such destitution on refused asylum seekers from Iraq, Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Eritrea and Sudan.  All of them were destitute, at the end of the asylum process and all expressed a fear of returning home.  They faced the prospect of living in poverty indefinitely, or until their departure to their country of origin was enforced as none of them would return voluntarily.

The Amnesty International report “Down and Out in London: The Road to Destitution for rejected asylum seekers” was published in November 2006.  All of those interviewed said that before coming to the UK they know nothing about the asylum process here and indeed, many did not even know they were being brought to the UK as their travel was arranged by an agent.  A number said they had been tortured in their own country.  They were shocked and upset that the Home Office had not believed their story and most complained about the poor quality of legal advice and representation and inadequate interpretation at all stages of the asylum process.

The people I interviewed found the asylum process overwhelming, they did not understand what was happening to them.  They thought they had arrived in a place of safety where they would feel respected yet many complained about being treated with disdain.  With no money for even the most basic of needs they lead aimless lives although many had been professionals in their home country.  I interviewed lawyers, accountants, teachers, journalists who preferred to remain destitute in the UK rather than return to an unsafe country.

Once in this situation there was no legal way out for the majority of destitute refused asylum seekers except to say they would return home voluntarily.  Their stories illustrated how so many people reach the end of the asylum process but remain in limbo, destitute in the UK.

In practice it is really difficult to enforce a removal to a country where there may be serious safety concerns or where there is a difficulty in obtaining a travel document to return.  It is estimated that it would take the Government up to 18 years to clear the backlog of refused asylum seekers.

After publishing our report, Amnesty International invited a number of organisations to work together.  The coalition has grown and since the beginning of the year has become the “Still Human Still Here” campaign, working to end the threat and use of destitution as a tool of Government policy against refused asylum seekers.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Clegg MP shares his thoughts...

The aim of our asylum system must be to fairly separate justified asylum cases from unjustified claims, to deal speedily and efficiently with those whose claims are not justified, and with compassion and humanity towards those whose are.

Unfortunately the Labour government has failed to meet these standards. Some asylum cases takes years with the applicant left unable to work and instead relying on handouts. Numerous asylum decisions are also over-turned on appeal. All MPs have encountered horror stories of the Immigration and Nationality Department losing paperwork or simply forgetting about individuals altogether.

Worse than this though are the deliberately unhumane policies that this government is pursuing against some of the most vulnerable asylum seekers.

Only this August the Government sought to deport asylum-seekers to the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country steeped in violent chaos, right up until a Judge ruled that no-one should be removed until the country's safety record was reviewed. It also took a tribunal ruling to prevent the Home Secretary deporting members of the Tamil community, even after the break down of the cease-fire in Sri Lanka prompted the UN High Commission for Refugees to report that ‘Individuals suspected of having (rebel) Tamil Tiger affiliations are at risk of human rights abuses by the authorities or government-sponsored paramilitary groups’.

Meanwhile the Home Office has also been looking to deport Pegah Emambakhsh, an Iranian Lesbian whose lover was arrested, tortured and then condemned to death, and who herself has been branded an ‘enemy of public order in Iran.’ This despite a number of European countries having a moratorium on returning gay men and women to Iran because of the obvious dangers they face.

There have been continued attempts to deport people to Iraq, Sudan and Zimbabwe – despite a description of Zimbabwe by a government minister as a place of "misery, poverty and oppression" and a "tragedy", and the administration as "incompetent and venal". Fortunately, the courts have intervened to halt the return of Darfuris, and ongoing appeals mean deportations to Zimbabwe are temporarily suspended.
Many of those who cannot be removed because of these court decisions, but have still been refused asylum, have been left in a legal limbo and condemned to a life on the streets. They are unable to work legally, and are therefore extremely vulnerable to destitution and exploitation.

The UK has also refused to admit any of the 1.5 million Iraqi refugees living in Jordan and Syria, and has turned down thousands of applications from those few Kurds who have made it to Britain. Even Iraqi refugees who worked as translators for our troops have been refused access to the British Embassy in Jordan.

And the rush to deport people to Congo before the courts rule against the practice was not without precedent. The suspension of deportations to Khartoum - thanks to evidence from one rejected claimant who was sent back and apparently tortured - was preceded by extensive anecdotal evidence of a Government round-up of Sudanese asylum-seekers to be deported before the ruling.

This catalogue of decisions is no accident or coincidence, it is a result of deliberate government policy. A policy which is designed to make the Labour party look ‘macho’ on asylum, irrelevant of the cost paid by some of the most vulnerable, yet brave, people on the face of the planet. The government should be thoroughly ashamed of itself.

The Liberal Democrats are different. We have led calls for a fully independent asylum agency, emulating the successful Canadian model in which contested asylum decisions dropped dramatically because the system was perceived as being fairer and more efficient. We also believe that asylum seekers should be allowed to work after two months if their claims have not been processed by then.

This country needs an effective and compassionate approach to asylum. Every case should be decided on its individual merits. We should find ways to accommodate some of the refugees we have helped to displace in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we should be flexible about halting temporarily deportations to countries that are manifestly dangerous, instead of exploiting every last legal loophole to remove people.

What is Still Human Still Here about?

All too often politicians and policy makers discuss asylum as if it’s all a matter of process.  How do we make the system more efficient?  How do we keep the numbers down?  How do meet our targets?  The human beings at the heart of the issue are forgotten. 

And yet the men, women and children at the sharp end of the asylum system have fled from horrendous experiences, have made difficult and sometimes dangerous journeys to get here, and live in a constant state of uncertainty and fear.  The upheaval and trauma is hard enough for those who’re allowed to stay and rebuild their lives in the UK. It’s much worse for those whose dreams of a new life of safety are shattered and who face the prospect of being returned to their home countries. 

That is why it’s so important to remind the political elites attending the party conferences that refused asylum seekers are still human and they’re still here. Just because their claims have been refused and the system doesn’t recognise their long term right to remain in the UK, doesn’t mean we can ignore people and leave them hungry and homeless on the streets. 

During the three weeks of the party conference, the Refugee Council and its allies in the Still Human, Still Here coalition, will be hammering home the message that current policy towards refused asylum seekers is both inhumane and ineffective.  In public meetings, in interactive sessions with party members, in policy breakfasts with senior people, and in one to one meetings with ministers, front bench spokespeople and their advisors, we will be arguing that a policy that both fails to meet its objectives and brings shame on a civilised country is a policy that needs changing – urgently. 

We’re pleased that guest contributors will be joining to the debate on these issues through the Still Human, Still Human blog.  They will bring different perspectives to the issue, ranging from the personal experiences of those who’ve found themselves destitute to the views of politicians who’ll be thinking aloud about how new policies might be developed.   

We hope you will join the on-line debate too – and sign up to the Refugee Council’s Just. Fair campaign to end asylum seeker destitution .

From: Donna Covey, Chief Executive of the Refugee Council

About this blog

The Still Human Still Here campaign on asylum destitution is going to the party conferences!

The Refugee Council, as a partner of Still Human Still Here, will be running a blog on the events and discussions on asylum issues and destitution that will be talking place there.  We have asked guest contributors from both the campaign and the political parties to let us know what they think.  But what do you think? We'd love to hear, so please feel free to comment on the pieces.

The Liberal Democrats conference starts tomorrow, so our first entry will be up very shortly! We look forward to your responses.

We will also be reporting on a number of fringe events we will be taking part in, with other Still Human Still Here partners, via the Refugee Council Poliblog.