juliet | This & that

Fine, unfortunately my job involves spending much of my days talking to council tax payers, and as far as they are concerned, the people we are discussing have claimed to be fleeing persecution, have been found not to be fleeing persecution, and are therefore in effect fraudsters.

I.am.a.Council.Tax.payer.

I have been collecting public opinion in one way or another since 1997. In that time, one person has responded to a formal question telling me that they think we are too unkind to immigrants in general. Being told that the asylum system is too lax is a weekly event at best, often a daily one, sometimes by representatives of ethnic minority groups who are concerned that a flawed asylum system is giving political space for a code attack on all former foreigners and their families.

Presumably you subscribe to the notion that we live in a democracy. Leaving aside the question of how wide a cross section of public opinion you have "collected" working in a local authority, I have always understood that the principles of democracy involved listening to all voices, not just those of what may appear to be the majority.

I am not in the least surprised by what you say about ethnic minority groups, having worked at the Commission for Racial Equality for seven years - those safely and legally present in the UK are just as inclined to "pull the ladder up" thinking as any other group.

No, I think you're talking about pluralism, or possibly liberalism. Democracy is definitely about majorities, at least in the dictionary that lives in my head. My statistical samples are entirely unscientific and subjective, and I'l freely admit that. Nonetheless, with asylum and immigration now rated in proper scientific polls as the third most important issue for voters, I'd be willing to bet a hefty sum that a majority of those voters aren't saying that because they want a more liberal regime.

I think we should take account of some of the following:

(1) The issue of whether a person is an "illegal immigrant" is not one that is recognised in UK Law. A person is either an illegal entrant (because they have entered the UK on false papers or in the back of a lorry- often a necessity) or an overstayer- they have entered the UK on one visa and allowed it to lapse. The press universally misses this; all asylum seekers are simply "illegal".

welikegoats please take note.

(2) Asylum seekers are entitled to be here, pursuing applications under refugee conventions we engineered (in a fit of guilt over the plight of the Jews we denied enttry to in WWII). That right is only acknowledged retrospectively i.e when the applicant finally has leave to remain recognised.

(3) The legislation in the last 10 years has been modified to reduce the chances of an asylum seeker succeeding in his or her application. Hence the success rate on applications has fallen. It does not follow that the applicants have ceased to have a valid Convention reason.

(4) The highest numbers of applicants in the last few years have been from Zimbabwe, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and China (

welikegoats please note - many non Black therefore). This country has taken a prominent role in condemning the human rights abuses in those countries. Not surprisingly then, refugees come here. We can't morally justify bombing these countries or imposing sanctions, yet reject those fleeing the abuses that justify our actions. Yet we do. We send people back to Zimbabwe (AND Mogadishu!)

(5) The agenda on rights of persons from abroad is dominated by right wing media, who pick up on every instance of crime involving an asylum seeker as "they should never have been here". Yet did we see a "He's white and British" headline in the Express when Shipman was caught? Or Fred West? Insofar as the democratic majority supports depriving those from abroad of basic human rights, it is a manifestation of ill informed xenophobia fueled by the right wing media. You, as a local government employee (apparently) may wish to reflect.

(6) The rights to social support of those who have exhausted the rules are circumscribed by our human rights obligations. In the last six months I have had to deal with a one armed man prohibited from leaving UK (out of prison but on license), a single parent forced to leave home due to domestic violence, those with cancer and aids, all of whom have exhausted appeals at time of seeking advice. If we are not to regress to a pre Dickensian era, these must be assisted if destitute until such time as their lawful removal has taken place.

(7\ Finally, economic migrants. Over 80% of the globe's wealth is vested in the "North". Over 80% of the globe's population is in the "south". Our borders prevent freedom of movement of labour here. Yet our terms of trade grind the south into poverty and starvation. The plight of Africa is a scar upon the conscience of the world. All existing immigration law does little to redress this

I'm not sure how immigration law is ever meant to address the state of Africa. Unless you propose block shifting of entire populations, then all a more liberal regime will achieve is the individual escape of the wealthy, or strong, or cunning, or rebellious.

There is nothing more frustrating for me than regularly being told that I am right-wing because I argue a socialist case against liberals. Nonetheless, I shall chance it again;

Immigration as a solution to poverty and instability in Africa is roughly equivalent to grammar schools as a solution to working-class educational underachievement. The successful individuals will probably benefit, the place they are going may benefit, but the place they are leaving will constantly worsen.

It is true, as you have both pointed out, that we send people back to places which are unpleasant. That's because asylum, specifically, is an individualist system. We don't accept, and I think it's impossible to create a system which works if you accept, that there is a collective right to seek asylum from a place which is unpleasant, it is about each individual's risk.

I guess if you could establish planned genocide, there'd be a collective right for people of the relevant race. But of course we can morally condemn Zimbabwe and then send people back there - for starters for there to be human rights abuses in a country, it must contain abusers as well as the abused, and probably many people in neither category.

The only long-term solution is to get solving the problems at their source. You are quite right to agree with Tony Blair about the plight of Africa, but we don't solve that by letting a lucky few get away from it. We solve it partly with money and material aid, and partly with direct intervention.

Unfortunately, the moment you start suggesting that the strong have a duty to intervene and protect the weak at anything other than an intra-country level, people who would support it start shouting dull slogans about neo-imperialism and the evil USA.

So, you end up at a ridiculous situation when, given clear and present evidence of an ongoing genocide in Africa, the most important thing on the Secretary-General of the UN's agenda for the day is arguing about the technical legality of a war which has already happened. No doubt as soon as people notice that Sudan has oil, they'll decide that we shouldn't get involved.

I am sure will want to respond to this but she does not read lj at work. I will not respond in detail, but please do not label us as liberals. You do not know our politics as we do not know yours but I dont see anywhere in this discussion were you are labelled as a right winger because you are "arguing a socialist case against liberals".

That should be

lilithmagna will want to respond and "where" not "were", sorry.

I am determined not to let this degenerate into a flame war but your post is reasoned and interesting - wrong, but interesting :) - so I will respond in brief. I actually agree with you *in theory* that it is better to treat "the problem of Africa/Kosovo/China/wherever" at source rather than give a hand up to a few escapees. If and when this starts happening the question of what if any asylum should be provided by the UK may be worth revisiting but I am not holding my breath, and in the meantime I will continue to attempt to counter right wing media fuelled xenophobia and ill informed argument based on what the public seems to want with facts and contrary opinions no matter how unpopular they are.

And I dont think you have really engaged with the issue of sending people back to the atrocities you describe as "unpleasant" because "we cant afford it".

I haven't engaged with it at all, I don't agree that it's the problem. We probably can afford to let more people in, certainly in cash terms we can afford to, as long as we accept that if they are a net cost then that's money we can't then spend on something else.

When I referred to 'expensive' I was talking about the process of determining applications - expensive as in a waste of money if we ignore the outcome, which I rather thought at the time was what you were advocating, though you have since clarified that you weren't.

I'd just say that asylum and immigration are different systems, and if we want to change the immigration system, we should do so in an honest manner, not by letting people through the asylum system whose claims turn out not to be satisfactorily founded.

As for the immigration issue, I'd happily have a more liberal immigration regime with some of these countries, especially the ones with a history of, ahem, engagement with the British state.

At the same time, we are a wealthy and crowded island, a free-for-all would cause an influx. In terms of volume, I'd freely swap the more liberal policy globally for having a less liberal one than now for much of continental Europe.

Unfortunately, these are two things we can't do, because we've given our democratic control of both of them away, and is one of the reasons I don't think we benefit from membership of the European Union (I often discover that this makes me right wing too, right wing like Tony Benn, of course).

As for negative media stereotypes, I'm afraid I don't have time to sort out asylum seekers, I'm too busy trying to work out how to stop the Tories winning every local election round here by turning them into a referendum on Travellers.

Interesting points, and I agree with some. But let's remind ourselves that where this started out was as a discussion of proposals by the government to cut off the benefits of failed asylum seekers (incidentally the local authority support rates are about 45% of income support rates). In fact this has been a process of gradual restriction and disentitlement. The point is that the Government has more recently drafted the legislation with get out clauses for the supported person if a human rights abuse might otherwise result. Where the Courts have interpreted this so as to protect the disabled and families, the Government rather dishonestly blames the judges for protecing those human rights.

For me, if the government can lawfully remove someone it should do it, while preserving minimum standards of decency for those who have not yet been removed. Starving people out of the country is not an option. While the righting of economic inequality abroad is a desirable end, my view is that this will take a long time coming. In spite of Blair's aid agenda the loan servicng element of the south still outweighs any aid from the north, and everything so far implemented however radical is but a sticking plaster (not that some of the recent initiatives are entirely unwelcome).

In the meantime, I prefer to make sure that those within our shores are looked after while they are here.

My comments on xenophobia in the predominantly right wing press arise not because of my views on your own politics; rather they come from frustration at the spectre of Labour and Tories outbidding each other to seem tough on those who need protection. Bill Morris recently castigated Labour for overusing the term bogus asylum seeker (to the point that foreigner = asylum seeker = bogus became almost interchangeable). It's all slipping back again though.

If you remeber the single mother and workshy dole scrounger of 80's mythology, and compare it to the asylum seeker today, you may see what I mean.

A final thought; I recently read that according to Home Officde figures the net cost of immigration is a surplus to the economy of 2-4 £ billion(sorry, can't remember the exact figure). Food for thought, no?

Well, you're arguing a liberal case based on the rights of individuals. If you say you personally aren't a liberal, then fair enough, it's for you to choose the description of your politics that you feel best fits.

I felt I (or at least my views) were being labelled right-wing mostly when you said you wanted to discuss them further because I 'didn't seem like a knee-jerk racist'. Implication rather being that that was the logical explanation for my views (which have turned out to be very similar in outcome to yours, except that I think we should enforce our eventual decisions)...

I am arguing a case based on experience and observation not political dogma. I am a lifelong socialist , am fully aware of the holes in tha human rights agenda and as a post Marxist/Leninist I am not going to blindly spout *any* party line. I think our views differ in two main areas - firstly I am extremely uunhappy about forced removal in the vast majority of cases particularly given the problems with the system I have described and secondly I believe that anyone in this country who is destitute should be fed and sheltered regardless of how they came to be here and how near to being forcibly removed they are.

Fraud involves an intention to deceive. I worked in immigration law for many years and my partner has done so for nearly 10 years. Neither of us have any naive idealism left. We have met less than a handful of "bogus" asylum seekers. The Home Office and the Courts interpret the Convention definition of refugee as narrowly as possible, so that for example asylum seekers fleeing the well documented chaos in Somalia (not going to go into the imperialist history here, but there sure is one) do not receive refugee status although they are usually given exceptional leave to remain in the UK lawfully. On the face of it though the claims for asylum of those given exceptional leave to remain have failed and are recorded as such. Those who do not fit the narrowly construed definition of refugee in the vast majority of cases genuinely believe their lives are in danger in the countries they have fled from, as the Home Office and Courts freely admit.

I will have to work my way through all of these threads this weekend. I wish I could be there in person to listen to you advocate on this issue. A lot of the people who talk about the illegal immigrants sucking up our resources in the US ignore how much they contribute through their work in the underground economy ... in fact, they work harder than most Americans do, it's heartbreaking (and back breaking and limb removing for them). And interestingly enough the entire welfare system has been quite effectively presented to the US public as something supporting inner city blacks, making it easy for a lot of middle class (white) Americans to say they're against it ... despite the fact that in fact it supports far more poverty stricken whites. The success of right wing media manipulation is truly depressing

The US system is similarly f**ed up (like the British). We call all Haitians economic refugees, as if it wasn't US policy that made them all so destitute, and then have a blanket acceptance policy about Cuban refugees (*if* they make it to shore) as they are fleeing a regime that we want to make a point about ... and the Cuban voting block in Florida is *very powerful.* Um, I mean, as the Cubans are fleeing EVIL COMMUNISM whereas the Haitians are merely fleeing starvation and midnight execution, so they're not "political" refugees.

This & that

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

That's a lot of stuff to read but it's good to read it all