NAILING PRESS MYTHS ABOUT REFUGEES

The issue of asylum in the UK is rarely out of the British press: it has become, nationally and regionally, a hotly debated issue. Unfortunately, not all of the coverage is balanced or truthful. If some sections of the British press are to be believed, UK shores are being 'swamped' by an 'invasion' of 'bogus' refugees, scroungers and criminals, intent on exploiting the social welfare system and living in the lap of luxury at the taxpayer's expense. Terms such as 'asylum seekers', 'illegal immigrants', 'economic migrants' are used interchangeably, misleading the public.
In February, The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna published a report on Racism and Cultural Diversity in the Mass Media (www.eumc.at/publications/media-report/index.htm). The report found the British to have some of the most hostile attitudes towards asylum seekers compared to their European counterparts and criticised the British media for their xenophobic and intolerant coverage of asylum issues.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Amnesty International, and the police were also among those highlighting the factual inaccuracies and racially inflammatory language used in the media. This has only worsened already tense community relations in some areas. Racial harassment and abuse of asylum seekers are on the increase, particularly in areas where the local population so far has had very little if any direct experience of asylum seekers or refugees. Such tension led to the murder of a young asylum seeker in Glasgow in 2001.
Here, we challenge some of the most common negative assumptions and set the record straight.

THE FACTS:
Is Britain really the land of milk and honey? In fact, no. Asylum seekers are not allowed to claim mainstream welfare benefits. If they are destitute, their only option is to apply for support with the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), the Government department responsible for supporting destitute asylum applicants. NASS support is very basic indeed. A single adult, for example, has to survive on £37.77 a week - 30% below the poverty line. It is therefore irrational to suggest that asylum seekers embark on arduous and often dangerous journeys to the UK for that amount of money. There are several European countries, such as Belgium, Ireland and Denmark, which give in fact more financial support to asylum applicants than the UK does. Asylum applicants are not allowed to work for the first six months of their asylum application date. This means that even though many of them bring valuable skills and qualifications with them, they simply have to rely on NASS support if they are destitute.

THE FACTS:
In fact, in 2001, in 31% of initial asylum decisions, the Home Office granted either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. The Refugee Council also estimates that taking into account applicants who were successful at different appeals and where the Home Office overturned its own initial refusal decision, the total number of successful applicants in 2001 was as high as 51%. That the initial decision rate is so much lower than the final one is a reflection of the poor quality of decision-making at the initial stage. A large number of asylum seekers have their applications refused on purely procedural grounds. Many are unable to complete the Statement of Evidence Form, on which they have to outline their reasons for seeking asylum, within the required ten-day deadline in English. In 2001, 18% of asylum applicants were rejected on such grounds. It takes good legal advice to challenge such decisions. 9% of Afghan asylum applicants in 2001 were refused on non-compliance grounds. Yet, of all Afghan asylum applicants, as many as 71% were given protection and allowed to stay in the UK.

THE FACTS:
In January 2002, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against a polling company, which sent out a fax referring to asylum seekers as 'illegals', as racist, offensive and misleading. Asylum seekers are not in the UK illegally. The UK has signed the 1951 Convention on Refugees, which means that anyone has the legal right to come here, apply for asylum and remain in the UK until a final decision on their asylum application has been made. The idea that Britain or indeed any European country is a 'soft touch' is simply not true. Due to ever tougher immigration controls along European borders, it is now virtually impossible for people fleeing persecution to reach Britain without resorting to the use of false documents. In recognition of this fact, Article 31 of the 1951 Convention on Refugees prohibits governments from penalising refugees who use false documents. Many are forced into the hands of smugglers to reach safety and may even end up in the hands of traffickers to be exploited for their labour. Such statements fail to recognise the connection between the situation in countries of origin and the people who seek refuge in the UK. The vast majority of asylum seekers continue to come from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Sri Lanka, where serious human rights abuses continue to occur - even the British tabloids cannot deny that.

THE FACTS:
A report published by the Association of Chief Police Officers recently confirmed that there is no evidence for a higher rate of criminality among refugees and asylum seekers. In fact, having fled from their home country, they are more likely to become victims of crime in the UK. There have been countless attacks on dispersed asylum seekers around Britain, including the murder of an asylum seeker in Glasgow in 2001 and now the petrol bombing of asylum seekers in Wigan. The murder prompted the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to condemn the British media for provoking racial hatred.

THE FACTS:
This idea ignores the enormous contribution that refugees make to the economic and cultural life of the UK. Refugees bring with them a wealth of skills and experience - even the Home Office has recognised this and aims to put such skills to good use. Research carried out by Personnel Today in November 2001, found that 9 out of 10 employers want to take on refugees to meet skills' shortages, but do not due to ignorance of the law and confusing Home Office paperwork. According to a recent Home Office study, migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees - are far from being a burden on UK tax payers. On the contrary, in 1999-2000, migrants in the UK made a net fiscal contribution of approximately £2.5 billion, worth 1p on income tax.

THE FACTS:
Put in proportion, the figures tell a different story. Just 71,700 asylum applications were made in the UK last year - an 11% fall compared to 2000. Far from being the top destination, the UK ranked 12th in the EU in terms of asylum applications in relation to the overall population in 2001. The truth about refugee movements is that the vast majority flee to countries bordering their home country. Nearly two thirds of all refugees are found in the Middle East and in Africa. The Middle East hosts more than 6 million refugees, and there are more than 3.3 million refugees in Africa. The world's poorest countries bear the responsibility for the largest numbers of refugees.

THE FACTS:
The actual number of individuals removed was in fact 2,935. Although this falls short of the Home Office's own considerable target of removing 2,500 unsuccessful asylum seekers a month, there are clear reasons why the Home Office may not be able to remove someone. The person may be ill, pregnant or indeed the country of origin is unlikely to accept the person back because of lack of documentation. Asylum seekers are not cheats because they have been unsuccessful with their asylum application - after all, they have exercised a fundamental human right. At the same time, examining a person's claim for asylum against the tight criteria set out in the 1951 Convention on Refuges, is a difficult process. Asylum Aid (http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/AA%20pages/appeals.htm) continues to document many cases where asylum seekers failed in the process simply because the Home Office decisions are often based on inaccuracies, failures to probe certain issues, and an overemphasis on trying to discredit the applicant during the asylum interview.

THE FACTS:
The truth is that we don't know whether the people in the Sangatte refugee camp have in fact escaped persecution, whether they will actually apply for asylum, whether they will succeed if they do, or whether they simply come as migrants. What we do know is that 90% of them as of June 2002, were either from Kurds from Iraq or Afganisis, and one need only take a look at would is happening in those countries to understand why people would want to flee. The one and only report to come out of the Sangatte refugee camp, reveiels that on 10% of those asked had ever heard of Sangatte when they left their country of Origin. Under the Dublin Convention, someone wishing to apply for asylum in a European Union country does not actually have to apply in the first 'safe' European country they get to as there may be very strong reasons why the person should apply in the UK. They may have family members here or they may feel more secure because of strong community links here in the UK. Supposedly 'safe' European democracies may not be as safe as for asylum applicants as we think. Different countries have different interpretations of who should be given refugee status under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. For example, France has a record of returning many Algerians to face further abuses at home and Germany have returned Tamils to danger in Sri Lanka. The EU is now in the process of harmonising asylum policies, which may eventually lead to a common interpretation of the Convention on Refugees.

THE FACTS:
This is one of many reports claiming detained asylum seekers are living in a lap of luxury at the tax payers expense. In fact, the United Nations has severely criticised the UK's detention record for its lack of independent judicial review of the decision to detain. The UK detains asylum seekers for longer and with less scrutiny than in any other European country. In effect, asylum seekers are kept in prison-like circumstances even though they have not committed any crime, and on top of that are even exempt from the natural justice available to UK citizens. Recent Government figures show that 27% of people had been detained for more than four months. 5% had been detained for over a year. The bail provisions of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act, which if implemented would have given asylum seekers automatic right to a bail hearing if detained, are to be repealed in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill 2002, which is being debated in Parliament at the present time.