Asylum Seekers Myth Buster

[ralphchadkirk]

Myth: Britain is swamped with refugees
We're not that popular
Britain is in 10th place in Europe per head of population for asylum applications. The vast majority of refugees end up in the Middle East and Africa.

Myth: We are being ripped off
Hardly
A typical asylum seeker gets £5.62 per day to live on. They lose this if they don't live where they are told to by the Government. That's £40.22 per week - roughly 30% below the poverty line.

Myth: Asylum seekers are lazy
Our fault
We don't let them work. Many are really skilled and want to work and we have a shortage of skilled workers. The Government has reversed legislation so that asylum seekers are now prevented from working. Home Office research has shown that asylum seekers would prefer to support themselves rather than be supported by the Government, yet the law prevents them from doing so.

Myth: They take our homes
As if
When they are given a house or flat, asylum seekers have often been given the ones that are empty; the properties landlords find difficult to let.

Myth: We pay more Council Tax because of asylum seekers
Not true
Asylum seekers are looked after by the Government, not local councils. In 1999-2000, migrants and refugees made a net contribution of approximately £2.5 billion to the UK economy, according to The Home Office - worth 1p on income tax.

Myth: All refugees are con artists
You decide
Even though the Home Office is being tough on refugees applying to stay in Britain, last year, 40% of applicants were given permission to stay.

Myth: One in four come to the UK?
No... That’s reality times 10
In the UK, on average, people think that 23% of the world's refugees and asylum seekers are living in the UK, according to research by MORI. The reality is
actually less than 2%.

Myth: It is safe back home
Hard to believe
Most refugees come from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, the former Yugoslavia and Iran. All these places have seen serious human rights abuses.

Myth: Asylum seekers bring crime to our streets
Ask the police
There is no evidence that asylum seekers commit more crime than anyone else, says the Association of Chief Police Officers. They are more likely to be victims of violent crime, even murder, because of who they are.

Myth: Britain is the Land of Milk and Honey
Not true
Asylum seekers are not allowed to claim mainstream welfare benefits. If they are destitute, the only option for some is to apply for support with the
National Asylum Support Service (NASS), the Government department responsible for supporting destitute asylum applicants.

Myth: It is safe back home?
No... It’s not
Most refugees come from Afghanistan, Iraq, Angola, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Iran. All these places have seen serious human rights abuses and some, civil wars. There is a connection between the situation in the home countries of the people who come to the UK for refuge. The increase in positive decisions by the Home Office proves that the majority of the people are fleeing for their lives from harsh
and oppressive regimes and severe ethnic conflict.

Myth: They arrive with false documents?
Maybe...
It is virtually impossible for people fleeing persecution to reach Britain without resorting to the use of false documents. Article 31 of the 1951 Convention on Refugees prohibits governments from penalising refugees who use false documents. There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. The 1951 Convention on Refugees means that by law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in the UK and remain until a final decision on their asylum application has been made.

Myth: They’re really well off?
No... You decide
85% of asylum seekers experience hunger
95% cannot afford to buy clothes or shoes
80% are not able to maintain good health.
(Source: Oxfam and the Refugee Council study of40 organisations working with asylum seekers and refugees in the UK.)

Myth: Asylum seekers are draining millions from the NHS?
No... The cost is marginal
Asylum seekers are entitled to NHS services, like other residents and visitors to the UK. Don't forget the enormous contribution that asylum seekers, refugees and other immigrants make to the economic and cultural life of the UK. Refugees bring with them a wealth of skills and experience.

The Home Office has recognised this and has made a commitment to put the skills to good use. The NHS relies heavily on foreign labour. In London, according to the Greater London Authority for example, 23% of doctors and 47% of nurses working within the NHS were born outside the UK.
"The system is very stretched" says Vivienne Nathenson, Head of Science and Ethics Committee, British Medical Association "and we have a serious shortage of GPs. It adds to the strain but it didn't create it. And if they lived in better conditions they wouldn't need so much intervention from the NHS.
The evidence is that asylum seekers become ill after they arrive in the UK. The BMA also estimates that there may be up to 3,000 refugee doctors - a potentially invaluable resource at this time of acute staff shortage."

Myth: Employers won’t hire refugees?
No... 90% of employers want to take on refugees
Nine out of 10 employers want to take on refugees to meet skills' shortages, but don't because of their ignorance of the law and the confusing Home Office paperwork, according to research done by Personnel Today.

Myth: They get houses and are given new furniture, washers, fridges and cookers?
No... It’s not theirs
Asylum seekers are given support and furnished accommodation until the outcome of their application is decided. The household equipment never becomes the property of the asylum seeker and is reused for the next family. As with most furnished tenancy schemes equipment is new for the first person only. A similar furnished tenancy scheme in public sector tenancies operates for residents in a number of areas in North East England.

Myth: Greater London is tops
Around a third of asylum seekers (31%) supported by the Government live in Greater London.
The North East is in sixth place in the UK (with 6%), after Yorkshire and Humberside (13%), West Midlands (13%), North West (11%) and Scotland (7%).

Myth: They are all issued with mobile phones, leather jackets, TVs, satellite TV and given money for cars?
No... They choose what to buy
Asylum seekers receive up to 70% of income support and like all of us have choices about how to spend that money. A mobile phone can be the only link to family in other countries. One woman living in the North East said she wanted to buy a phone card so that she could talk to her mother in Zimbabwe once a week.

Myth: Asylum seekers are uneducated?
No... Most are well educated
A high proportion of asylum seekers have substantial educational and work related qualifications and were successful individuals in their home country. A Home Office survey found that 90% of refugees speak at least one other language and 65% speak at least two, in addition to their first language.

Myth: Asylum kids mess up our schools?
No... Says teachers leader
"All the evidence we have is that in some of the toughest schools it is the asylum seekers' children who provide stability, because they are most dedicated to getting the best out of the system.”
John Banks, Head of Education, National Union of Teachers.

Myth: North East England has been flooded with asylum seekers?
No... Not true
North East England has a population of about 2.5 million. There are less than 5,000 asylum seekers. That's less than a quarter of 1% of the total population of the region.

Iran and Angola lead - The top ten
The top ten nationalities of asylum seekers living in the North East.
1. Iran - 424
2. Angola - 257
3. Turkey - 250
4. Eritrea - 222
5. Sri Lanka - 192
6. Zimbabwe - 189
7. Congo Democratic Republic - 185
8. Pakistan - 176
9. Iraq - 165
10. Afghanistan - 116
(Source: North of England Refugee Service and NECARS, December 2005)


What is a refugee?
A refugee is anyone fleeing their country of birth. Refugees are described as 'asylum seekers' while they are waiting for official recognition as defined by the United Nations.

In the UK it is The Home Office that decides if they can stay or not. There is an appeal procedure. The Home Office may not grant refugee status to some asylum seekers.

Or, it may grant the right to stay in this country for a limited time. At the end of this time the Home Office will look at their case again. If the Home Office believes it is then safe for them to return to their country, they have to go home. If it is still not safe, the Home Office may allow them to stay for longer.

Around 3500 asylum seekers from 79 different countries in North East England
There were 3508 asylum seekers in North East England at the end of December 2005. Around a third lived in Newcastle and a third in Tees Valley.l

http://www.laurencejackson.org/main.nsf/Web+Full+List/5DF00A83D3CD982480256F39004BA384?OpenDocument


I found this quite interesting...

 

[Dai.]

It is about time someone shed some light on the whole "non brits taking our money, jobs, food" myths.

Good find!

 

[Pumbaa]

I'm sure Old Timer will be along shortly to spectacularly disagree with everything there!

 

[thefab444]

Well he's got personal experience in the field of asylum you know... he's read the Daily Mail!

On a happier note, he's not actually been on the forum since Friday.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I like Old Timer, even if we do have political disagreements!

 

[Mojo]

Why do some people on this forum always think others are simply out to disagree with them?

 

[Metroland]

It would be an extremely dull forum if people didn't disagree. The most popular threads are usually where there is a lot of disagreement.

 

[Mojo]

It would be an extremely dull forum if people didn't disagree. The most popular threads are usually where there is a lot of disagreement.

I was actually referring to the posts above where people assume, before anyone has even replied, that people are just out to be difficult and disagree with everything someone has to say.

 

[Metroland]

Indeed, and I agree. Personally I like reading all views, especially ones I disagree with, long as it can be backed up with a coherent argument and are not lazy quotes or things that have been heard and are taken out of context - like so much about the railways and indeed Asylum seekers, some of which is read in newspapers - and not just the Daily Mail - on both sides of the argument.

With Asylum seekers it's especially important to hear both sides of the story as its' not a black and white issue. (Excuse the pun). But I do not excuse hate of people for what they believe or who they are (black, gay, their sex or class). It's just ignorant and uneducated.

I agree with OT on some things and not on others and certainly respect him for his knowledge on railway matters.

 

[will1337]

Interesting find. I do find it odd people from the North East complaining of the numbers of asylum seekers. I'm from West London and have been going up there 4 or 5 times a year all my life to visit relatives and try to explore the area as well as I can. There are very few asylum seekers up there in comparison. Virtually nil outside of the larger cities.

Most of the asylum seekers and economic migrants I have known locally have worked hard and integrated well with the community as a whole. Because of the system though, many skilled asylum seekers who want to work hard and live here have to break the law until they can get citizenship which often takes many years.

 

[Nick W]

Indeed, and I agree. Personally I like reading all views, especially ones I disagree with, long as it can be backed up with a coherent argument and are not lazy quotes or things that have been heard and are taken out of context - like so much about the railways and indeed Asylum seekers, some of which is read in newspapers- and not just the Daily Mail - on both sides of the argument.

I thoroughly agree, but the majority of RailUK posters are incapable of forming logical arguments nor justifying their view. They also tend to resort to personal attacks and emotional responses or just stating their view, which sadly makes RailUK a bit of a bore at times.

With Asylum seekers it's especially important to hear both sides of the story as its' not a black and white issue.

I think it is - we have to comply with international laws on such matters. I think the real issue for debate is whether we err on the side of deporting asylum seekers back to their home country for them to be persecuted when we perceived there to be no risk or whether we err on the side of allowing them to stay here unless we can guarantee that they can be safely returned to their country of origin.

Most of the asylum seekers and economic migrants I have known locally have worked hard and integrated well with the community as a whole. Because of the system though, many skilled asylum seekers who want to work hard and live here have to break the law until they can get citizenship which often takes many years.

But if we allow all asylum seekers to work, the number of non-genuine asylum seekers will rise. While I think we should do all we can to help them study or carry out voluntary work that would not otherwise be carried out, I think that if they wish to work they should go through the same channels that other non-EU immigrants go through. Obviously they should have precedence over other immigrants since they're already living in Britain.

 

[142094]

Interesting find. I do find it odd people from the North East complaining of the numbers of asylum seekers.

Probably because it's hard to tell the difference between an immigrant and an asylum seeker. "They all look the same" is a phrase that springs to mind.

 

[Capybara]

They also tend to resort to personal attacks and emotional responses or just stating their view, which sadly makes RailUK a bit of a bore at times.

Crikey. This place is like a Quaker meeting compared to some of the forums I've experienced.

 

[Drsatan]

I think it is - we have to comply with international laws on such matters. I think the real issue for debate is whether we err on the side of deporting asylum seekers back to their home country for them to be persecuted when we perceived there to be no risk or whether we err on the side of allowing them to stay here unless we can guarantee that they can be safely returned to their country of origin.

I believe it's currently too difficult to deport failed asylum seekers. I've read cases where asylum seekers have to wait years before it's decided whether they can remain in the country or not. A few have committed suicide due to the strain of waiting for so long http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8554849.stm . Even failed asylum seekers aren't removed either because their deportation orders don't come through, or because some judge rules that they can't be deported for some reason or another. Asylum seekers whose claims are rejected should be deported within one month, and they should only have one opportunity to appeal: this would prevent abuse of the appeals system.

I also object to housing asylum seekers in council flats since local families have a greater right to local housing than those who've just arrived, by virtue of being born in this country and being British nationals. I believe asylum seekers should be interred upon arrival in camps until their claims are decided; interring them would make deportation of failed asylum seekers significantly easier since they couldn't flee.

Finally, despite evidence showing that Britain for various reasons is not the 'promised land' for asylum seekers, it's mysterious why many migrants (or asylum seekers) turn up at Calais expecting to get into Britain. I suspect many of them are economic migrants lured by stories of how easy it is to get work in Britain, and how you get free accommodation. One of the first actions of the next government, IMO, should be to erect a big sign in several different languages, stating 'Britain is not the promised land. Please go home'.

 

[Nick W]

Probably because it's hard to tell the difference between an immigrant and an asylum seeker. "They all look the same" is a phrase that springs to mind.

Then they're not only ignorant because they don't know the difference but because they don't realise what benefits immigrants bring this nation.

I believe it's currently too difficult to deport failed asylum seekers. I've read cases where asylum seekers have to wait years before it's decided whether they can remain in the country or not. A few have committed suicide due to the strain of waiting for so long http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8554849.stm .

This is probably because the system is applying a "wait and see policy" to them, rather than having to decide there and then and either erring on the side of caution (meaning we'd increase the number of phoney asylum seekers) or else deporting them when in doubt (which would effectively be culpable manslaughter by our policies on human rights). Both of these rank as a much higher importance than the extremely rare suicide.

Even failed asylum seekers aren't removed either because their deportation orders don't come through, or because some judge rules that they can't be deported for some reason or another.

This former is not really a problem, since few employees take on illegal workers, and only demonstrates that the system needs to more organised. I don't understand the second point - are you saying that you lack faith in the ability of the judges to uphold the law?

Asylum seekers whose claims are rejected should be deported within one month, and they should only have one opportunity to appeal: this would prevent abuse of the appeals system.

I see no basis for an arbitrary time period, indeed I'd expect a minimum time period to allow time for appeals. I'd push for public services to be available to failed asylum seeker's until they are deported for moral reasons, and so since these services cost money, I obviously support a speedy deportation after a fair minimum time period if this doesn't cost the state more. I see no reason why allowing multiple appeals results in abuse of the appeals system, however I don't think appeals should be allowed unless new evidence emerges or the judge can be shown to have been prejudiced or negligent in handling the case.

I also object to housing asylum seekers in council flats since local families have a greater right to local housing than those who've just arrived, by virtue of being born in this country and being British nationals. I believe asylum seekers should be interred upon arrival in camps until their claims are decided; interring them would make deportation of failed asylum seekers significantly easier since they couldn't flee.

I don't see any reason why British people should have greater rights to council houses than asylum seekers. Obviously it'd be mad not to house asylum seekers in places where there is less demand for council houses, and we do this already. Since I believe that "guilty until proven innocent" applies to all people of this world except in war-time situations, I would deem it immoral to lock up asylum seekers. If the Government could provide hostel type places for asylum seekers (ie similar to university accommodation) at less cost then council houses I'd obviously push for this.

Finally, despite evidence showing that Britain for various reasons is not the 'promised land' for asylum seekers, it's mysterious why many migrants (or asylum seekers) turn up at Calais expecting to get into Britain. I suspect many of them are economic migrants lured by stories of how easy it is to get work in Britain, and how you get free accommodation. One of the first actions of the next government, IMO, should be to erect a big sign in several different languages, stating 'Britain is not the promised land. Please go home'.

We have fewer asylum seekers per capital than various other countries but those that come here through France probably do so for one of three reasons:
1. The influence of our colonial rule in the countries from which asylum seeker's tend to come.
2. The fact that their second language is most likely to be English.
3. The fact that England is further, and those that assist in allowing asylum seeker's to arrive in England charge by the mile and paint a picture of Britain being the "promised land".

I'd highly doubt if word spreads around the world, at least outside the more industrialised countries, that Britain is "easier" on asylum applications than other countries. This of course only demonstrates the need to work together with other nations in Europe, through of course, the EU.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Regarding the council house Drsatan, shall we have a look at the myth buster?

Myth: They take our homes
As if
When they are given a house or flat, asylum seekers have often been given the ones that are empty; the properties landlords find difficult to let.

 

[Metroland]

Then they're not only ignorant because they don't know the difference but because they don't realise what benefits immigrants bring this nation.

Whereas immigration certainly has benefits (although this must be offset against education, health and infrastructure provision) one caveat to that is certain groups of workers might find themselves *worse off* through the flooding of the market with cheap labour: This would include:

Skilled trades: Plumbing, electricians, truck driving

And especially unskilled work in agriculture, factories - although admittedly, much of that work, the home grown population don't want to do. Having said that, we've seen from recent BBC TV programmes, the immigrants are often better at some of this work that the home grown population.

The other downside some people see of too much immigration is it changes the fabric and feel of certain neighbourhoods, and some people object to that. It doesn't bother me personally, but I guess for older people that have lived in an area all their life, they might not like the change.

On asylum seekers, it must be recognised that some try to gain access to the country illegally and end up in the drugs/sex trades. There's also a problem with undercover sweat shops in factories, restaurants and other establishments, taking jobs away from local people and exploiting the immigrants themselves. There's also a significant problem with students overstaying their welcome on visas.

For me, all of the above is a concern that ought to be listened to, and mainstream politicians ignore some of their concerns at their peril - really because you might find in some areas there is a shift to vote to more radical right wing parties like the BNP.

I'm not entirely sure how you square the circle with some of the trades, that might just 'be the market' and the answer is to change jobs/upskill yourself.

I'm personally for responsible immigration, listening to the concerns of all involved. Some of the fear is irrational (people tend to like people like themselves and fear those that are not), some of the fear is born of pure ignorance, but I do think on immigration as a whole, while there is obviously benefits and I welcome it, there are some problems and concerns that need to be dealt with and listened to without the race card emerging.

I certainly think in the age of cheap air travel/internet, changes to our society are inevitable, and these changes should be embraced not feared.

 

[Nick W]

Whereas immigration certainly has benefits (although this must be offset against education, health and infrastructure provision) one caveat to that is certain groups of workers might find themselves *worse off* through the flooding of the market with cheap labour: This would include:

Skilled trades: Plumbing, electricians, truck driving

And especially unskilled work in agriculture, factories - although admittedly, much of that work, the home grown population don't want to do. Having said that, we've seen from recent BBC TV programmes, the immigrants are often better at some of this work that the home grown population.

I thoroughly accept that we must limit the number of immigrants by the amount of education, healthcare, housing and transport provision. I also thoroughly conced to the fact that wages of certain occupations will be reduced. This is because without such immigration, those with those occupations would be paid more than the market clearing rate due to a current shortage of those workers (either because we're not training enough people with the right skills or because people would rather reamin unemployed and blame it on immigrants than seek such "unskilled" jobs or retraining). In the long-term, the economic output of our country will be increased by this and everyone will be better off.

The other downside some people see of too much immigration is it changes the fabric and feel of certain neighbourhoods, and some people object to that. It doesn't bother me personally, but I guess for older people that have lived in an area all their life, they might not like the change.

People are adverse to change, however these arguments are irrational and it would be unfortunate if the state gave in to such pressure from the populus. Moreover, in time people tend to adapt to new ways - few people now have any problem with women franchisement or universities giving degrees to women.

On asylum seekers, it must be recognised that some try to gain access to the country illegally and end up in the drugs/sex trades. There's also a problem with undercover sweat shops in factories, restaurants and other establishments, taking jobs away from local people and exploiting the immigrants themselves. There's also a significant problem with students overstaying their welcome on visas.

It must indeed be recognised but you've given me no reason why existing measures under the status quo are inappropriate at dealing with such issues.

For me, all of the above is a concern that ought to be listened to, and mainstream politicians ignore some of their concerns at their peril - really because you might find in some areas there is a shift to vote to more radical right wing parties like the BNP.

But the concerns are irrational and will be dealt with by increasing education. It would also be nice if we could censor the press somewhat more such that articles clearly designed to insight rather than to present such issues fairly could not be published however this is another topic of debate.

I'm not entirely sure how you square the circle with some of the trades, that might just 'be the market' and the answer is to change jobs/upskill yourself.

I'm personally for responsible immigration, listening to the concerns of all involved. Some of the fear is irrational (people tend to like people like themselves and fear those that are not), some of the fear is born of pure ignorance, but I do think on immigration as a whole, while there is obviously benefits and I welcome it, there are some problems and concerns that need to be dealt with and listened to without the race card emerging.

I certainly think in the age of cheap air travel/internet, changes to our society are inevitable, and these changes should be embraced not feared.

Excellent, we have no quarrel.