|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Europe
: Britain
Britain: Labour government steps up persecution of asylum
seekers
By Chris Marsden
28 April 2001
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email
On Wednesday April 25, Home Secretary Jack Straw promised a
raft of draconian measures to increase the rate at which failed
asylum seekers are expelled and to curtail the numbers seeking
entry to Britain.
The Labour government will set up additional immigration arrest
squads drawn from 1,500 extra immigration officers. The three
new arrest teams are to be based in London and will track down
asylum seekers whose applications have been turned down and who
have failed to leave the country. The teams will have the power
to make arrests without police officers being present and will
be equipped with 150 new mobile fingerprint scanners. Five new
X-ray scanners are also to be installed in UK ports and at the
Channel Tunnel freight centre at Coquelles in France to detect
people hiding in lorries and cars.
Straw said that 9,000 failed asylum seekers were deported in
the past 12 months, while others left voluntarily. The government's
target had been 12,000, however.
The new measures would, he hoped, help the government to meet
its target of 30,000-plus removals over the next year. An additional
500 caseworkers have already been employed to speed up decisions
on asylum.
The number of charter flights to deport failed asylum seekers
from Britain will also be increased. Six planes returning 215
people have already left Britain.
The monthly asylum figures for March published by the Home
Office showed applications at 5,815, 13 percent lower than 12
months ago, with most new claimants coming from Afghanistan, Somalia
and Iraq. Straw boasted that the backlog of cases waiting for
a decision had fallen to 36, 390less than a third of the
101,000 in February last year and the lowest for a decade. The
proportion of claimants recognised as refugees or given special
leave to stay in Britain last month was just 25 percent, with
a further 16 percent of applicants then refused on technical "non-compliance"
grounds (a net figure of just nine percent).
Straw also announced his intention to establish a common European
definition of who qualifies as a refugee. His aim is to limit
the granting of refugee status to those facing persecution by
a state and automatically exclude victims of "non-state persecution"such
as those fleeing racism, ethnic conflict, rape or criminal gangs.
He said that an EU directive laying down the "mutual recognition"
by all European countries of the criteria of who qualified as
a refugee would end what he called "asylum shopping"the
practice whereby migrants tried one European country after another
until their claim was recognised. This EU directive would be enforced
through changes in UK law.
Straw's aim is two-fold. Firstly, the UK allows asylum on the
grounds of acts of persecutions that are not state-sponsored,
unlike other EU countries that employ a narrower definition, based
solely on government actions. This means that more refuges apply
for asylum in the UK, which, out of 13 EU states, took 25 percent
of all asylum-seekers between April 2000 and February 2001. "There
should be a level picture so we have similar definitions which
apply across Europe," Straw insisted.
Secondly, the new legislation would overturn recent rulings
by British judges, which, on two occasions in the High Court,
went against the government and in favour of asylum-seekers. One
ruling found that the Home Office had abused the rights of asylum
seekers as set out in the Geneva Convention. The decision means
the government may have to pay compensation to a possible 1,000
asylum-seekers thought to have been prosecuted each year between
1994 and 1999 for travelling without legal documentation. Another
found that Straw himself had acted unlawfully in attempting to
return two asylum-seekers to the third countries through which
they passed en route to the UKFrance and Germanyas
the Home Secretary knew that both countries apply the right to
asylum restrictively and they would not be treated fairly.
Straw complained that the judiciary had often taken "an
over-liberal approach" to asylum cases and launched a campaign
to revise the 1951 Geneva Convention. He proposed the creation
of three categories in considering asylum claims. The first included
applications for asylum from countries like the US, from whence
no claims "should be entertained"; the second, which
would work on the "presumption that the application would
be unfounded" if it was made in the state where the asylum-seeker
is seeking residence" and a third featuring states where
asylum-seekers would be considered automatically.
His intention was to ensure that asylum claims cannot be made
in the refugees' final destination country, but only in the nearest
"safe" country their journey takes them to. This would
effectively end all migration to Britain, except for those skilled
workers considered necessary for economic success. His latest
appeal for a uniform approach within Europe is a continuation
of this campaign to strengthen Britain's anti-asylum measures.
As immigration lawyer Nicholas Blake commented, "He is
seeking to change the nature of the UK's obligations by political
action at the level of the EU to overturn judicial decisions.
That is incompatible with the rule of law."
For weeks now, the Labour Party has been seeking to make electoral
capital out of the overt racism expressed by leading figures in
the Conservative Party around the issue of so-called "bogus"
asylum seekers. Straw himself told the BBC's Today radio
programme, "I am very unhappy with the position which the
Conservative Party or part of it has on race."
But Labour's consistent response to the anti-asylum rhetoric
of the Tories and the tabloid media has been to adapt to it. While
with one breath Labour denounces Tory racism, with the next they
always insist that they are clamping down ever harder on fake
asylum claims and illegal immigrationand all in the name
of preserving racial harmony. In the end both parties arrive at
virtually identical policies. As Shadow Home Secretary Ann Widdecombe,
who has made a profession out of railing against asylum seekers,
pointed out, Labour opposed fingerprinting at ports when introduced
by the Tories in 1993. Now, however, "It appears they have
finally woken up to reality and seen the sense in Conservative
policy."
See Also:
Britain: Racism row continues in run up
to general election
[26 April 2001]
Hypocrisy over racism in run up to British
general election
[23 April 2001]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |