Aimee Howarth brings you an interview with The Yorker directors on the final day of the advent articles
Aimee Howarth speaks to YUSU's sabbatical officers about their Christmas Day routine for day 17 of the advent calendar
For the final time this term, Vicky Morris updates you on this weeks film news
50 years after the publication of 'James and the Giant Peach', the works of Roald Dahl continue to celebrate success.
The sleep-out organised by York’s Amnesty International Society saw students debating a variety of issues as part of the ‘Still Human, Still Here’ campaign, which aims to end the destitution of refused asylum seekers.
The campaign calls on the government to allow refused asylum seekers permission to work and access to full healthcare and education until they are able to return home or have been granted leave to stay.
Supporters believe that the method of denying refused asylum seekers any means of subsistence, in an attempt to force them from the country, is both inhumane and ineffective.
Amnesty interviewed a number of refused asylum seekers from countries such as Iran, Somalia and Sudan. Many stated that they had been tortured in their own countries and many complained about poor interpretation at all stages of the asylum process, meaning that their case was not fully or accurately presented in the UK.
The sleep-out in York saw over a hundred signatures gained for a petition to local MP Hugh Bayley and publicised the issue on campus. Many of those who took part, and even some passers-by, also took part in extensive discussions on the issue.
Lydia Piaget, co-chair of the York Amnesty International society, said: "The sleep-out is part of a national action campaign led by Amnesty International and Student Action for Refugees (STAR). More than a 1000 students have already slept out on their campuses... and now it is time for us to as well."
On a personal level and as a group it proved to be a hugely thought-provoking and constructive experience. Even though many participants had never met before, there was an all-inclusive and positive atmosphere from the start. Some slept rough despite having to be up for 9.15s, job interviews and for one, her birthday!
Piaget said: "Everyone here has been removed from the normal student bubble. We are all in an alien situation. It’s amazing to see people running and feeding off everyone’s enthusiasm and optimism. It’s very powerful to feel so united with those around you."
Many remarked on how relaxed everyone was and with 12 hours ahead, how much time people had for each other to talk about a fascinatingly diverse number of topics.
A second year participant, John Nicholls said: “University life is so hectic that people forget to stop, think, and appreciate. By doing something like this you escape all of your own worries and hassles for an evening and take the time to empathise with others whose lives you can barely imagine.”
The experience also gave students a tiny glimpse into the world that destitute refused asylum seekers inhabit. Although we were all very philosophical and positive during conversations at 3 in the morning, after a couple of hours of fragmented and uncomfortable sleep before the geese awoke and began to test their vocal capability, most of us experienced at least a pang of irritability.
At 9am the next morning, despite being stuffed into several layers, hats and sleeping bags, the night outside had left us cold to the bone. The prospect of a hot shower and a warm bed a short walk away was the only thing that allowed optimism in the ranks.
Nicholls said: “If this is what it is like in May, it must be hell later in the year.”
For more information on this campaign and to take action see stillhuman.org.uk. York’s Amnesty International group meets at 5.30 every Monday in V/044.
The fact is that by very definition, 'failed asylum seekers' have broken the law and thus as with any other individual within the borders of this country, they are bound by the laws of this land and should be deported. Their cases have been heard through the correct channels and a decision been reached and that is that. This is yet another example of an extremely small minority of students uniting around a cause that is completely unfounded. Probably the same people that echo calls made for the early release of the Yorkshire ripper on human-rights grounds and the assertion of prisoners rights over those of their victims (often non-existent because they have had their ultimate 'right to life' taken away from them). One final point, I think many of these people adopt a 'not in my back yard' policy regarding failed asylum seekers. In other words, their attitudes would be very different if they lived in communities in London and other large cities where strain is at an all-time high because of the failure of the government to deport failed asylum seekers back to their country of origin.
Well firstly Dan, to say that failed asylum seekers have broken the law is straightforwardly wrong. It is not illegal to seek asylum and it is not illegal to be unsuccessful. How could it be illegal to fail a test that one has a right to take? It is no more illegal than it is illegal to fail a driving test or a university exam. Secondly, you seem to be entirely misunderstanding the purpose of the campaign. The point was not that any decisions as to asylum applications should be reversed, it was that the denial of means of subsistence to refused asylum seekers is not an acceptable (or effective) tactic in attempting to remove them. The truth is that many refused asylum seekers, through no fault of their own, are unable to return to their country of origin. As well as cases where the government has got it wrong and where returning would place the individual in serious jeopardy, there are often practical difficulties involved. The fact that they had to flee their country of origin may mean that they could not obtain travel documents or their own government or those en route may be uncooperative. The enforced destitution of these people fulfils no purpose and only serves to cause suffering. If you would like to find out more about the campaign I suggest you visit:
http://www.stillhuman.org.uk/
Your irrelevant comments about the Yorkshire ripper are completely despicable. It betrays a lack of integrity (as well as an inability to come up with satisfactory arguments concerning the issue at hand) to attempt to divert people’s attention to a highly emotive and unrelated case and to attempt to lump everyone who disagrees with you on one issue into another group entirely. I can only speak for myself but I can safely say that I am against the enforced destitution of asylum seekers and also against the early release of the Yorkshire ripper. I suspect that many people feel the same way.
Further, your comment about people adopting a “not in my back yard” policy is completely unfounded and it is extremely audacious and insulting of you to attribute such a view to the people at the sleepout with absolutely no evidence. Do you really imagine that none of the people who were at the sleepout live in London or any large city? That seems rather implausible to me. May I ask which community you live in that makes you feel so qualified to talk of the strain that such communities are under because of asylum seekers?
I'm afraid I don't really understand. You want to give people who've had a failed request for asylum the same rights as people who've been granted asylum? I can understand how it's justifiable to give someone the absolute basics, i.e., a right to healthcare, but a right to education and a right to work? Surely if a failed asylum seeker got those they get everything they need to stay in this country and there would be absolutely no difference if they failed their request for asylum or not.
David T: I believe Dan's point was that it's illegal for failed asylum seekers to continue to stay in this country after their request for asylum has failed (although not being familiar with anything but the outline of the asylum process, I may be wrong). If you fail your driving test, you're not allowed to drive unsupervised; similarly, if you fail a request for asylum in the UK, you're not allowed to stay in the UK.
I understand that sometimes there are problems with the asylum seekers not having their case properly represented, but that's always going to be the case; you get miscarriages of justice in our justice system.
Regarding the Yorkshire Ripper, any campaign for early release is completely unfounded, rather his the remainder of his sentence should be handed down by the courts, rather than the home secretary. It would be up to the legal system to decide when he is safe for release. The sole human rights issue is that the original ruling on his jail term was made and is controlled by the home secretary rather than a member of the judiciary.
A sentence should not be handed down purely to satisfy victims or their families (pretty much everyone would get a life sentence if that were the case), as I've said in a comment on another article: aside from being a deterrent, prison should be about rehabilitation. If a prisoner is no longer a danger to society or themselves, then they should be released.
As it stands, Peter Sutcliffe is 61. The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 sets out that multiple murderers should serve a minimum of 30 years as a guideline. This guideline, regardless of any judgement on life sentences by the ECHR would likely be exceeded upon by any UK judge given the severity of Sutcliffe's case. Even so, were he to serve just 30 years, he would still be 64 when released. An old man, most likely subject to constant torment by the press and society (however wrong it may be) could surely no longer be considered a threat.
I agree that at first it seems that those who have been refused asylum in the UK should not be entitled to any of the benefits of British citizens or those who have been granted refugee status. After all, they are not deemed to have a sufficiently strong case to have fled their own country and remain in the UK. However, after looking into the campaign in greater depth, it is clear that the current system is both flawed and ineffective. There is definitely something to be protesting about.
The point of the campaign is that the channel through which potential asylum seekers apply for asylum seeker status is often flawed. In addition, sometimes those who have been refused are unable to return to their country of origin for legitimate reasons. In practice it is extremely difficult to forcibly remove people to countries where there are serious safety issues, uncooperative governments, difficulties in obtaining travel documents or unreliable travel routes. For example, Home Office statistics show that no more than five people were forcibly removed to Somalia in 2005. In these circumstances it is unacceptable for the government to leave refused asylum seekers destitute. Some provision should be made for them.
Until recently the government more readily granted a temporary form of protection – called ‘Exceptional Leave to Remain’ – to asylum seekers from unstable countries. In 2002 ELR was applied to one in four initial asylum determinations. This was replaced in 2003 and by 2005 only one in ten received this type of protection. Many of those who would once have qualified for protection today find themselves refused and destitute.
Further, there is evidence that many refused asylum seekers with genuine cases have had their applications refused because of flaws in the UK’s system. For example, refused asylum seekers reported that they had interpreters with insufficient skills to present their case fully and accurately in English. Incorrect details of human rights abuses were provided in the courts. Similarly, some received poor quality legal advice.
Although people may doubt the validity of accounts gained from refused asylum seekers themselves, experts have also long expressed concerns about whether some asylum seekers receive a full and fair hearing of their claim. Decision making in relation to some nationalities is particularly poor. For example, in 2006, 47% of Somali nationals, 44% of Eritreans and 41% of Zimbabweans who appealed had their refusals overturned. This raises serious doubts about the quality of initial decision-making. For every person who successfully overturns a poor decision, many more may be falling through the net due to a lack of quality legal advice.
Even if it was desirable to force all refused asylum seekers out of the country through forcing them into abject poverty, it is not a realistic solution to the problem. Even though the government is removing people faster than ever before, at the present rate it would take 14 years to clear the backlog, at a cost of almost £3.2 billion – enough to build 12 new NHS hospitals. Meeting this target is highly unlikely. By severing contact with refused asylum seekers and losing track of their whereabouts, destitution makes removal nearly impossible for most.
It should be noted that the government does offer what is called ‘Section 4 Support’ for failed refused asylum seekers. However, many destitute asylum seekers are not eligible for this support and others choose not to apply for it, mainly because they see it as a plot to return to their country of origin, something which they may be terrified to do. For some refused asylum seekers, even though they do not fit the now narrow definition of a refugee, they may have fled violently unstable countries and experienced violence, torture, rape, or loss of family members. Even if the government accepts that you have been persecuted, you may be refused asylum unless you can prove there is a significant risk it will happen again.
Many refused asylum seekers are too fearful to return voluntarily as they are from countries torn apart by conflict or where human rights abuses are rife. While their countries remain volatile, they consider starving and sleeping on the streets in Britain to be the lesser of two evils.
It is estimated that up to 284,000 refused asylum seekers are still in Britain for whatever reason and forcing them into an underground existence of destitution and humiliation is not going to solve the problem.
This campaign does not promote the idea that we should accommodate all people who wish to live in the UK. It does also not argue that all people who seek asylum in the UK are automatically qualified for refugee status. However, it is a valuable way of highlighting the plight of tens of thousands of refused destitute asylum seekers and pointing out the flaws in the system.
Chris, I take your point but the objective of the campaign is not to grant just the same rights to failed asylum seekers as to successful ones, rather it is to ensure that asylum seekers whose applications were not successful but who are awaiting a review of their case or who are unable to return to their countries of origin immediately are not forced into destitution. Any permission to work that was granted as a means of allowing asylum seekers to avoid destitution would be temporary and dependent on a later review of their application being favourable or upon their returning to their country of origin when it was viable for them to do so, whereas the right to work of successful asylum seekers is granted indefinitely along with all of the rights of other British citizens. In any case, we are in agreement that full healthcare should be provided and I think that certainly in the case of children who have been refused asylum but cannot return home, it would also be unjustifiable to deny them an education.
I appreciate the clarification you make of Dan’s point (although it does not imply that “by definition” failed asylum seekers have broken a law) but I think that for it to meaningfully be said that someone is breaking a law, it has to be possible for them to act otherwise. In the case of those asylum seekers who genuinely cannot return to their countries of origin but are trapped in a limbo here through no fault of their own, this is not the case. An asylum seeker would be acting illegally if they were provided with the means to return to their country of origin and sufficient guarantees of their safety upon doing so and nevertheless did not return. An asylum seeker can hardly be accused of acting illegally if none of this is the case and it would be impossible for them to return by their own means.
I struggle to right as many words as are in these comments for actual essays...
Surely if an applicant fails, then there is suitable grounds for a safe return to the country of origin.
To allow failed asylum seekers the same rights as citizens is a recipe for disaster. Anyone could apply, fail, and enjoy the benefits of working in the UK for at least a short period of time.
I'm not going to pretend the system has its flaws, and there are certain cases (such as the filipino widower who was sent home in the news recently) that highlight wrong decisions, but thats why an appeals process exists.
education and healthcare are two of the central institutions that citizens pay tax towards, and pay tax for most of their lives. Can you imagine the backlash from angry taxpayers at more people exploiting their contributions even though their application had failed?
No party will ever support this proposal. It'd be political suicide.
Dan, in your comment you say:
'I think many of these people adopt a 'not in my back yard' policy regarding failed asylum seekers. In other words, their attitudes would be very different if they lived in communities in London and other large cities'
I'd quickly like to point something out; I live in Stockwell in South London, and thats me on the far left of the photo at the top of the page. I was out all night supporting the 'Still Here: Still Human' Campaign. And incase you need enlightening, Stockwell isn't leafy middle-class Notting Hill or Dulwich, its amoung the poorest, most troubled and racially diverse parts of London. So in future don't assume to know anything about 'these people.'
One final point. At home I've worked alongside people who have been granted asylum and I've helped people that have been denied it, and guess what... (this might shock you) they are actually human beings like me and you.
Joe Hufton
The point is that by the very definition of being a 'failed' asylum seeker, they have not passed the tests in the system, itself created by a democratically elected government. I'm sorry, but as a result they have no legal right to be here and our country has no obligation to take them in.
I think many of your attitudes would be different if a close friend/relative fell victim to a crime committed by an individual with no legal right to be here in this country. Thankfully this is not the case for me but we are all to in danger of dismissing these fears as 'racist', 'xenophobic' and other sensationalist adjectives when infact they are legitimate concerns held by a majority of the British people (if the lastest BBC survey this year into immigration and its affects is to be believed).
"they have not passed the tests in the system, itself created by a democratically elected government."
Excellent, I'm glad to hear that anything our government does is right and fine. So tomorrow, if they implement a highly graduated tax system and undo all privatisation in health, education, transport and utilities, we'll both be happy.
"many of your attitudes would be different if a close friend/relative fell victim to a crime committed by an individual with no legal right to be here in this country."
Right, so if a close friend/relative fell victim to a crime committed by a black person, I have a right to be a racist. If it were by a gay man, I have a right be homophobic. If a young person, ageist. Yep, sounds like a fair system to me. If someone was fleeing because they refused to give their children up for Female Genital Mutilation, or someone was fleeing because their gay partner was executed, or a family were fleeing because they had spoken out against a particular regime, then oh well, not our problem.
David, I shall let people read what a ridiculous comment you just made and judge for themselves...to get all hyper-emotional about something, flail arms and add nothing but rubbish to (what has been so far) a good debate. If you have nothing to say that is constructive (and really, you rarely do) then don't say it at all. Whilst others on this wall have disagreed with me and some have agreed, they have not made such ridiculous comments that sadly have become typical of you and hghlight an inability to argue/debate reasonably.
You know full well none of them are secondary implications of my argument. On the contrary one can apply it instead to prisoners who should not have been on bail or who have been released early because there are not enough prisons. The fact is that these people have been deemed by the system, unfit to remain within the UK and thus should be deported and should not be in the country. Being black or gay is not against the law. Being in the country when your application has been turned down however is, and someone has a right to feel justifiably furious when a crime is committed by such an individual who should not be here but is, because of government failings or unelected 'rights-based' pressure groups once again, concerning themselves more with the rights of those who have broken the law than the majority of people that abide by the law all day every day and see first hand the damage that lax migration control and low deportation rates of illiegal migrants, are having on the basic fabric of society.
Ok, and making sweeping statements about ‘typical leftys’ is very constructive. And it eats me up inside that you don’t like my arguing style Dan.
Back on topic - I wasn’t being hyper-emotional, I was taking your arguments to thier logical conclusions. Secondary implications they may be, but implications they are nonetheless: you have failed to take into account a) that the sleep-out was to highlight the plight of those due to be deported but lack the means to do so, and are thence denied basic standards of living and b) that although being black/gay is not a crime, making stereotypes about them and then judging all in that category is. You’ve demonstrated this perfectly by one phrase: “by such an individual”. The entire “basic fabric of society” was not damaged by one particular individual here for refuge, even if it was (and you’ve presented very little evidence that it was) damaged by another immigrant sometime somewhere. I agree the system is broken, but criminalising people who want to come here to escape persecution and work hard is not the answer.
David, you were certainly not demonstrating against the lack of deportation facilities indeed if you were then I would happily have joined you and the others that demonstrated.
"Want to come here to escape persecution..."
Indeed they can. However these people are 'refugees'- not failed asylum seekers. There is a basic difference. However as we are on the subject of refugees, under an article of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, the 'fleer' of persecution must go to their nearest country of safety. If this is the case, then why do we have people from anywhere other than France, Ireland or Denmark in this country (Iraq and Afghanistan also)? If someone was so desperate to flee the 'horrors' taking place in their country, they would not sacrifice their lives to come across Europe in an air-tight truck or under a train, would they? They come to the UK because they know we are a soft-touch with next to zero border controls. The problems that arise from this are felt by genuine asylum seekers who wish to come to the UK as many have done over many 100's of years (long befor AI was even thought of) but are perescuted because of the advantage taken by others in the system.
People feel annoyed David, when their system is being taken advantage of. They feel annoyed when they 'perceive' people to be benefiting from services more than they themselves are inspite of the fact they may have paid taxes all their lives. It is not attitudes like mine that lead desperate people to vote extreme. It is attitudes like yours that advocate no borders and uncontrolled immigration and give the far-right yet more ammunition to gun down the political status-quo that has bogged the immigration debate for 60+ years. You are just so blinkered that you pass off their views (as was done with those in the mayoral election) as 'biggoted' and 'racist'. They have concerns and those concerns are no less legitimate than yours or mine. If you guys are serious about wanting to stop the rise of the far-right, get a grip and see that it's people like you causing that rise.
Personalities aside, Dan's argument is fundamentally flawed. The issue in question is not whether or not someone should be granted asylum in the UK, it is what happens to them in the 21 day period after being turned down and before being deported or returning home. The Amnesty report argues that asylum seekers should not be allowed to go destitute during this period. Now aside from the implications on the human rights of the individual, which we will realistically never agree on, lets look at this objectively. Surely a failed asylum seeker is far more likely to commit crime if he or she is destitute and desperate. This definitely doesn't mean letting them live in luxury or giving them jobs I assure you. But surely 'the basic fabric of society' is improved by having less people on the streets, regardless as to who those people are and where they come from.
Dan's argument is based on the premise that people who have been denied asylum should be punished for it, by letting them go destitute. Despite the implication of destitution on society and law and order.
If he disagrees with this last point then he would have been most welcome with his sleeping bag last Wednesday.
To start with, I wasn’t actually at the Amnesty demo as I was unavailable. Ok, semantics aside, the point that we should not judge people coming to this country to escape persecution (whether in the process, ie. asylum seekers, or those successfully completing the process, ie. refugees) by stereotypes stands. Re. the point of nearest country, I’ve read the whole Convention and I couldn’t find the article to which you refer (perhaps you could give me the article number). What I would say is that people come to Britain because (on the whole), we are a fair and open country that gives people the opportunity to earn a decent living.
Yes Dan, people have been persecuted (when they are here) because others have taken advantage of the system. That, as I have already pointed out, is what you are making worse by generalising and stereotyping.
And yes Dan, people feel annoyed at this perceived injustice. But it is the unfair and bigoted (yes, bigoted, I for one shall not be told I can’t tell someone they’re being bigoted when they’re being bigoted) portrayals in the media that cause these problems, not those that are campaigning for a more humane and compassionate system (NOT open borders, I never said that) for our fellow human beings.
But I’m glad we agree on the need to stop the far-right Dan. And I will leave that there.
I believe as soon as an individual's asylum application is failed they should be returned to the country they came from in the first place. Similarly, if an individual is granted asylum, they work, pay tax, benefit from our services but contribute to the society in which we live. It's all extremely simple when you think about it.
In the 21 day period, they should be held in detention centres where they can be monitored prior to deportation but be given the basic fundamentals to live; security, food, water etc. If they were released out onto the streets, are you seriously suggesting to me that they would not do a runner and present the country with 1000's more illegal migrants to those already residing in the UK because of years of government backlog and incompetance?
Australia have a very effective system that rewards those who contribute, work hard and integrate into the homogenous culture but deal correctly with those who seek to take advantage and do not accept that decision made on the basis of laws drawn up by democratically elected governments (like it or not). I don't agree with 'punishing them' and if you can pick up on something I have said that suggests such a thing, then go ahead. 'Punishment' is a somewhat subjective term, mind. If deporting them back to their country of origin after a failed application is 'punishment' then by all means, tar me with that brush. I prefer to call it the implementation of the rule of law as drawn up by the sovereign parliament of this land.
Good summary, #15. 
And David, of course we must all work to reduce the influence of the far-right (aka BNP) in British politics but the way to do that is not to call people who vote for these people 'biggoted' or 'racist'. Often their concerns are legitimate though their wording and the manner in which they are presented does, often, leave a lot to be desired. I don't believe 'pah pahing' them away (to use a Blackadder expression) does anything to stop their rise. Instead, immigration must be debated. Politicians must be seen to be taking action in this area and tightening controlls. If we stifle any criticism of immigration, you play directly into the hands of those you claim you are trying to combat.
Ok, this is going to be a long post, forgive me for giving a little background first.
In fact, although they lack the wealth and stability that the UK enjoys, it is developing countries, such as Pakistan and Iran, which continue to host the majority of the world's refugees. Nine countries in Africa look after more than 100,000 refugees each, even though they are among the poorest countries in the world. Even among EU countries, the UK ranks 14th in the league table of countries for the number of asylum applications per head of population.
With this in mind the idea, the UK should only accept asylum applications from those countries geographically closest to them is ludicrous. Geographical location and relative position to other countries is of no moral relevance; the fact that a country is an island or shares borders with few other states cannot be taken to imply anything about how many refugees should be allowed to resettle there. The factors that are relevant are population and average GDP per capita, yet these are unfortunately usually given little consideration. For example: The UK hosts less than half as many refugees per 1,000 inhabitants as Kenya, despite its average GDP per capita being nearly 40 times higher. Such an interpretation of whichever article of the 1951 Convention it was would only reinforce the status quo, which is that most refugees are hosted by the countries least well-equipped to host them. In fact the “nearest country of safety” should be interpreted as the country that the refugee in question is best able to reach, where the country is safe, politically stable and where there is a reasonable chance of their asylum application being fairly considered. Dan T, you suggest that the UK is perceived as a “soft touch”, I think it is nearer to the truth to say that some other countries are morally outrageous in their treatment of genuine asylum seekers and there is no obligation on the part of asylum seekers to apply for asylum in countries where they know that they will not be fairly heard. In fact, some people are refused asylum on the grounds that they had arrived via “safe” third countries but these make up less than 1% of all asylum applicants.
Also, I think that arriving in an air-tight truck does imply desperation, not a lack of it. People fleeing persecution are not able to simply hop on a plane with easy jet and I don’t think the means of an asylum seeker’s arrival should be taken into consideration when their application is being judged.
Further I think the idea that someone should change their attitudes because they might lead to people supporting and voting for the other extreme is a very dangerous one. David L should, as we all should, stand up for the views which he believes are true, not kowtow to the moderate right in the hope that it will placate the far-right. The best way to defeat misguided political opinion is to explain precisely how it is misguided; for example by presenting the facts about asylum and explaining that we do have a moral obligation to consider the needs and interests of those who are fleeing persecution. Clarification of the difference between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants need not be accompanied by any hardening of one’s position towards asylum seekers.
Since Dan T mentions the status quo, I think Peter Singer sums it up perfectly: “the status quo is the outcome of a system of national selfishness and political expediency, and not the result of a considered attempt to work out the moral obligations of the developed nations”.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report