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.
A country has a moral obligation to the people within that nation-state, first. That is the defining principle of a 'nation state'. If you cannot accept this, then we should agree to disagree. I have strong viewpoints on the role of the nation-state.
Incidentally, it's refreshing to be described as the 'moderate right'.
I guess "moderate" is a relative term. Although I suspect that we disagree on many issues, including this one, the fact that you accept that there is an obligation to accept genuine refugees (#14) and that their interests do count for something does cause me to hold you in less disdain than I hold the BNP and their supporters.
We must indeed agree to disagree on whether a nation should first have a moral obligation to the people within that nation state. (I assume that by ‘within’ you are referring to citizens of that country). I happen not to believe in hereditary rights and do not believe that the identity of an individual’s parents or the location that that individual happened to be born in can confer any additional rights or claims to that individual. A discussion of this though, would take us far outside the remit of this article and, as you say, we should agree to disagree.
However, I can’t help but comment that even if the principle that a country should first have a moral obligation to its citizens is accepted, it does not imply that many nations including our own should not do more to address the situation of refugees. Having a primary moral obligation to one group means that you should consider the interests of that group first, only where the interests are comparable and similarly pressing. In the case of modern, developed nations, the interests of their citizens in not having refugees admitted are either negative or non-existent (since refugees often actually bring benefits to the countries they settle in) or, if such interests do exist, they are trivial in comparison to the interests of those fleeing persecution. Refugees accepted into another country have a good chance of leading a satisfactory and fulfilling life. Those who are not accepted often face unjustified imprisonment, torture or death. It is clear that those with the most pressing and fundamental interests at stake are the refugees themselves and even if a limited prejudice in favour of the citizens of the country was justified, it could not excuse these interests being ignored.
#17 actually raises a serious question that seems to be being ignored by those supportive of the demo's aims - how exactly are these proposals going to be put into place?
Should failed asylum seekers be allowed to work in any business, or just work within a detainment camp? Should they be given education in any university or school, or within a camp, or within a conventional prison - how will it work?
If we are only discussing the 21-day post decision, pre-deportation period, then it seems an odd decision to give someone 21 days education in britain when the majority will need lessons tailored to individual languages and levels... this argument seems to go far beyond the 21 day period if we're discussion education as the article suggests.
How sad that we should have to resort to pathetic childish name-calling though. Opposing a free-for-all isn't bigoted. It's conservative. As much as i realise the 'hard left' would love to see the two words equated, it really makes no sense. Nothing bigoted has been said on this comment thread so far.
So, are we arguing to allow failed asylum seekers the same rights as citizens, or are we arguing that the deportation process needs to be accelerated?
Anonymous 23,
I agree that we should consider the time after the 21 day period, indeed this is the most important time as absolutely all support from the National Asylum Support Service is cut off at this time for single adults and childless couples. Since these failed asylum seekers are also prohibited from working, they have absolutely no means of subsistence. Although it would be nice if there was some special significance to the 21 days which meant that all refused asylum seekers, regardless of their country of origin, were able to return after this time (and with no legitimate fears for their safety), this is not the case. There is no mystical significance to the 21 days, it is merely a convenient, but arbitrary, limit and there are many reasons why the return of rejected asylum seekers may be impeded.
In most cases people fleeing persecution cannot safely obtain travel documents or valid visas from the authorities that are persecuting them and many countries of origin do not cooperate with the re-documentation and readmission of their nationals. After Amnesty International asked the Home Office to list countries from which it is very lengthy and difficult to obtain Emergency Travel Documents and which do not accept ‘EU letters’ instead of these ETDs, it provided a list including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe. A letter dated April 2006 from the IOM in London to a firm of solicitors states that it has been unable to help any Eritrean rejected asylum seekers return voluntarily since at least August 2004.
For these reasons and more, there is a huge disparity between the number of people refused asylum and the number who are either removed by the Immigration Service or make a voluntary departure. For the foreseeable future, thousands of rejected asylum seekers in the UK are condemned to live in abject poverty, stripped of their dignity and relying on others to subsist. Sometimes they go hungry and sleep in the streets. All avenues to a normal life are blocked. There is little incentive to remain in contact with the Home Office at this stage and therefore the whereabouts of many rejected asylum seekers are unknown. This is not a hypothetical issue but a real one, thousands of people will continue to live in destitution if the status quo is not changed. The UK Government must not oblige people to live in abject poverty indefinitely due to a failure of the system to either grant them leave to remain or to make them return. Some means of subsistence, either the granting of the right to work or more extensive benefit support must be granted. I believe that there is more to be said for the temporary granting of the right to work (not confined to detention centres) which would allow these rejected asylum seekers to live normal lives and contribute to society. You may think that there is more to be said for the government continuing to provide the same accommodation and financial support as during the asylum process in these cases. In this case our difference of opinion would only be about what is more efficacious and realisable. Enforced destitution, whether malign or through government incompetence is not an acceptable option, I should hope that everyone would agree on this.
Earlier this year, when asked about the thinking on what will happen to rejected
asylum seekers who cannot return home through no fault of their own and are likely to be here for a substantial period, the then director of NASS responded that ministers
‘are open to exploring this conundrum’. For the time being, the conundrum has not been solved and rejected asylum seekers who cannot return face destitution.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report