ASYLUM POLICY: RESTORING INTEGRITY

This article by Alistair McConnachie appeared in the April 2005 issue of Sovereignty

The UK asylum system has lost all integrity. Everyone knows it is being abused on a massive scale. The phrase "asylum seeker" is utterly discredited in the public mind. If the concept of asylum is to retain its integrity then the system must be made impossible for bogus applicants to exploit. The proposals suggested here will speed the application process, identify the genuine, and restore integrity to a system presently abused and discredited.

DEFINITIONS
Officially, an "asylum seeker" or "asylum applicant" is someone who has claimed "refugee status" within the meaning of Article 1 of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as amended by The New York Protocol of 31 January 1967.

Refugee status is defined in the Convention as someone: "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country·"

The New York Protocol removed from the definition of refugee the Convention's original words which had defined a refugee on the basis of, "·events occurring before 1 January 1951".

A "refugee" is an asylum seeker who has been "recognised as a refugee and granted asylum".

Most asylum seekers are not recognised as refugees. Most are considered bogus. For example, in 2002 there were 84,130 applications, of whom 8,270 (10%) were recognised as refugees, 20,135 (24%) were "not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave", and the remainder "refused asylum and exceptional leave". (Asylum Statistics: United Kingdom 2002. The annual Home Office Statistical Bulletins Asylum Statistics: United Kingdom and Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom are available free from the Home Office, Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Room 264, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1H 9AT, Tel: 020 7273 2084, or at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/)

Below, we use the term "Asylee" to include all those asylum seekers -- that is, principal applicants, excluding dependants -- who have been accepted for settlement, whether officially recognised as "refugees" or not.

OUR PROPOSALS
Recognising that Westminster should be the sole law-making authority on immigration and asylum issues in Britain and recognising that outside the EU we will regain control of our own borders, enabling us to carry out the following programme of reform, we propose:

Abolish Automatic Right to Asylum
So long as Britain is signed up to the Convention, we are required to admit whoever claims asylum, and keep them here, pending a lengthy legal process to determine their claim to refugee status. As open-borders advocate Nick Cohen wrote in the New Statesman of 7 October 2002, "The convention has nullified the efforts of successive governments to close Britain's borders." Therefore it is necessary to·

Withdraw from the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the 1967 New York Protocol.
As Matthew Parris wrote in The Times of June 29, 2002: Sometimes, something is so plain that we dare not acknowledge it. At the root of all our difficulties over immigration lies a simple cause, and nobody in mainstream politics has the guts to admit it. It is the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. It is unsustainable and it must go. If we cannot reach agreement internationally to wind it down, then Britain should unilaterally withdraw. ("This foolish convention on refugees must be scrapped")

The 1951 Convention is outdated and is being abused. It was not intended as a means to move economic migrants around the world, nor for those who are merely dissatisfied with life at home.

It will not be possible to "amend" this international document, therefore we need to withdraw from it so we are no longer bound by it, and if necessary institute our own Convention, addressing our own needs.

As our Declaration of Moral Principles (Sovereignty, Nov 02) makes clear, we believe everyone has a moral obligation to work to make things better where they live, and to involve themselves in the important work of restoration at home. Those who struggle to change things at home should be esteemed over those who simply run away.

Legislate to ignore specific aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights
which prevent implementation of asylum reform, such as Article 3 which prevents deportation of foreign nationals judged to be a risk to security.

Quota of 2,000 Asylees a Year
This is "principle applicants", excluding dependents. For the latter part of the 1980s, when the world was just as dangerous as it is today, arguably more so, asylum applications were stable and few. "Asylum" applications started to rocket from 1989 onwards, although still well below numbers today, as above.

For example, in the 5-year period from 1984-1988 the average annual number of principle applicants "recognised as a refugee" or "not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave" was 1,934.

Over the following 6 years the average annual number accepted almost quadrupled to 7,621 (See Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Asylum Statistics, United Kingdom 1994, which also details the previous 10 years).

We aim to bring numbers down to 2,000 a year in order to approximate the historically precedent, annual average for the relatively stable 5-year period, 1984-1988, before "asylum" applications rocketed and before the system became discredited.

Maintain Safe Country List
from which an asylum claim will not be granted. Labour initially abolished this, but has restored it.

No Asylum for citizens from countries internationally recognised as Democratic

No Asylum for citizens of countries hosting British, NATO or UN Peacekeeping Troops

Asylum Applications to be lodged in Country of Origin
at the British embassy, which would be best placed to understand the situation on the ground.

An Asylum Visa Required
J K Maunder suggested the following in a letter in The Independent, 27 March 2000: One solution to asylum-based immigration would be to place it on the same visa-based footing as settlement in Britain and make a refugee visa issued abroad mandatory. This would scupper 80% of undocumented arrivals. All those without documents would be returned forthwith.

Eric Nichols suggested the following in a letter in The Daily Telegraph, 1 September 1998: We should judge an asylum seeker in the British consul in the country concerned. No one should be considered for asylum unless he can produce a special visa, which the British consul would provide only on two conditions being verified: that the applicant was in serious danger of death, torture or persecution, and that there was no country nearer than Britain in which he could reasonably expect to be free of such dangers. To avoid visas being traded, the consul would send a copy with fingerprints and photograph, to the UK Immigration Authorities. This important policy would cut the levels of bogus asylum seeking to very small levels, meaning that the Reception Centres would not be overflowing.

The Conservative Party claims its objective is to take an annual fixed number who have already been deemed refugees, and in need of relocation worldwide, from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This is a risky proposition, which gives the UN the authority to decide.

It might only work if Britain accepted a quota of no more than 2,000 from the UNHCR a year, and abolished entirely asylum seeking into the UK via any other method.

However, the UNHCR has suggested it may not co-operate with Britain if it withdraws from the 1951 UN Convention, as above.

Therefore, in the absence of the UNHCR programme and the abolition of asylum seeking via any other method, we would need to continue with our plan, as above. That is, there would be no asylum granted without a Visa.

If the monthly quota is filled, there will be no asylum offered that month.

In the interim, and even when the Visa Requirement is in place, we are still likely to have some who arrive in the UK via other ways, and without a Visa.

In general, the following will apply:

No Asylum for those who have travelled through a Safe Country to reach the UK.
However, we acknowledge there will be some who arrive at air or sea ports.

No Asylum for those who have destroyed their documents
or fail to co-operate in re-documentation.

Claims for Asylum allowed at official ports of entry only.
If discovered outside of these ports, they will be held securely and returned forthwith.

Asylum Seekers Compelled to Stay in Secure Reception Centres
until their cases are settled. This will see a vast decrease in applications. The bogus will not want the hassle. Applications will plummet to their pre-1989 figures. The few who are genuine will be grateful to be staying safely and securely under the protection of the British government. Families to be kept together, and entitled to full education, leisure and health facilities.

Decisions reached within 2 Weeks
The time spent in these centres will be short because the aim will be to reach a first decision within 2 weeks. Many new jobs will be created in the Immigration Service, to ensure this goal is met.

Self-harming and hunger striking to Lead to Automatic Disqualification
from further asylum consideration.

Recognise that Asylum Seekers are not British Citizens
and therefore are not eligible for the full range of benefits which accrue to a British citizen, until such time as citizenship is granted. Granting such people the full range of benefits enjoyed by British citizens undermines the concept of national citizenship.

Asylum Seekers Prohibited from Working
Some claim we should permit asylum seekers to work so we can remove benefit entitlement. However, we aim to speed up the process between application and decision. Therefore, unless they have been granted refugee status, an asylum seeker should not be in the country long enough to have the chance to work. Allowing asylum seekers to work would only encourage more economic migrants to come seeking work under the guise of "asylum". To stop the flow of bogus seekers, we need to prohibit them from working, cut back on benefits available, and above all, speed the process of decision, and where appropriate, removal.

Shorten the Appeals Process
seeking to have the second hearing within a further 2 weeks, while the asylum seeker remains in Secure Reception.

Asylum Appeals not subject to Judicial Review

No Appeal to the European Court

Fast-track Back Failed Asylum Seekers
If an applicant loses a case, he or she, and their family will be kept in Secure Reception, until escorted back, with the full cost of their stay and removal deducted from that country's Foreign Aid allocation -- which demonstrates that those countries which allow their citizens to come here under false pretences, must pay for them. A Removals Agency will be instituted whose duty will be to ensure swift departure. Presently, those whose applications are rejected can remain, because the authorities often don't know where they are.

Granting of Refugee Status Probationary
upon good behaviour. Any asylum seeker, refugee, or legal immigrant who is not a British citizen, and is convicted of a criminal offence, immediately deported to country of origin and banned for life from re-entry.

An appendix to this Asylum Policy, which deals with some of the commonly heard objections, can be found here.

ASYLUM POLICY Common Objections Answered "But these people have rights!" All we hear about is the "rights" of asylum seekers. What about their responsibilities? What about their responsibility to arrive here truthfully? What about their responsibilities to get their own homelands in order? What about the rights of those of us already here, who do not want to see our society transformed? "We should believe them when they say they are 'persecuted' One man's persecution is another man's justice! Who are we to side with someone just because he claims to have been "persecuted"? Criminals and wrong-doers always claim "persecution". The IRA always claims to be persecuted by the British State. Claims of "persecution" are not enough. We have to establish the objective truth. "We should have 'compassion' for these people" Emotive energy unleashed is dangerous. Like a warming campfire, the flames have to be surrounded and controlled by the stones of cold logic -- otherwise it will run wild and burn down the forest. When you link "compassion" with the dangerous and illogical act of opening the borders to the rest of the world, then that is not compassion -- it is destruction unleashed. "Everyone who wants to live here should be able to live here!" This is the irresponsible and destructive position of the open-borders lobby, masquerading as compassion. It's like saying, "Everyone who wants to live in my house should be able to live in my house." How soon before life, for you, became intolerable! "We've a responsibility to the world's suffering people!" There is no limit to pain in the world. There are potentially hundreds of millions in the world today who could conceivably claim to have a fear of "persecution", which itself can be defined very widely. These people are limited only by their ability to get here -- a task which becomes easier every day. Given these two facts -- the prevalence of potentially eligible refugees, and the ease with which they can arrive in Britain -- the questions are: Do we limit the numbers? If we are agreed that the numbers must be limited, then what is that limit? What criteria do we use to set that limit? These are the questions which the open-borders lobby don't want to engage, because setting criteria, means choosing and judging, which contradicts their belief that "everyone is equal". However, we recognise that many so-called asylum seekers are economic migrants seeking a better way of life. Therefore, a programme to stop the flow also needs to tackle the international poverty which drives them here. CHALLENGE ECONOMIC MIGRATION THROUGH BUILDING SELF-RELIANCE WORLDWIDE The best way of improving the situation of the poor of the world is not through letting them all come here, or even through charity, but through politics. We believe in self-determination for the UK and we believe in it for all countries. Some people promote debt-relief. However, to be effective, the cancellation of debt in any country has to be part of an overall strategy to enable the country to stand on its own feet. It has to be part of an overall strategy to build long-term self-reliance. Simply abolishing a country's debt in the short-term, but keeping it chained to the debt-based money system in the long-term, is to keep it enslaved to the global financial system. Thus, in coordination with debt-relief we promote the following measures, which were advocated in 1998 by economics author James Gibb Stuart in regard to Malaysia, and which are applicable to all countries: A measure of foreign exchange control to prevent a nation's reserves, its financial lifeblood, from being sucked out by speculators. Reverse the progressive liberalisation of financial markets as this advance towards a global economy can rob developing peoples of the benefits of their own national resources. No privatisation of national assets as a device for paying off government debt. Such assets belong to the people, and should not be put up for auction, where market forces can consign them to foreign ownership. British experience of privatisation proves that selling assets to reduce national debt is only a temporary expedient. They can only be sold off once, and when they are gone, the cycle of debt and borrowing continues. Avoid further borrowing, particularly in US dollars. The recent round of currency devaluations has shown this to be a treacherous device whereby international entrepreneurs can buy up the local economy at bargain prices. Create own money debt-free. Money incentives to stimulate commerce, agriculture, industry and social programmes, need not be in the form of expensive US dollars. All recognised, legitimate governments can create their own debt-free money and use it for essential national objectives. These 5 acts: Stopping the haemorrhage of national reserves by means of exchange controls; reversing the liberalisation of financial markets; rejecting the privatisation of public assets; avoiding foreign loans or further borrowing; and steadfastly maintaining social programmes, with government created debt-free money if necessary - are essential acts of national economic sovereignty. These are the mechanisms we encourage worldwide in order to build the self-reliance and economic independence of countries, thereby ensuring a decrease in economic migration. An Asylum Policy which restores integrity to Britain's migration policy can be found here.