ASYLUM SEEKERS

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
 

A staggering £1 million a year is being spent on 120 asylum seekers who have been refused permission to stay in the country but are still living in Croydon. Some have not been deported years after applications to remain in Britain were rejected, and until they are the council is continuing to support them. Because they have been refused asylum they cannot work, so the council gives them benefits and somewhere to live.

The asylum seekers have all come to Croydon, unaccompanied by an adult, when under the age of 18. The council is reimbursed for looking after them until they are 18 but after that it gets no money at all, forcing taxpayers to foot the bill. The number of people in this situation has tripled in just two years, with the cost of looking after them quadrupling from £250,000 in 2007 to an estimated £1 million for 2009.

The council argues it has a statutory obligation to make sure this group of vulnerable people do not end up on the street, and says the Home Office is not doing enough to deport them. However, the UK Border Agency says the council is not legally obliged to do so, and that efforts are being made to ensure some are sent home, while others are appealing or cheating the system.

More cases are likely in the future as a result of the Government's controversial decision to make Croydon the only place in the UK people can claim asylum. A spokesman for the council revealed the expense is likely to increase as other young asylum seekers are awaiting a decision. The head of the UK Border Agency's local immigration team in Croydon, Frances Beasley, says that people with no right to remain in Britain are "expected to return voluntarily" but will be removed if they don't. (Source: This is Croydon Today, Oct/09)

More here

Asylum seekers are being treated to free days out at the theatre and taxpayers are footing the bill. Although tickets are available to the public at £10 each, the majority will be given free of charge to asylum seekers. Any proceeds from sales will go to a detention centre that runs a 'friend finder' service for immigrants in Bedfordshire. The play, involving real immigrants living in Britain, centres on the experiences of women and children trying to claim asylum in the UK. John Mills, from Dartford in Kent, said, "It's unbelievable. Honest hard working men like me are getting squeezed out of our own country to satisfy the politically correct, it stinks." (Source: Daily Mail, Feb/08)

Zainab Bibi, a 7ft 2ins Pakistani woman, is to live in Britain on benefits after claiming asylum because she is 'too tall' to return home. She claims she faces constant persecution and ridicule in her own country over her height. She has lodged an asylum claim with the Home Office and has already been granted a two-year visa to remain in the UK. Miss Bibi, who in 2003 held the title of tallest woman in the world, plans to live off benefits and take advantage of free NHS healthcare.

Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, said, "It shows what a soft touch people think we are. You couldn't believe someone could think this was a good enough reason to stay. Anyone thinks they can get in. Will we start getting applications from people because they are too short, fat or thin? When the two years are up, even if she is refused asylum, I'd like to bet she'll slip off the radar and remain here anyway."

He added, "Questions also need to be asked about how this lady managed to get two years here so easily when she appears to have worked for only 15 days." A Home Office source said, "There are people coming into this country from war-torn countries where they face very real physical danger and even death every single day of the week. These are obviously very deserving asylum cases but we look at each case on its merits before making a final decision." (Source: Mail on Sunday, Oct/06)

Hundreds of asylum seekers denied support are set to be housed after ministers said they would temporarily accept a major court defeat. The Court of Appeal said a policy denying shelter to asylum seekers breached human rights law. Ministers are appealing to the House of Lords, but say the rules will temporarily change to comply.

The decision comes after an 18-month battle against the policy which campaigners described as inhumane. Under the rule, known as Section 55, asylum seekers are denied support and housing if they apply "in country" rather than when they first arrive at a port.

Ministers introduced the rule to prevent people working illegally and then claiming asylum to prolong their stay. The rule says asylum seekers must declare themselves as soon as reasonably practicable after arriving. But refugee agencies argue it is flawed because the majority of asylum seekers tend to declare themselves to the authorities a few days after arriving.

Thousands have been affected by Section 55 over the past year, though it is unclear how many have slept rough. Almost 700 legal challenges against the policy are waiting to be heard in the High Court. One judge estimates more than 500 asylum seekers are being forced to sleep regularly on London's streets because of Section 55.

A spokesman for the Home Office said Section 55 would be managed in line with the court ruling, but the case would go to the Lords. "The Government is determined to ensure that we are not obliged to provide support for those who have deliberately not applied for asylum at the earliest opportunity," said the spokesman.

He added, "We are not the welfare system of the world. Generally, people who have judicial reviews pending on Section 55 have also applied for an injunction which means we are obliged to offer them support pending the outcome of their case."

Maeve Sherlock, chief executive of the Refugee Council, welcomed the move. "The system was brought in to try and prevent abuse - but it has been hitting people with very good claims for refugee status who for good reasons would not have applied as soon as they got into the country," she said. "We hope now in practice that the government will fully comply with the judgement."

Ms Sherlock urged ministers to abandon taking the case to the House of Lords. "There is clear evidence that Section 55 is causing widespread misery and destitution among people who have fled persecution in their own countries and deserve protection here," she said. "It is administratively cumbersome, which wastes valuable Home Office time that could be better spent on making high quality asylum decisions." (Source: BBC News)

The UK took in more asylum seekers in 2002 than any other country in the developed world, a report has claimed. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said the UK had 110,700 asylum claims, 30,000 more than the US, in second place. But the Home Office disputed the OECD figures, saying that a total of 103,080 applications had been received in 2002. The OECD figures were collected before the Nationality and Immigration Act, which cut asylum numbers in 2003. That fall allowed Tony Blair to hit his target of halving the monthly number of applications from their October 2002 peak of almost 9,000.

A Home Office spokesperson said, "The measures the government has put in place over the last few years are bringing about a sustained improvement of the immigration and asylum system. The number of applications has halved and is now consistently far below the levels of 2003 as a result of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act and the historic steps to move UK border controls to France."

The Home Office said there were 4,225 asylum applications in September 2003 compared to 8,770 in October 2002. During that period, an average of just over 1,400 failed asylum seekers and their dependants were removed each month, according to Home Office figures. The OECD report, Trends in International Migration, also said some countries which have traditionally taken in a lot of refugees, such as Germany, Australia, the Netherlands and Belgium, saw numbers drop sharply in 2002.

They had succeeded in sending "strong messages to asylum seekers in 2001 or 2002 by reinforcing their control and detention measures or by speeding up decision-making processes", OECD analysts said. The UK was one of the countries which "despite measures to control flows of asylum seekers, did not completely succeed in reversing their growth" in 2002, they added.

However, although the UK received more asylum claims than other developed countries, it came eighth in an OECD list which took population sizes into account. The OECD said Britain received 1.9 applications for every 1,000 inhabitants, compared to Austria's 4.6, Norway's 3.9 and Sweden's 3.7.