ASYLUM SEEKERS

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
 

Taxpayers are paying £70million a year to support failed asylum seekers we cannot boot out of the country. The true number is likely to be even higher because the official figures do not include children and other dependents. The statistics renewed demands that PM Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith get a grip on the issue of deporting people after they have been found to have no right to be in this country. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of pressure group Migrationwatch UK, said, “If genuine refugees are to have any credibilty, those who fail must be removed. There is a growing tendency to call for people to be allowed to stay in Britain even if there is no risk of persecution if they return to their countries. Yet the more the Government fails to remove, the more it brings the law into disrepute.”

According to the figures, 2,220 failed asylum seekers were granted support between April and June this year, up 36% on the same period last year. The figure was also the highest quarterly figure for more than three years. A total of 9,620 failed asylum applicants were getting support from the state. That would leave the taxpayer with an annual bill of around £68m, but the true figure is likely to be even higher when dependents are factored in. The Home Office was unable to say why the approvals were so high but stressed figures can fluctuate from quarter to quarter. A UK Border Agency spokesman said, “Britain’s borders are stronger than ever with asylum applications at an historic low and an immigration offender removed every eight minutes.” (Source: Daily Star, Aug/08)

Up to 80,000 bogus asylum seekers have been granted an 'amnesty' to live in Britain. They have been in the UK for so long the Government has decided not to even bother considering their claims. Officials had lost track of up to 30,000 of the claimants, or did not even know they were here in the first place. Further proof of Home Office incompetence.

The shambles dates back to 2003, when then Home Secretary David Blunkett announced a desperate plan to clear the spiralling asylum backlog. He said families which had applied for refugee status before October 2000 and had been in the UK for four years could stay and be given full rights to work. Mr Blunkett asked his officials to trawl for who might be eligible and made a prediction that 15,000 families, or 50,000 people, would benefit.

But that the exercise, which is now on the verge of being completed, has already led to 24,030 families being given indefinite leave to remain. It is the equivalent of almost 80,000 people, with another 500 family cases still to be considered. Most of the clams are likely to have been bogus, Government statistics show fewer than one in ten applicants whose claims are actually processed is granted asylum.

Ministers are offering a £3,000 bribe for failed refugees to go home, payable after they leave the country but they are being allowed to then return to Britain. At least nine have already done so, one of the ex-asylum seekers has already received a second free trip home. The Home Office originally defended the amnesty by saying that the families which are mainly from Kosovo and Turkey would otherwise be living on benefits unable to work.

Mr Blunkett said at the time, "Granting this group indefinite leave to remain and enabling them to work is the most cost-effective way of dealing with the situation and will save taxpayers' money on support and legal aid." The Government has ruled out giving an amnesty to the hundreds of thousands of failed asylum seekers living in Britain. Ministers admit it may act as a magnet for other bogus refugees to travel here to make a claim. (Source: Mail on Sunday, Sep/06)

An independent study commissioned by the Home Office suggested that refugee ghettos are being created around the country because the Government is sending asylum seekers to places that already have large ethnic minority populations. The report said that that more refugees should be settled in affluent parts of the country and not just in tower blocks or inner-city estates. While being close to other minority groups could give "comfort and support" in the short term, it would be counter-productive in the long run, the report added.

The asylum seekers were more likely to be treated badly in the poorest areas where most of them are sent while their cases are looked at. The study found that asylum seekers were three times more likely to be assaulted in areas with higher proportions of people in the poorest social group. They were also twice as likely to face racial harassment in such areas. The National Asylum Support Service began dispersing asylum seekers to towns and cities across Britain after concerns were raised that too many were being housed in London and the South East.

Some refugees found adapting to life in permanent housing difficult. Police voiced concerns that some refugees created a fire hazard by placing hot cooking pots directly on timber floors for long periods. Others heated up stones in ovens then placed them on wooden floors to cook. A Home Office spokesman said, "Any harassment or signs of tension are closely monitored and appropriate action is taken in conjunction with the police and local agencies. If an asylum seeker reports an incident of racial harassment, relocation for that person can normally be arranged within 24 hours." (Source: Daily Telegraph)

Primary care trusts are being advised to continue funding the treatment of failed asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants on GP lists. Health care lawyer David Lock said once illegal immigrants are on a GP list they are entitled to free primary care, some of it for chronic conditions and costing hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. The right to free care in such circumstances does not extend to hospital care except in emergencies. Mr Lock said, "If they are on a GP's list they are entitled to the same NHS care as everybody else. If they are not on a GP's list the primary care trust has no duty to them at all apart from emergencies."

The National Audit Office estimated last year there were up to 283,000 failed asylum seekers in the UK. Dr Gill Morgan, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said the rules governing NHS care for people from overseas were "complex" . She said the regulations covered those visiting on holiday, people working in the UK, those applying for asylum, failed asylum seekers and others. Eligibility for treatment can also depend on the country that an individual is from, and specific agreements with particular countries.

She said, "At the point of treatment it is often difficult to distinguish between individuals' status within this complex system. Matters are complicated further because of language barriers and the fact that people from overseas coming into contact with health services often have significant health problems. Because of the complexity, there may be variation of interpretation across the country. The Home Office and the Department of Health need to work closely together to ensure the guidance is as clear as possible to ensure equity and consistency." (Source: Mail on Sunday, Aug/06)

The UK is "very generous" to asylum seekers, the Home Office's top civil servant John Gieve has told MPs. The permanent secretary said the huge rise in asylum applications in the late 1990s was not anticipated by officials. Asked about the level of applications being so high in the UK, he said, "It's a very generous system and people have used it to stay during the process."

Mr Gieve's comments were proof Britain was a "soft touch", according to Tory spokesman David Davis. "For all Labour's tough talking on asylum, Britain clearly remains a soft touch and the whole system has been exposed as a real shambles," said the shadow home secretary.

During evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, Mr Gieve said people were attracted to the UK for economic reasons and the language. He added that what had been a very slow decision-making process may also have been a draw. He said, "The law is extremely generous in many ways on the rights of people claiming asylum."

A target set by Prime Minister Tony Blair to halve the number of applications had been met and applications were being dealt with far more quickly, he said. Pressure group Migrationwatch said, "Generosity is one description, laxity is another. This explains why in 2003 we received the highest number of asylum applications of all 29 industrialised countries, and this was after the 40% fall in applications that the government has trumpeted."