We haven’t included Plaid Cymru or SNP here as we only work within England, but the BBC cover all parties. To find out more, use the BBC’s online tool to compare the parties’ stances on race and immigration issues, under which they include the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Use the drop down menus to explore beyond the ‘big three’. |
|
 |
LabourLabour deals with asylum and immigration in the ‘crime and immigration’ section of their manifesto. Their approach emphasises the record low number of asylum claims and low cost to the taxpayer of the asylum system. They claim faster decisions are often fairer decisions and they will continue to aim to process all applications within 6 months. They also promise to continue to tackle human trafficking. |
 |
ConservativeThe Conservatives 2010 manifesto does not mention any proposed changes to the asylum system but the party has recently condemned slow decision-making and increasing backlogs. In the past the Tory-led Centre for Social Justice suggested an asylum system in which applicants are given more leeway to establish a good case and which encourages voluntary returns. In 2005 their manifesto called for all asylum applications to take place outside the country and for the UK to withdraw from the 1951 Refugee Convention. |
 |
Liberal DemocratsThe Lib Dems would take the responsibility for the asylum system away from the Home Office and hand it over to an independent agency, while pushing for an EU wide plan to ensure that the responsibility is shared fairly between EU states. They would allow asylum seekers to work, end the detention of children and explore options such as residence restrictions and tagging for adults considered at risk of absconding. |
 |
Green PartyThe Greens would deal with applications within 3 months and allow asylum seekers to work during this time, ending detention for all but the most exceptional circumstances. They would also allow asylum seekers to be joined by their partner and partner’s family. They would entitle asylum seekers to full welfare benefits, boost reception facilities, housing, language training and legal support, oppose destitution and support the recognition of LGBT people as a social group as defined by the 1951 convention. |
We thought we should also fill you in on what UKIP and the BNP’s policies are on these issues (although as a supporter of Refugee Action we’d assume you won’t be voting for the BNP!). Both parties would freeze immigration, UKIP for the next five years and the BNP for all but ‘exceptional cases.’
 |
UKIPThey would withdraw from the 1951 Convention and replace it with a UK Asylum Act specifying the conditions which decide who should be granted asylum and with a limit on the number of refugees the country would accept. All asylum seekers will be held in secure and ‘humane’ centres until a decision is made. Decisions won’t be appealable. The party would also end what it calls the ‘doctrine of multiculturalism’ by government and public bodies. |
 |
BNPThe BNP would immediately deport 2 million people it claims are here illegally and deport anyone who has committed a crime whose nationality is not British. It would review all recent grants of residence or citizenship and offer financial incentives for those of foreign descent to leave the country. It would automatically reject all asylum seekers who passed through safe countries on their way to Britain. |
Hope Not HateIf you are concerned about BNP or other far-right activity in your area, the Hope Not Hate campaign has a network of local groups who are campaigning against the BNP in their communities. |
|
Posted by Sara Ayech
This is a really helpful overview, thanks.
I’ve been supporting Refugee Action for a long time, and I am shocked by this article I’ve come across in the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1268641/Refugee-charity-attacks-Nick-Clegg-illegal-immigrant-amnesty.html
Can someone from Refugee Action explain why this was neccessary…
Hi Jonathan,
Thank you for your comment and for your long term support of Refugee Action. Here is some background information which I hope will answer your concerns.
Firstly, we have not, as stated in the article, launched any attack on Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats, or any other political party. Inevitably, the media has interpreted our statement in different ways.
In the pre-election phase we held a number of meetings with representatives from different political parties to share views on asylum policy. In particular, we have used every opportunity to stress the importance of the asylum decision making process i.e. ‘right first time decisions’, and to put forward some of our ideas for a new vision for asylum. Our priority is that accurate and fair decisions are critical both to build public confidence in the asylum system and to ensure that the government can fully meet the protection needs of all eligible refugees.
In the longer term, the building of public confidence in the system enables politicians to pull back from some of their harsher policy initiatives and create a more humane system. At present politicians of all persuasions, rightly or wrongly, feel compelled to ‘act tough’.
We have also encouraged politicians of all political persuasions to make a clear distinction between refugees seeking asylum as opposed to other forms of migration. This is to ensure that the interests of refugees and asylum seekers are not confused with those of other migrants. Confusion of this kind can only dilute the rights of our clients as well as harden public opinion against them.
In these meetings we have been asked for our views on an amnesty. Our position is consistent; we do not support a blanket amnesty. Whilst some other agencies have promoted an amnesty as a way forward we strongly believe that this runs counter to the best interests of our clients. It conflicts with our other positions i.e. that excellent decision making is crucial, that we must build public confidence in the asylum process, and that our clients must be distinguished from other migrants. A very public amnesty can only damage these important goals.
Refugee Action would never align ourselves in a party political way. However, it is important we hold consistent positions that we regard as being in the best interests of our clients.
I hope this goes some way to answering your questions. Thank you once again for your support.
Sara Ayech
Campaigns Officer
Surely Britain cannot go on supporting the world’s waifs and strays? The British people are under enormous financial and social pressures in the current economic climate caused by the last Labour Government. We are having to face cuts in services which we already pay for right across the board, from NHS to education etc etc. We don’t want to see all our green belt land concreted over to house the immigrant masses from the third world, most of whom are simply wanting to come here for an easier life, why should we accept this? Do you really think they would give us sanctuary? Please also explain to me why people travel through 10 or more “safe” countries before they arrive in Britain to claim asylum? You know that the rules laid down by the United Nations are being flouted and abused. The BNP are perfectly correct in saying that there are no “legal” asylum seekers in the UK, there are’nt. The BNP or UKIP are’nt racist, the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are the racists, racist in regard to their “OWN” people, the BRITISH. We have been betrayed and I can’t wait for the day when the BNP do take power for they surely will, then they will redress the balance. I really would like to hear your comments on my views.
Carl,
I will take your points as you mention them.
“Britain supportign the worlds waifs and strays”…The Uk is home to less than 3% of the worlds refugees and the vast majority (80%+) are actually looked after by countries that cant afford it, developing countries like Pakistan and Iran. Your comment is something that is used by many but it simply isnt true. Figures i have given you are official UN figures if you have any different ones please share them with us and try not to use anything from the Daily Mail.
The cuts/economy etc…It has been proven that immigrants actually pay into the economy MORE than they take! the NHS is reliant on doctors and nurses from overseas and without them our NHS will fall apart.
I guess the question is do you think that the UK should protect people from persecution, torture and murder. If you don’t then I guess that there isnt really much point in arguing or trying to make you understand.
Carl, your comment suggests that you think that Britain is a soft-touch and that we have more Asylum Seekers and Refugees than other “safe” countries – in fact we have only 2.5% of the worlds refugees and asylum seekers here!
It’s ridiculous to suggest that people are simply coming here for an easier life… these people are escaping from atrocities such as war, rape and torture – can you even imagine if such things were inflicted upon British people, would you not seek sanctuary in another country where you would be protected?! Of course you would.
Your attitude is selfish and narrow minded, and I would encourage you to read up on the facts surrounding Asylum Seekers and Refugees – they are often educated people who are not allowed to work, but who volunteer their skills and contribute a great deal to our communities.
Here am I, a British person, wondering who I would like to live next to and the only obvious answer that springs to my head is – “Not you Carl”. I am afraid that the myth you are trading on is that there is a homogenous British identity and that we have homogenous views on race and nationality, that everything is filtered through the lens of our Britishness. Sorry to disappoint but it’s just not the case.
As to the debate on whether the organisations you mention are racist. In a sense, who cares what illusions their supporters labour under or what gloss of respectability you like to cloak your fondly held prejudices. If it waddles and quacks it’s a duck.
I know I will regret getting involved but sometimes, in however small a way, and as a British person you have to say “not in my name”.
It is important to get the terminology correct: immigrants from illegal immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees.
Could you clarify what you mean by the fact that asylum seekers are not “legal”. People who come to the UK and present themselves to the authorities as seeking asylum, are legally “asylum seekers” and allowed to remain here until their asylum claim has been checked by the home office. That as far as I understand it is the law. If they do not present themselves to the authorities then they are illegal immigrants and breaking the law. Once the home office has approved the claims for asylum they are given refugee status and leave to remain in the country for a specified amount of time. They then have the same rights as any UK citizen.
It is a very tough system to get through, with rigorous checks on the asylum claim. I have met and read about many refugees and many have fled their countries under very difficult circumstances, leaving behind family and friends. Many have been tortured. To say that they are just coming for an easy life in my opinion does not reflect the harrowing experiences of most refugees The majority would rather be in their own country with their families but cannot be there because their lives would be at risk.
In my opinion it is vital to distinguish between immigrants who are possibly seeking an “easier life” (although this is a completely different debate) and asylum seekers and refugees who are here because their lives are threatened. Please do not confuse the two. It is a basic human right to not be killed or tortured. Are you saying you don’t agree with this, which in my opinion is one of the things that makes us fundamentally human beings and distinguishes us from animals?
Finally if you separate immigrants from asylum seekers and refugees and look at the figures, they represent very small numbers (you would have to check actual figures) and this whole area is very misrepresented in the press. The majority of refugees are also highly skilled people (this too is a fact, which is on the refugee action website) who are desperate to work. I have mentored two refugees over the last couple of years, one a doctor and one a trained engineer. Both have been desperate to work, one now has three children who are training to be doctors in the UK NHS and the other refused to take income support, studied for university entrance whilst holding down a full down job to pay for his rent. These are anecdotes obviously, but talking to other people reflect the usual attitude of asylum seekers and refugees. Don’t believe everything you read in newspapers.
And to re-iterate I am not commenting on the general issue of immigration, am trying to separate this from asylum and refugee status.
I hope this helps, would like to hear your comments on this too
I think most of Carl’s points have been accurately commented on, but I’d just like to try an answer to this question he asked:
“Do you really think they would give us sanctuary?”
As someone, presumably, who holds a UK passport, you are free to visit almost every country in the world for a small visa fee, and you can go and live in or visit anywhere in Europe for free. For people from many developing countries, visiting the West even as a tourist is extremely difficult and visas are often rejected.
There is no doubt that the countries from which most asylum seekers come from – Afghanistan, Iraq, DRC, Somalia, etc – would be happy to have you live there. Perhaps you should go – it might open your eyes to the suffering and persecution you’ve avoided because you were lucky enough to be born in the UK.
Hi Carl
Welcome to the refugee action blog, where comment is free however ill-informed, inaccurate or offensive.
I notice how easy it is for someone to make a remark based on fear, prejudice and misinformation and then for everyone else to run around doing all the work to demonstrate why the remark’s untrue while the original speaker / writer sits around with a cuppa- are you a politician, by any chance?
With the help of information people have already posted, could you do some of the work here, Carl? Could you take each statement you’ve made and prove it? (tip: saying “The BNP says … ” doesn’t constitute proof). Could you show us that you understand the legislative framework that defines asylum seekers / refugees / immigrants (most of whom, to this country, are white european) / illegal immigrants? Could you say a bit more about the idea that people who stroll over to the UK on a whim to holiday in a detention centre are looking for an easier life, as you put it? Could you explain what you mean by the word british? I’ve got a sneaking suspicion you may be confusing complicated concepts like nationality and skin colour, but I’m not sure what it is you’re actually saying so I’ll look forward to you coming back to the Refugee Action blog to explain a bit more about these bullet point statements you seem to believe have some basis in fact – let’s hear it then, Carl. You’ll be welcome to visit your local Refugee ACtion centre as one of your sources of information but you may need to ring first – comment is free but some people who are in the middle of their luxury hoildays here may not want to make the time to pop in from their fre council hose with swimming pool & 24 hour waiter service to chat to you.
We’ll all look forward to hearing back, Carl
ignorance is bliss, perhaps, but no excuse
Carl -
You seem to be only looking at the immigration challenge through a British lens, which is understandable, but it is a global issue with a multifaceted set of problems we must overcome.
Simplifying it down to just ‘a burden on the UK’ doesn’t help anyone but the British, and if you revel in selfish me-me-me attitudes and governments that reflect that, then the BNP is certainly for you.
“Surely Britain cannot go on supporting the world’s waifs and strays?”
Your language is highly loaded. Asylum seekers are not merely strays. They are destitute people who have fled persecution. That’s a very clinical way of saying, for example, they faced ethnically-charged violence in their hometown and ran away to avoid being killed, or, they faced almost certain death by honour-killing because their family accidently found out they were lesbian, or, recent armed conflict had obliterated their town, their livestock, their farm, everything, and they need to find sanctuary elsewhere to start rebuilding their life. A ‘stray’ with no good reason to seek sanctuary in the UK would be turned away.
“We don’t want to see all our green belt land concreted over to house the immigrant masses from the third world”
I don’t like the idea of Green Belt land being built on as much as you do, and I’m sure it make the original instigators of the Green Belt concept weep, but blaming it all on immigration is unfair. It must be down to general population growth. And what proportion of general population growth is down to immigration? I suspect it is not as much as you think it is.
The point is, the UK doesn’t harbour a significantly higher number of refugees than others nations. If there is an increase in immigration, it isn’t necessarily down to the UK being ‘too soft’, it could be down to the fact that there are a lot of conflicts raging at the time. No prizes for guessing that immigration of people from Iraq and Afghanistan went through the roof in recent years.
” Please also explain to me why people travel through 10 or more “safe” countries before they arrive in Britain to claim asylum?”
Asylum seekers often have to travel under urgent circumstances to flee [sometimes immediate] danger, taking whatever option is available at the time. It’s not always as simple as hopping on a bus, plane or train and stopping off wherever you fancy.
Although in some cases it is best for the asylum seeker to settle in the nearest safe country, in most cases this is not possible. Incidentally, what we perceive to be the nearest safe country may have particular restrictions on allowing asylum seekers within its borders.
If someone has paid a smuggler to quickly get then away from danger, then that smuggler has full control over where that person goes to – they may pass through other countries that they could’ve stopped off at, but chose not to for unknown reasons. In that case, it’s not the asylum seekers fault.
Research that backs me up: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/news/archive/press/2010/January/14012010_a
However, I suspect that they meant something entirely different.
” The BNP or UKIP are’nt racist”
They spread myths about immigration which you have swallowed whole. Take a moment to peel your eyes away from the Daily Mail and read something independent, then form your own opinion. Don’t be brainwashed.