Researchers in Swansea find failed asylum seekers driven to destitution
mdchuddsuk
Researchers in Swansea find failed asylum seekers driven to destitution
South Wales Evening Post, Jason Evans, 12 February 2011
FAILED asylum seekers are being forced to choose between destitution in the UK or persecution at home, according to researchers in Swansea. A new report by Swansea University's Centre for Migration Policy Research, and the charity Oxfam, paints a grim picture of daily life for those whose applications to stay in Britain have been turned down. http://bit.ly/hhDQLE
Researchers in Swansea find failed asylum seekers driven to destitution
By jason evans
FAILED asylum seekers are being forced to choose between destitution in the UK or persecution at home, according to researchers in Swansea.
A new report by Swansea University's Centre for Migration Policy Research, and the charity Oxfam, paints a grim picture of daily life for those whose applications to stay in Britain have been turned down.
Heaven Crawley, professor of international migration at the university, said: "This research gives us a rare insight into what life is like for refused asylum seekers in the UK and shows that there is a deep-rooted lack of faith in the current system.
"Forcing people to live in destitution is not a humane solution, nor does it lead to them returning voluntarily to their country of origin."
The report is based on interviews with 45 current or former asylum seekers, who talked about their experiences and those of their friends.
Findings
Among the findings are that many asylum seekers are destitute and spend their days wandering the streets because they have nowhere to go; they are vulnerable to crime and exploitation; many suffer from ill-health; and that some are forced into the sex trade in order to survive.
Asylum seekers normally receive government accommodation and £35.52 a week in cash. But most whose applications are refused are left without support or anywhere to live, and are often taken in by fellow refugees or find themselves sleeping rough.
The report notes that almost a third of refused asylum cases are overturned on appeal, which the authors say highlights the "poor quality" of the decision-making
Kate Smart from the Welsh Refugee Council said some of experiences of asylum seekers were terrible.
She said: "We need to give their stories the credibility they deserve.
"People are coming here from dangerous countries like the Congo, Iraq or Zimbabwe. Wales is a welcoming country where people value peace — and accepting people from war-torn countries is very much in keeping with that tradition. They should be allowed to stay, and start on the road to citizenship."
Comments (43)
- "Phew! Quite a few comments there One Post Wonder."
I was addressing all the points you made to me?
"...I do have the official stats (and you can see them too). They are not entirely complete but they are the best we have..."
I've never disputed that - I'm just saying they are not fit as evidence to support your contention if they do not include sham marrages, absconders, fraud, etc.
Surely any thorough analysis wouldn't omit material facts?
One Post Wonder, Swansea
Observer, Neath
- understand your point, but I have a rhetorical question: If the nation does reject a genuine asylum seeker is not true that we do in fact 'share the same mentality as the oppressors'? And by a genuine asylum seeker, I mean someone like a Somalian torture victim who would risk almost certain death if sent home."
I'm assuming there is an error in your post...should read: "...reject a genuine asylum seeker is IT not true..."
To answer you question: No, it's not a valid comparison as the Nazis deliberately set out to persecute the Jews whereas a refusal of asylum is not a deliberate persecution. For example: pirates attack an unarmed ship and throw several people overboard - a small boat is passing and takes on some survivors but cannot take them all as the boat will sink. Is the captain of the small boat as guilty as the pirates for the situation?
That is the argument you make to support your contention.
One Post Wonder, Swansea
1/ "...in an earlier post you asked me to quote the figures I was enwuiring about..." I didn't ask you to quote anything. I was responding to your comment: "Also - can anyone tell me how many asylum seekers there are in Swansea? And how many of those are housed by Swansea Council? Anyone have the figures or have an idea of the numbers?"
Why were you asking others to provide the data when you were capable of providing it yourself?
2/ "I'm quoting the official stats; yes, I'm sure there are illegal guys too but - understandably - they do not figure in the stats..."
Why is it understandable? Isn't it misleading?
3/ "Are you saying that you would refuse a genuine asylum applicant on the basis that there were already illegal people in the country? Hardly fair on the genuine applicant is it?"
No - I'm not saying that at all, it comes from your imagination; in fact I stated the contrary earlier in the thread.
4/ "And yes applications depend on events that happen outside the control of this country. But the stats I quoted (at your request) are the official stats and there the government does have some control - at our borders. If you look at them you will see that - quite rightly - many people (the majority of applicants) are refused asylum. I don't suppose they ALL then go on the run but I don't have any figures, of course."
If you don't have the figures then how can you be right?
5/"Tell me One Post Wonder, what would your decision have been on the Iranian lawyer who defended the lady who was due to be stoned. He went to Sweden (by plane, so first safe country he got to I think). The regime then arrested his wife and family. Would you have sent him back had he got on a flight to Heathrow?"
No - why would you suggest I would? Is it that you are attempting to smear my character by innuendo as your argument cannot stand in it's own right?
6/ "As usual with complex issues its much more than a simple 'black or white' answer (no pun intended). I'm just btrying to tease out some of the underlying issues; you don't have to agree with me or post a response, of course."
IMO you're not trying to tease out any underlying issues - you're trying to mischaracterise posters with reasonable concerns as your argument is bankrupt.
One Post Wonder, Swansea
- posts, rather condescendingly I thought, quote "I feel that Swansea has been enriched by the immigrant populations, and is a far more interesting city as a result of the influx of foreign cultures" !!....
I wonder if you would think the same way if you just happened to have been born and brought up as a native of one of the communities such as Sandfields or Hafod, or had an old established business on Sheikh Abu Hamza Street, formally known as St.Helens Road, instead of residing in the quiet leafy idyll of The Mayals?. I imagine that you just pop up to those enriched places on St.Helens Road once a month for a quick 'curry and culture' before hurrying back to Mayals for your cocoa? Would you or your neighbours appreciate some ¿enrichment¿ in Mayals Steve? How about a colourful souq, a mosque and a few curry houses in Owls Lodge Lane..Mmmmm!...now there¿s a thought!! Not in my back yard Eh!
Galavanto, Swansea
- of your posts , rather condescendingly I thought, quote "I feel that Swansea has been enriched by the immigrant populations, and is a far more interesting city as a result of the influx of foreign cultures" ...now there¿s a thought!! Not in my back yard Eh!
Galavanto, Swansea
- say in one of your posts , rather condescendingly I thought, quote "I feel that Swansea has been enriched by the immigrant populations, and is a far more interesting city as a result of the influx of foreign cultures" ...now there¿s a thought!! Not in my back yard eh!
Galavanto, Swansea
- - in an earlier post you asked me to quote the figures I was enwuiring about. So I Googled them and placed them on here (well, just a few of them). Now I have you're asking me why I posted them. Because you asked me to?
I'm quoting the official stats; yes, I'm sure there are illegal guys too but - understandably - they do not figure in the stats. If caught they will be returned after due process of law.
Are you saying that you would refuse a genuine asylum applicant on the basis that there were already illegal people in the country? Hardly fair on the genuine applicant is it?
And yes applications depend on events that happen outside the control of this country. But the stats I quoted (at your request) are the official stats and there the government does have some control - at our borders. If you look at them you will see that - quite rightly - many people (the majority of applicants) are refused asylum. I don't suppose they ALL then go on the run but I don't have any figures, of course.
Tell me One Post Wonder, what would your decision have been on the Iranian lawyer who defended the lady who was due to be stoned. He went to Sweden (by plane, so first safe country he got to I think). The regime then arrested his wife and family. Would you have sent him back had he got on a flight to Heathrow? And - purely rhetorical - if you told him 'stay' what would your decision be in, say, 1000 other cases where people had fled to here by plane from various countries under threat of death etc?
As usual with complex issues its much more than a simple 'black or white' answer (no pun intended). I'm just btrying to tease out some of the underlying issues; you don't have to agree with me or post a response, of course.
Observer, Neath
there are no genuine asylum seekers in this country, to be a genuine asylum seeker you must claim asylum in the 1st safe country not travel over many many country's to claim it in the one you fancy and easiest ride of the back off, any thing after the 1st safe country is called migration .
Joanne, swansea
- your point, but I have a rhetorical question: If the nation does reject a genuine asylum seeker is not true that we do in fact 'share the same mentality as the oppressors'? And by a genuine asylum seeker, I mean someone like a Somalian torture victim who would risk almost certain death if sent home.
Steve, Mayals, Swansea
The fact you are failing to acknowledge is that the asylum debate is taking place against the backdrop of unprecedented mass immigration, much of it illegal.
Surely the figures you cite should include sham marriages e.g. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/01/29/sham-marriages-on-rise-in-wales-91466-28075972/
...and failed asylum seekers who have absconded or adopted fraudulent identities? 100,000s? More?
I'm not sure why you are quoting these figures anyway - they are meaningless in the sense that currently the numbers of asylum seekers is dependant on events beyond these shores and thus mostly out of UK control.
One Post Wonder, Swansea
- Wonder - Government figures for the end of 2009 show 440 asylum seekers (including their dependants) being housed by the local authority in Swansea (Cardiff had 1,030 and Newport had 230 and Wrexham 60. That seems to be it for Wales though I suppose others could be staying with family/friends).
For those who think that more or less ALL asylum seekers head for the UK as its such an 'easy touch' the per centage of asylum seeker applications (including dependants) received by GB between 2000 to 2009 - when expressed as a per centage of the total population - is 0.50.
By comparison Sweden had 2.6%, Malta had 5.77%, Austria 1.89%, Belgium 1.82%, Cyprus 2.98%, and there are lots of other countries affected including even tiny Luxembourg which had 1.01%. Not sure how many were approved without digging in even deeper, though.
Here is a link to lots of stats on Immigration and asylum issues:
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1510.pdf
You'll probably need to page down to reach the asylum stuff. Makes interesting reading.
.
Observer, Neath
- claims to be ¿tough on immigration¿ is a complete charade, with recent revelations (Oct.2010) that in excess of 8,000 ¿failed asylum seekers' are being granted permission to stay in Britain every month! In the report, the Home Office said that special rules had so far allowed more than 135,000 'failed asylum seekers' to legally take up residence in Britain.
When their dependents are added in, the total figure of 'asylum seekers' whose claims have been rejected, but who can now live in Britain and claim housing & benefits of all descriptions, could be as high as 240,000!!
Surely asylum seekers in desperation would seek refuge in the first safe country bordering their home nation.¿why suffer the traumas and hardships of crossing seas & several safe countries just to arrive in Britain¿.I wonder?
Am I wrong to think this is unsustainable and wholly unacceptable? I¿m not against the concept of asylum per se, there are many instances when it is the decent British thing to do, but when they do not meet the set criteria for admittance, they must be deported as quickly and as humanely as possible.
Galavanto, Swansea
- , Mayals: "...I feel that Observer, Neath is merely asking questions that can add a dimension to the debate."
Fact: Observer is drawing a direct comparison between people who would, hypothetically, not give refuge to women and children during WW2 and opposition to other asylum seekers. The subtext is that if you do not support asylum seekers you share the same mentality as the oppressors. Mean trick.
Example: There are currently circa 600 war criminals in the UK whose whereabouts are unaccounted for; would it be fair if I drew a comparison between support for asylum seekers and support for war criminals?
Regarding statistics: there are no reliable statistics and people are just waking up to the implications of the loss of goverment control of immigration. Quite naturally and reasonably people do not want their indigenous values superceded by vastly different values. This is the backdrop to universities report; not an issue created by concerned citizens but by the failure of an immigration experiment that has excluded indigenous culture - hence Cameron's speech.
One Post Wonder, Swansea
- post wonders 35.52 a week in benefits and free accomadation-obviously with free heating too
why do they give them cash why not give them food vouchers
these"failed" asylam seekers are doing very nicely thankyou,and working in the fields picking spuds to boot too
british 17- 18year olds on the dole have around 30 pound a week and have look after their self with that amount
look after your own before taking in the waifes of the world
leonard, townhill
- st Wonder: Thanks for the link to Godwin¿s Law. It is an interesting observation. However, I feel that Observer, Neath is merely asking questions that can add a dimension to the debate.
Some people, for example, are against admitting asylum seekers on the basis of preserving British culture. Another person could validly argue that British culture is one that traditionally allows in people from countries where lives are in danger ¿ such as the Jews in World War II ¿ or, as Observer, mentions a refugee fleeing torture in Somali. And, to deny these people access to safety would be a betrayal of this British value.
However, others may feel that the demands of certain cultures/religions do not bind well with British traditions ¿ such as equal rights for women, freedom of speech etc - and therefore they deem mass immigration of people from such cultures as a threat. This problem definitely needs to be addressed; otherwise tensions on the streets (such as the recent protests in Luton) will rise.
Basically, we need calm heads to examine the situation rationally. Like Observer, Neath, I would also like to know actually how many asylum seekers there are in Swansea that are housed by the council. My gut feeling is that is probably far less than is perceived by many people. Likewise, on a different thread, I read some tabloid quotes figures stating how much the government spends on immigrants, but there was a noticeable lack of figures on how much these people pump into the national economy ¿ remember that many immigrants come from cultures with a strong work ethic ¿ particularly Chinese ¿ and it is unlikely that these people will adopt the British habit of sitting back and picking up the dole cheque year after year. It is to all our benefit to make wise choices. Therefore, we should publicize complete sets of information, not only those that validate one side of an argument. Nothing is black and white ¿ immigration issues are likewise multi shades.
Personally, I think both sides of the fence ¿ the anti-immigration lobby and the immigrants need to be aware of each other¿s position. At the moment, I feel that this is not happening. If, as a nation, we fail to admit a Somalian child who has been tortured and risks certain death when returning to his country, then I feel we may have secured our borders, but at the cost of becoming a soulless people that lack even the most basic sense of humanity. However, there is no doubt that we do need to protect our national security and cannot be a destination for an endless stream of people who may not share our common values and only wish to move here for economic benefits. Likewise, the immigrants that do settle to the UK need to realize that this country is a democracy and, that while a certain tolerance and flexibility exists, it is the sentiments of majority that rules, not the those of the minority. Therefore, they should not in any way try to impose values or institutions that conflict with the ideals of the majority. If they cannot accept this, then I feel that they should seriously consider moving to a place where their values are a norm and are acceptable to the majority.
Anyway, I am just throwing out ideas. Personally, I thoroughly enjoy living in multi-cultural societies. One thing I particular love about New York is that while it is truly a US city, it still allows a variety of different cultures to thrive, such as in China Town or Little Italy. The city would be cultural far poorer without these enclaves. Likewise, I feel that Swansea has been enriched by the immigrant populations, and is a far more interesting city as a result of the influx foreign cultures and especially the foreign cuisine. Yet, I can totally understand that some people will feel safer in communities that share the ideals espoused their ancestors, and in particular feel threaten by people that do not share or even oppose our basic ideals. There is much room for debate.
Steve, Mayals, Swansea
- "...given enough time, in any online discussion¿regardless of topic or scope¿ someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Also: Why can't you provide the data on asylum seekers?
A couple of questions: if there was a train load of Jewish men, women and children waiting in France in 1939 to come over the channel to Britain would you want to let them in? Why is, say, a Somali refugee a lot different? Only a rhetorical question, of course.
Also - can anyone tell me how many asylum seekers there are in Swansea? And how many of those are housed by Swansea Council? Anyone have the figures or have an idea of the numbers?
Observer, Neath
there is allways an agenda with british government whoever is in
the more people they cram into this tiny island the more taxes for the coffer's
as simple as that where they house them all is another problem
derrick, Llanelli
- social-engineering through mass-immigration, and utopian ideas of multi-cultural harmony will never work. This basic truth has finally been publically admitted by our Prime Minister yesterday at an international conference on national security in Germany. In a barely-concealed attack on the opposition, he said: ¿It¿s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past"¿.Is this man real?....He has tacitly supported these failed marxist policies by failing to act sooner and as promised in his pre-election campaign¿..It is now way past time Mr.Cameron! ¿and time is running out!
"The Prime Minister also hit out at Labour¿s experiment with multiculturalism ¿ calling it a failure. He says society has failed to provide a strong sense of what it means to be British, making it easier for extremists to prey on youngsters seeking something to identify with.
He added: ¿We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values".
I had to read this article in The Daily Mail several times to reassure myself that I was not hallucinating! Maybe, at last...The penny has dropped
Galavanto, Swansea
- I wonder why they (Government) forced such ludicrous policies onto the British people.
Some have said they have an agenda; that they want racial tensions within the United Kingdom. I'm beginning to think the conspiracy theory might be fact, because they have deeply offended the hospitable people of this country: why?
Heather, Mumbles
- 45 current or former asylum seekers, who talked about their experiences and those of their friends."
Extensive research then.?
Paul, Gorseinon
- , I¿m sure Ms. Smart will be the last one standing on Snowdons summit as Wales sinks slowly into the Irish sea under the sheer weight of all the imported humanity! But like a true lady captain in her pink sailor-suit, I¿m sure she¿ll be happy to go down with the good ship Cymru! While singing The International,with the red flag flying defiantly as she slips gently beneath the waves.
Prof.Galavanto, Swansea
- Kate Smart wont be satisfied until the whole world resides here! Rather than have a study of the living conditions of failed asylum seekers lets have a study of why these people are still here. No appeals and straight back to where they came from. Most are economic migrants anyway who know Britain is a soft touch!
Swivaldo, Swansea
Please look up the definition of racist. this may help you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
None of the comments here are in anyway racist.
People are concerned that the UK has become a soft touch for those from poorer countries in the world to claim asylum and therefore improve their life.
Nothing wrong with that in principle and perhaps those who are in agreement with you would be prepared to pay a voluntary tax. This could be used to keep those that you approve of in the style that they require.
For those like myself as this tax is voluntary I am opting out.
I am paying enough tax to keep lazy feckless UK born residents in style without importing benefit claimants.
Nobody here deseves to be called racist, perhaps we should be referred to as protectors of the public purse.
bill richards, llangennech
- west ,how we wecomed the vietnemease boat people. They all lived in one of the childrens homes. We even donated food. Everyone of them,over time,began working,opening restaurants,helping others. It isnt like that now.
Prof.Galavanto, University Of Life, Swansea You sound a good laugh
douglas, clydach
commented on 05-Feb-2011 09:53
--
Isaac H. Dziya
MBA(SPM), MSc(GSCM),
FCIPS, FInstL, FCILT,
B.SC. Economics,
BSc Property Management,Cert Ed1
ARICS +447719618637