Devon Patriot

Devon & Cornwall Refugee Support Council - Is it a Tax-payer Funded Organization Intended to Promote the Politically-Correct Indoctrination of Our Youth

        I recently gave tuition to a student teacher from Plymouth University.  After the lesson we talked for a while about her course in general, and it soon became apparent that the course has a very politically-correct curriculum.  One official lecture they attended was on asylum seekers and refugees given by the Devon & Cornwall Refugee Support Council (DCRSC) in which the students were informed of the myths and truths concerning refugees.  What was given in the lecture was nothing more than left-wing propaganda intended to indoctrinate the students with political-correct dogma, and leave them with a feeling of guilt that they were not doing enough to help asylum seekers.  I later went on to the DCRSC website where a copy of the presentation handout for the lecture could be found, and after reading it in detail it was apparent that it was all fibs, lies and statistics (to use the original quote).

I wrote a letter to DCRSC outlining the inaccuracies in their lecture notes; as expected they failed to reply.  What follows is a copy of their lecture note, with my comments high-lighted in purple text.

PRESENTATION HANDOUT

THE FACTS ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS IN PLYMOUTH

Who are they?

Men, women and children escaping from crises all over the world.  In Plymouth the biggest number are Kurdish people, mainly from Iraq. There are also people from Iran, Afghanistan and the Balkans as well as many African countries.

They are people fleeing failed states for a better life in Europe or other Western nations where an affluent life-style can be achieved free from chaos.

Are refugees the same as asylum seekers?

All people fleeing their country of birth are refugees. Refugees are described as asylum seekers while they are awaiting official recognition as defined by the United Nations.

Whether refugee or asylum seeker; they are all in reality economic migrants seeking a better life elsewhere.

Why do they come here?

They are escaping persecution, death or devastation in their home country. In 1951 Britain and many other countries signed up to the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees. This gives us responsibilities to offer sanctuary to people fleeing persecution.

There is very little evidence to suggest that any of these refugees were likely to be subjected to persecution, as most of them could have found a safe haven within their own countries.

How many stay here?

In the year 2001 a total of 71,700 people applied for asylum in the UK. This is equivalent to 0.14% of the UK population. During the same year 30,470 people were granted permission to stay here.

The numbers only include those that applied for asylum; it does not include other illegal immigrants whose number is much greater.

MYTHS AND TRUTHS ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS

Myth 1:          “Britain takes more than its fair share of refugees”

Facts:

·         Figures for 2002 show that 110,700 people (including the dependents of main applicants) applied for asylum. In per capita terms this meant that the UK received far fewer applications than most other Western European countries, ranking eighth after Austria, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Luxembourg and Belgium. The political numbers game around asylum belies the fact that the UK has a duty under international law to receive, rather than deter, all asylum claims made on its territory.

Using the asylum per capita as a justification for Britain to accept more refugees is totally dishonest.  Practically all of these so called refugees pass through many safe countries, such as Turkey, Egypt, to quote a few; so why do they persist in their travels to reach Britain and other western European Countries? 

·         Fluctuations in numbers seeking asylum in the UK reflect increases in conflict and persecution around the world – figures for 2002 show that the largest numbers of asylum seekers came from Iraq, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Somalia – all countries with undisputed records of human rights abuses and conflict. Whilst the numbers of asylum seekers from Iraq and Zimbabwe increased sharply due to a rise in persecution in these countries, in countries where there were ceasefires or stabilisation of situations, such as Sri Lanka, the numbers fell significantly.

These countries may be failed states, but it is not Britain’s responsibility to bail them out by taking in their refugees.  There are countries much nearer to them in which temporary sanctuary may be sought, such as Syria, South Africa, Iran, and Kenya – why do they have to travel thousands of miles to seek temporary safety?

·         It is developing countries that host the largest share of the world’s refugees, although they often lack the material resources and stability that the UK enjoys. In Africa alone there are 8 million refugees and many millions more who are internally displaced. Guinea, a country with a population of 7 million, is currently home to 3 million Sierra Leonean and 150,000 Liberian refugees. Pakistan hosts over 3.3 million refugees and asylum seekers.

In all cases these are countries adjacent to the nation from which the refugees fled.  That is how it should be in accordance with the UN definition of a safe haven for any asylum seeker.  Britain gives much aid to these countries, so it is correct that these nations should offer temporary sanctuary for these refugees.

Myth 2:          “Refugees should be deported back to where they came from”

Facts:

·         Central to international refugee law is the principle that no-one should be sent back to a country where they would risk persecution or torture. This is called the principle of non-refoulement. Only when an asylum seeker has gone through a fair and thorough decision process and received a negative result, should they be returned to their country of origin.  In certain cases, even if an asylum seeker does not meet the full refugee criteria, there may be pressing humanitarian or human rights reasons why it would be dangerous to send them home.

It is a known fact that Britain is a soft-touch concerning asylum seekers; hence, it is the destination of choice for economic refugees as they know that once in our country it is practically impossible to deport them.   There is much money to be made by dragging asylum cases through the courts so it is in a lawyer’s best interest to prolong the legal process, so increasing his income.  Many judges are more interested in satisfying their own vanity than serving the interests of the British people; hence, we have many cases in which judges wilfully defy or pervert the laws passed by the elected representatives of the people in parliament merely to boost their own ego.   

·         The UK Government proposes the establishment of special ‘regional protection zones’ to contain refugees and asylum seekers in their regions of origin. It is not yet clear whether asylum seekers arriving in the UK would also be deported back to these processing zones. Oxfam’s wide experience of working in refugee-producing areas of the world leads us to have very grave concerns about the practicability of providing refugees with genuine, safe and lasting protection in these ‘zones’. By seeking to divert asylum seekers from making their claims within the UK, the Government would undermine our international obligation to receive asylum claims and displace the responsibility onto poorer countries which are less able to cope.

The concept of Regional Protection Zones is a very good idea, and DCRSC should be supportive of the Government on this issue.  The Government would in no way undermine its obligations – the fact is that these obligations are already being broken as the refugees pass through many safe countries to get to Britain.  It would be good for poorer counties to accept these refugees as they have an abundance of space to house these people at low cost in climates that suits their natural environment.  Britain is full, and cannot sustain any increase in population without causing immense damage to the environment and social cohesion of our country.  

·         Most refugees actively want to return to their homes and countries – if and when it is safe for them to do so. Most South Africans and Chileans who fled to Britain in the 1970s repatriated as soon as they were able.

In the 1970s Britain did not suffer the scale of today’s asylum seekers and what little refugees there were could be absorbed into our society with very little negative impact.  Not all South African refugees have returned – we still give residence to that dreadful Peter Hain.

Myth 3:          “Asylum seekers receive massive state handouts”

Facts:

·         Asylum seekers receive benefits below the basic benefits level.  A single adult receives only £37.77 per week in addition to accommodation and utilities – this is around 30% below the basic level of Income Support for a UK citizen, which is generally considered as the minimum level of income necessary to maintain an acceptable standard of living. Those with additional needs (such as pregnant women, families with young children, people with disabilities, victims of torture and the elderly) are also not entitled to additional special needs provisions or ‘passported’ benefits on the same terms as UK citizens.

Now £37.77 may seem very little, but when one considers that they get fully furnished housing, complete with rates, electricity, water, gas, telephone calls and TV all for free, then £37.77 is ample to live on.   In fact there are many indigenous British people who do not have that amount of disposable income after paying out for essentials like rent, rates, water, gas, travel to work etc.  

·         According to a Reader’s digest Mori Poll (November 2000), most people also overestimate the amount of financial support received by asylum seekers, believing that they receive on average over £110 per week – nearly three times the actual amount.

If the cost of housing, TV and telephone are included; then £110 per week is a gross under-estimate of the actual financial support received by asylum seekers.

·         Section 55 of the new UK Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 states that, asylum seekers who do not make their application ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ after arrival are not eligible for any support, even if destitute – leaving many asylum seekers without any food or shelter. Yet there are very valid reasons why applicants do not apply upon arrival. For example, many are not familiar with the application procedures, and may fear that making an application while still at a port is likely to lead to immediate deportation. Trauma, language difficulties or lack of legal advice can also delay applications. Following a High Court hearing in February 2003, the Home Office was required to re-write its procedures to take greater account of the individual circumstances of asylum seekers and the difficulties they may face in claiming asylum. However, refugee organizations remain deeply concerned that large numbers will be refused all support and rendered destitute under Section 55.

To say that many refugees are not classed as asylum seekers because they failed to register their application ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ is truly preposterous.  There is a whole army of lawyers in this country engaged within the immigration industry, with the sole purpose of extracting money from the tax-payer.  Immigration officials are even instructed to ensure that any immigrant is legally represented at tax-payers expense.  The immigration system in this country is there to serve the interest of lawyers and the judiciary who generate much wealth and prestige for themselves by prolonging immigrant cases through a chain of court cases and appeals at considerable expense to the tax-payer. 

·         A joint 2002 study by Oxfam and the Refugee Council, ‘Poverty and Asylum in the UK’, showed that many asylum seekers experienced extreme poverty even before the introduction of Section 55. In reply to a questionnaire sent to refugee assisting organisations across Britain, 85% reported that asylum seekers experience hunger, 95% reported that asylum seekers could not afford to buy shoes or clothes, and 80% that their clients were not able to maintain good health.

Well what do they expect?  If they are hard up and need shoes and clothes, there are plenty of charity shops where good garments can be purchased at extremely low prices – just like the indigenous population have to do during hard times.  As for going hungry, a person can eat quite adequately on £37.77 a week with money to spare – as most people do.

·         Many asylum seekers have a strong desire to work and professional skills and experience to contribute at all levels of the UK economy. However, under UK policy they are prohibited from working to support themselves and their families while their claim is being decided.

There is currently mass unemployment within Britain, so it is right and just that indigenous Britons are given priority over immigrants when jobs become available.  Currently immigrants are taking most of the jobs that become available, leaving indigenous Britons to rely on welfare to survive.

Myth 4:          “Asylum seekers are taking our housing and ‘swamping’ our public services”

Facts:

·         Under international refugee law and international, European and UK human rights law, asylum seekers have a right to basic health care and education.

That may well be the case if they were genuine asylum seekers, but the fact that practically all of them passed through safe countries to get to Britain invalidates any claim for asylum.  Furthermore, any healthcare received should be basic; the minimum to preserve life.  Similarly, education received should be basic and not include further education.

·         Once granted refugee status or leave to remain, refugees make an important contribution to public services both as professionals and as taxpayers. For example refugee doctors, nurses and dentists help to address the severe staff shortages in the NHS. Home Office research has also shown that in 1999/2000, migrants – including refugees - contributed £31.2 billion in taxes while consuming £28.8 billion in benefits and services.

This is out-of-date data.  The overwhelming majority do not make a contribution to society and in most cases (such a Somalians) are unemployable.  Even those that do get employment do so at the expense of the indigenous population who then have to live off welfare payments at tax-payers expense.

·         Under the ‘dispersal scheme’ introduced under the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act, asylum seekers are sent to regions around the UK to relieve the burden on the South-east of England. They are sent to areas with existing available accommodation - often those with surplus housing which local authorities are unable to otherwise fill. However, although housing availability is an important factor, other considerations must be taken into account to make dispersal work and to prevent the local tensions that have occurred in certain areas. These include the presence of adequate legal, social and material support structures, the dispersal of certain nationalities to areas with a pre-existing nationality/ethnic/language community, adequate preparation of receiving communities and consideration of the needs of those communities.

The fact is that Britain is grossly over-populated, with insufficient housing for the indigenous population without including the multitude of unwanted immigrants invading our shores.  By giving priority of scarce housing to asylum seekers, indigenous Britons are being denied adequate housing; so are unable to raise families in an environment that their parents experienced.  As for housing asylum seekers in locations where there are settled communities of similar nationals; this is just creating ghettos that does nothing to encourage the immigrants to integrate.      

Myth 5:          “Only a handful of asylum-seekers are genuine – the rest are ‘bogus’ or ‘cheats’”

Facts:

·         Home Office statistics for 2002 showed that 34% of asylum seekers received permission to stay in the UK after their initial application, and that 22% of initially rejected cases were overturned at appeal stage. The total number of people being granted protection – either full refugee status or Humanitarian Status (formerly Exceptional Leave to Remain) has increased by 25% since 2001.

The fact is that all of these asylum seekers passed through safe countries to get to the UK; consequently they are not genuine asylum seekers, but economic refugees.  The reason so many are given refugee status is the fact that compared to other countries our judges are so liberal in their assessment that it is common knowledge with bogus refugees that Britain is a soft touch, 

·         The definition of a refugee under the 1951 Convention and according to its interpretation by the UK, contains a very specific set of criteria. An asylum seeker must be able to prove that s/he is “someone who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.  The fact that an asylum seeker may not meet these criteria does not mean that they deliberately set out to ‘cheat' the system.

The fact is there is no way of verifying what an immigrant says is true; consequently they are given the benefit of any doubt which is open to abuse by the immigrants and their lawyers.  Immigration officers admit that in over 95% of cases the immigrant is lying, but unless they have firm proof of untruthfulness, they have no option but to accept the immigrant’s version of events. 

Myth 6:          “Refugees come to the UK to abuse its generous benefits system because they know it is a ‘soft touch’”

Facts:

·         Many asylum seekers do not have a choice where they flee to – often they are in the hands of traffickers and have little knowledge of their destination. However Home Office commissioned research shows that where asylum seekers do choose to come to the UK, it is because of colonial, family, language or other links. For example, the UK receives a large proportion of Sri Lankan asylum seekers whilst France receives Algerians. Asylum seekers often have no information about the asylum system and many do not even know that they can access welfare benefits at all.

Clearly, the asylum seekers paid the trafficker’s to get them to a safe destination; so therefore that must have known where the destination was – otherwise the trafficker’s would have just dumped them in the first convenient country and run off with their money.  A Sri Lankan would have had to pass through some 15 safe countries before arriving in Britain – if they were genuinely fleeing persecution then why did they not stay in the first safe country of India?  The fact that these asylum seekers chose to pay a trafficker to get them to Britain clearly indicates that they are not genuine, but are economic migrants seeking a land of free hand-outs and welfare. 

·         Refugees come to the UK because they are fleeing violence or persecution. In 2002, the top five countries of origin for asylum seekers to the UK were Iraq, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Somalia and China - all countries with internationally recognised high levels of violence and human rights abuse.

An overwhelming majority of so-called asylum seekers have not had direct contact with violence and persecution within their own countries – if they really cared about their counties they should remain and strive to improve conditions.

Myth 7:          “Asylum seekers choose to use smugglers and traffickers to enter the country illegally”

Facts:

·         The UK and the EU are imposing ever tighter border controls to stop asylum seekers from reaching their territories. These and specific measures such as strict visa regimes, and ‘carrier’s liability’, i.e. fining airlines, lorry-drivers etc, mean that asylum seekers are being pushed into the hands of traffickers and clandestine migration as the only way of fleeing to the UK. This places these already vulnerable people at significant physical risk, as was seen in the case of the 58 Chinese immigrants who were discovered dead in a lorry at Dover in June 2000, and at risk of exploitation by their traffickers, particularly for women asylum seekers.

It is evident that the tighter immigration controls are not working and more stringent controls are needed to prevent immigrants entering Europe through Turkey or by boats via North Africa.  This must include returning all boats intercepted in the Mediterranean back to the North African country from whence they came.  Since when have immigrants from China been classed as asylum seekers?

·         Those fleeing persecution will often find themselves stripped of their documents or unable to apply for permits to travel from the very authorities that are persecuting them. Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention recognises this dilemma and prohibits governments from penalising refugees who use false documents. Despite this, the UK immigration authorities are continuing to detain asylum seekers on grounds that they have used false passports and visas to gain access to the UK.

If an immigrant uses a false identity to enter this country then he is committing a criminal offence, and should be immediately deported; either to his original country or to the nation that he used to enter the UK.   Asylum seekers often flush their documents down the aircraft lavatories so that they have no means of identification; thereby making their deportation difficult and prolonged. 

Myth 8:          “Asylum-seekers should be locked up”

Facts:

·         Under UK legislation asylum seekers can be and are detained at the discretion of immigration officers. Currently some ‘manifestly unfounded’ cases are held at specific ‘reception centres’ and rejected cases are held in pre-deportation centres. There is also a large number of asylum seekers held in mainstream prisons, nearly 800 at the end of 2002. Like other detained asylum seekers, those held in prisons have simply applied for asylum – they have committed no crime, and received no trial. There is evidence that a number of victims of torture and detention in their countries of origin are being held in mainstream UK prisons alongside convicted criminals. Although there was a government proposal to end this practice, asylum seekers continue to be sent to prisons around the country.

This is a lie!  No asylum seeker is locked up in prison unless they have committed a crime, are deemed a danger to society (i.e. Moslem fanatics), or to prevent them from absconding imminent deportation.  In fact the detention centres are nothing like prisons, but more like 5 star hotels complete with recreational facilities.  Most servicemen living in the squalor of a dormitory type barrack room would find the single room accommodation, complete with multi-channel TV, the epitome of luxury.

·         Detention of asylum seekers goes against human rights principles and against specific UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) guidelines, which state that only in exceptional circumstances should asylum seekers be detained, that they should never be held in mainstream prisons and that vulnerable groups including children should never be locked up. This clearly goes against arguments put forward by various politicians and public figures that all asylum seekers should be automatically detained on arrival.

It must be remembered that when the UN initially issued these non-mandatory ‘guidelines’ the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees were very small, and in most cases genuine.  It was never envisaged that those seeking asylum would increase to such high numbers as is currently the case, that one must question their authenticity.  There is insufficient decent housing for the indigenous population, so it is only to be expected that inexpensive accommodation would be provided for asylum seekers whose stay in the UK is only expected to be temporary.

·         Asylum seekers are not criminals, yet they receive less basic rights than prosecuted criminals. They are detained indefinitely without trial and there is no automatic independent review of their detention period.

This is yet another lie propagated by the pro-immigration lobby.   Corrupt immigration lawyers are notorious for abusing the ‘Human Rights’ laws to further an asylum seeker’s chances of remaining in the UK.  The more lawyers can prolong the legal process at tax-payer’s expense; then the more chance that the immigrant will put down roots and become settled - so making it difficult to deport him.

·         In many cases, asylum seekers may have suffered traumatising arbitrary arrests and detention by regimes in their countries of origin only to be detained on arrival in the UK. A recent study by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture revealed that a number of asylum seekers who had suffered severe torture in detention in their home countries, were being held in UK prisons – for no reason other than that they had claimed asylum.

Apart from the asylum seeker’s own account of his traumatic experiences, in practically all cases there is no factual evidence to back-up their claims.  These asylum seekers are not in prisons, but are held in secure accommodation until their claims can be verified.  

·         The Government also estimates that detaining all asylum seekers on arrival could cost £2 billion in start-up costs, with annual running costs of over £1 billion – potentially huge increases on current levels of overall spending on asylum seekers.

It may be true that the start-up cost for detaining all asylum seekers on arrival is £2 billion; but what option has the government got when an overwhelming majority of those claiming asylum are economic immigrants seeking access to free housing, healthcare, education and welfare benefits.  

Myth 9:          “Letting asylum seekers in means letting terrorists in.”

Facts:

·         The 1951 Refugee Convention explicitly excludes those who have committed a serious crime or pose a serious threat – including terrorists – from claiming asylum.

The way our Judges interpret the Human Rights Laws, a foreign criminal on entering the UK only needs to claim asylum to prevent deportation.  The foreign criminal can claim that he will not get a fair trail in his own country, and that it will be an abuse of his human rights if he were deported; he then becomes virtually impossible to deport and is a permanent burden to our society.

·         In the course of 2001, a total of over 88 million people passed through UK borders. Only around 80,000 of these were asylum seekers – the rest were visitors, tourists, students or employees. Therefore, focusing on asylum seekers alone would represent a worryingly distorted security reaction and risks provoking hostility against a vulnerable group in an already fragile race relations environment.

True, most people passing through our borders are legitimate.  However, 80,000 asylum seekers is still a very large number when it is considered that it does not include those tourist/visitors who outstay their welcome and remain in the country after their visas have expired.

·         The majority of people who seek refuge in the UK are themselves fleeing violent attacks, many being victims of regimes the very countries which the UK, in its fight against terrorism, recognises as having well-documented records of human rights.

The reality is that most people fleeing their countries of origin are not in any danger of mistreatment, but are seeking a better quality of life in the UK by exploiting our lax border security, welfare system and legal aid to prolong their stay in Britain at tax-payers expense.

   

Myth 10:        “Nearly all asylum seekers are troublemaking young men”

Facts:

·         A significant proportion of asylum seekers to the UK are women, children and older persons. According to UNHCR, in any refugee population approximately 50% of those uprooted are women and girls – however, the proportion of women and girls reaching the UK is lower, probably because of the expense and risks involved in getting here. Furthermore the fact that these female asylum seekers tend to be invisible in terms of press coverage and public profile means that the particular difficulties they face, including insensitive processing systems, health care needs and child-care assistance, tend not to be addressed.

The fact is that once the single men have established their right to settle in the UK, they will then bring in their wives, children and extended family; putting considerable strain on our schools, hospitals and social services to the detriment of the indigenous population.

·         The Association of Chief Police Officers released a report in 2001 which revealed that asylum seekers are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of crime. This is gravely illustrated by the murder of an asylum seeker in Glasgow in 2001 and numerous other reported attacks. It also showed that there is absolutely no evidence that asylum seekers have a higher rate of criminality than any other segment of society.

That may be true if only asylum seekers are taken into account; but if all immigrants are included, then the statistics prove conclusively that immigrants are far more likely to commit a crime than an indigenous Briton.  As for a single asylum seeker being murdered in Glasgow; well, this is insignificant compared to the vast number of white victims subjected to racial attacks and murdered by immigrants – for example Kriss Donald of Glasgow.

Myth 11:        “The 1951 Refugee Convention is out of date”

Facts:

·         The 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention is the cornerstone of international refugee protection – to date a total of 143 states have acceded to it. Although it is more than 50 years old, its key principles remain as urgent as ever – it defines who is refugee and ensures that asylum seekers fleeing persecution can have their cases heard, without being sent back to a place where they might be in danger. Overall, the 1951 Convention has probably saved more lives than any other single human rights convention.

The Refugee Convention was devised in a period when international travel was not available to refugees, who would have to seek asylum in the first safe country.  Nowadays, refugees will pass through many safe countries to reach their chosen country in which to claim asylum.   Clearly, the Convention is no longer fit for purpose and should be scrapped or completely revised to take into account changes that have occurred during the period from its inception. 

·         Threats from the UK to withdraw from the Convention clearly go against recent Ministerial declarations affirming commitment to the Convention. At the EU summit in Tampere in 1999, EU ministers declared their continued commitment to its principles, and in December 2001 Governments from 156 states signed a 50th anniversary declaration which recognized its "enduring importance" and the "continuing relevance and resilience" of the rights and principles it embodies. The participating governments, which included the UK, pledged to uphold these rights and to carry out their obligations under the Convention – yet in practice states have tended towards increasingly restrictive interpretation of its provisions.

A withdrawal from the Convention is best for the UK.  We can then create our own rules and regulations concerning asylum seekers and immigrants free from the interference of foreign judges or international organizations - only then can the interests and wishes of the British people be given pre-eminence.