Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Asylum seeker barge docks in Dorset amidst rival protests" video.
-
5
-
It appears to me on the basis of questions such as "why does it take so long" thar there is quite a great deal of confusion, or misunderstanding when it comes to what processing an asylum claim actually means. This isn't a situation where you fill in a form, some data entry clerk puts it into a computer and tada you're accepted or denied on the strength of that form. It isn't anything like applying for government services.
These are migrants making an irregular border crossing, often without any identity documentation whatsoever. But they still need to be identified. You can't just take them at their word, everything they claim has to be verified.
Genuine asylum claimants are coming from countries beset by war. Trying to talk to a government department in such a country to verify an identity under those circumstances is difficult at best. Even harder when they come from an undeveloped country that lacks such a department in the first place and doesn't track births/identities.
That alone can take a lot of time and we've only just gotten to the name. Verifying identity is essential because you don't want war criminals, people escaping justice or illegal economic migrants pretending to be someone else. Indeed identity verification is so important it's covered in the refugees convention.
Then they have to verify that you actually came from the country you claim to have. This includes checking with other countries whether you've been granted refugee status there.
Then you have to verify that the country is involved in a legally defined military conflict for the purpose of the convention. This isn't as simple as it might initially sound. One doesn't just turn on the news and see that someone with guns is fighting someone else. It's entirely possible for there to be a conflict in a country and it to not meet the legal definition under the convention. Defining it involves a whole lot of bureaucracy and legal advice.
Or, you have to verify that the individual is part of a group inside a country being persecuted for a protected trait in a way which meets the convention. That too is a whole lot of bureaucracy and lawyers.
This isn't just a person in a cubical making a decision unilaterally on each claim based on their own personal judgement. There are interviews, cross department discussions, bilateral discussions with other countries, field work, the intelligence services can be involved in which case a claim has to wait for them to have time, there are all kinds of things that have to happen before a claim can be decided. They take time.
Then, once a claim is decided a claimant has the right to challenge a decision and that whole process involves review, may require additional information gathering and ultimately regularly progresses into the courts. That takes time too.
The ECHR has a ridiculous rule in it which is not part of the international convention that requires signatory nations to grant leave to stay to claimants whom have been denied asylum but can demonstrate they have developed community roots (a job, friendships, community participation such as volunteer work, time spent in the country, etc). It's a loophole in the system that economic migrants regularly exploit and is the main reason that so many asylum claimants volunteer for organisations directed at asylum claimants. This rule which the UK must follow so long as it's part of the ECHR gives the government incentive for claims to be processed as quickly as possible. But it also gives incentive for illegal economic migrants to delay the processing of their claims as much as possible. The longer they've been in country the higher the likelihood of being granted leave to stay despite not being granted refugee status.
This is actually where the 88% figure on percentage of boat people being granted leave to stay comes from. If you look at the finer numbers, number of boat people granted refugee status is just 13%.
This isn't a situation where you could just issue a directive and make claims processing faster. It runs as fast as it can given the geopolitical environment we live in. What you could do is create a list of known economic migrant countries like the EU is doing and fast track those claims. But then you still have delays with appeals through the courts. You could take the right to appeal away but then you're stomping all over the UDHR, domestic laws and you'd have the UN involved.
The real solution is to send them to a third, undesirable country, such as Rwanda and process their claims from there. This removes their right to appeal through the courts and prevents illegal economic migrants from having an opportunity to claim they have community roots. It still allows you to welcome genuine refugees and process their claims.
Given the facility in the third country is owned and operated by the UK, with UK security, they remain safe. But it deters unskilled or low skilled economic migrants from trying to hijack the asylum system to escape poverty. Poverty is not something you can claim asylum against and is not protected.
Letting such migrants in doesn't just threaten the economy, it's a type of colonialism because you're robbing the source countries of their best and brightest, the very people those countries need to end poverty and develop.
4
-
1