Problems with the system
The process itself is clearly lengthy and puts a great onus on asylum seekers to prove themselves as needing protection from the UK.
Claiming Asylum
- From the very start, an asylum seeker’s case might be flawed if a person does not instantaneously claim asylum, but there might be completely justified reasons for this, such as misunderstanding about the process or being unsure what needs to be done. This detriments an asylum seekers from the very start of the process without even hearing their story.
Screening Interview
- Often the process starts with little or no legal representation, which undoubtedly does not allow asylum seekers protection on their first impression to the Home Office, leaving a power imbalance in favour of the Home Office. Asylum seekers cannot protect themselves when they do not even know what they are looking for. This might mean asylum seekers leave out or fail to mention some things, which then might detriment them later if it is only first raised in the substantive interview. Asylum seekers may be scrutinised for not raising an issue earlier, when they might not have even known it was relevant until they spoke to their lawyer.
- Asylum seekers often have no idea of the asylum system, what is required, the law, and no clue how to best present themselves to the Home Office, yet are left alone to navigate the start of the process.
- This is further exacerbated by language barriers and miscommunications. English may often not be their first language, so things can easily be lost in translation in the interaction.
- People will often go through traumatic experiences before arriving the UK and will find it difficult to speak openly with boarder officials, especially when it is not a particularly comforting environment anyway. People may not have even come to terms with exact what happened to them or what they have seen yet are asked to repeat this.
- If fake ID is used to get into the UK, asylum seekers could be charged for this. Asylum seekers will then also have to seek a criminal lawyer for their criminal case. Although it is possible to claim under the Article 31 of the Refugee Convention as a defence, which contends that some asylum seekers have to do this for their own safety, the idea that asylum seekers might also have to worry about being charged whilst fleeing persecution puts additional strain on asylum seekers. This is also confusing, since fake ID could surely signal the fear of persecution yet it is being used against the asylum seeker.
So already, without being out of the border control part of the process, there are huge hurdles which can easily get in the way of asylum seekers and their case.
Accommodation and Support
- Asylum seekers do not have the independence of choosing where to live, which may leave asylum seekers feeling out of control of their own lives and situation.
- Asylum seekers are not allowed to work during this process. This gives very little freedom for asylum seekers to buy anything beyond necessities. But they also cannot work to make extra money to give them a better chance of buying the things that they need, but also things that they might want.
- Asylum seekers may live in temporary accommodation for months or even years on end without a decision. The UK is one of the only countries in the Europe to have no time limit for immigration decisions. This might leave asylum seekers in limbo for years of their lives.
Being unable to work for years, without any independent choice on your living circumstances and arrangements, and essentially your life, is bound to be draining and harmful to anyone, especially on top of the harm of persecution people might have seen before claiming asylum.
Substantive Interview
- It is normal that the Home Office will not believe asylum seekers when saying their journey or story. It is taken in as part of the process. This puts a grave onus on asylum seekers to represent themselves in this interview whilst avoiding trick tactics from the Home Office. In their guidance resources for asylum seekers on their website, Right to Remain note that asylum seekers should “be prepared for not being believed”, adding that it is common for them to explicitly comment ‘I do not believe you’.
- An example of this is where the Home Office might ask asylum seekers the same question in various ways to see if the answer is different at any time.
- This can be incredibly invalidating for people who have been through unbelievable hardships and find it difficult as it is to open up about their experiences, in an interview where they are asked to give as much detail as possible about their scenario.
- Around 60% of asylum seeker cases are initially dismissed following the interview, which seems a particularly high dismissal rate, and hints at an underlying issue within the system itself in regards to how asylum seekers are perceived.
Appeal Process
- Asylum seekers have very little evidential documents to work with to appeal their case
- This can often be further worsened by legal aid lawyers being unable to continue representing the person
- This leaves asylum seekers in limbo for even more time, not knowing whether they are going to be able to stay and be protected, or forced out and have to think about their next steps of protecting themselves
Problem with the System: Deeper Issues
It is undeniable that the process in and of itself is incredibly time consuming, difficult, and hostile for asylum seekers. No element of the process is one which is endearing, nor does it provide accurate support for people who have had their lives turned around by persecution. But the law itself is further problematic due to the overcasting shadow of hostile environment that is looming over, and represents deeper societal issues regarding asylum seekers and people’s rights to seek protection.
Although there is an argument that the system remains rigid in order to ensure that false claims of asylum, to ensure people do not claim asylum when they do not in fact need that protection. Undoubtedly, it is important to ensure that false claims are not accepted. Leaving the system too wide would leave a floodgate of claims, causing pressure on the authorities to get through more claims. This could have a strain on public resources if the system is not controlled for asylum seeker protection purposes only. Indeed, former chief of UK Immigration enforcement David Wood in his report states that up to 15,000 people apply for asylum who ultimately have no valid claim.
Although some of these claims are bound to include people who are lying, it is important that we do not misunderstand this to mean that 15,000 people have lied. Rejected claims do not automatically show lying. This is a fine line. There are very few if any statistics to prove that there is a consistent pattern of people lying for their claim of asylum. This idea can be dangerous, and it can instil a ‘culture of disbelief’ in asylum seekers, who do not deserve to unjustly not be believed.
It is not surprising that asylum seekers face unimaginable difficulty in the process, because asylum seekers are not accepted with open arms. In recent times, we have seen false narratives spread about asylum seekers. There seems to be a reoccurring myth that those seeking asylum in the UK arriving by boat, particularly those doing the dangerous voyage on rubber dingys, are ‘illegal’ migrants. This cannot be further from the truth. As previously mentioned, the only way to claim asylum in the UK is by arriving in the UK. So, not only is it untrue to say those travelling to the UK to claim asylum are illegal, but it is also the exact opposite of the rules that asylum seekers must follow. Not only is this legal, but this is what is being asked, this is what is required to claim asylum. But such dangerous narratives aim to do one thing only: portray asylum seekers as a nuisance, as something illegal and something we should not accept nor stand for.
This incredibly bigoted and ignorant narrative has only been exacerbated by the Home Secretary Priti Patel, claiming that immigration lawyers who help asylum seekers with their appeals for deportation are ‘lefty lawyers’ trying to be ‘do-gooders’. This heavily implies that supporting asylum seekers in their legal cases is an act of activism, an act of political expression, when it is merely a right for the asylum seeker, and a job for the lawyer. It is literally their job. This spreads a dangerous narrative that forms the ill treatment of asylum seekers as less than others. Having ignorant ideas such as that one group of people have fewer rights to legal representation than others validated by the government shows the seriousness of the situation that we are in right now. The danger of this is illustrated by the incident where a knifeman entered a law firm in London in a violent, racist attack on lawyers, only three days after Priti Patel’s comments against lawyers.
This hostile environment against asylum seekers has only been exasperated and nearly justified by the Covid-19 pandemic, whereby asylum seekers are either mass deported, or put in accommodation that is not only inadequate, but also dangerous. Only last month experts found that the Napier Barracks were not suitable accommodation for asylum seekers. Not only were the conditions unsatisfactory and dehumanising, but the set up meant that Covid could spread there, sometimes with over 10 people sleeping in the same rooms. This has led to a protest by asylum seekers to conditions there and the treatment that they are receiving.
Asylum seekers’ lack freedom to live an ordinary life. Only today did I read about some hotels which provide accommodation for asylum seekers that had confined people to their rooms for 23 hours a day. They were threatened with homelessness if they did not comply. In one circumstance, a woman was mentally unwell was confined to her hotel room for 23 hours, which she shared with her young child.
This is only one fraction of the hardships asylum seekers face, without even mentioning difficulties such as navigating a new life in the UK, racism, islamophobia and more. There seems to be a general ignorance about asylum seekers, and dehumanisation of people who have already been through more than enough hardships. Our first reaction to people who need protection should not be scepticism, it should be acceptance. The system should not operate in a way to degrade, dehumanise and keep people without independence for potentially years of their life. It is not about politics, or debates about resources, it is rather about human decency. We are all human, and we all need to have empathy and an understanding of the difficulties people have faced, and their right to heal and to be protected from danger. People do not deserve the extra burden of having to prove those who stand against them wrong, in the hopes that they will be protected, which in itself doesn’t protect people from hardships.
So, what can we do to help?
- Continue to donate to and volunteer for pro bono services which help asylum seekers through free legal advice services – the Refugee Support Project are part of the Pro Bono Group, making accessible videos for asylum seekers navigating them through the process
- Sign petitions against the treatment of asylum seekers by the Home Office
- Protest about the treatment of asylum seekers
- Spread awareness of the issues that asylum seekers face
Further resources:
- Migrant Help – https://www.migranthelpuk.org/
- Right to Remain – https://www.righttoremain.org.uk/
- Refugee Action – https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/
- Choose Love – https://helprefugees.org/choose-love/
- Conversations over Borders – https://www.conversationoverborders.org/
- Care for Calais – https://care4calais.org/