World

Countries with few asylum seekers have even less hope

NSTill, Sunny The weather in southern England brings the smell of sausages from barbecues, the off-key tingling of ice cream buns, and inflatable boats full of asylum seekers.by BBCThis year has already passed the English Channel than all of 2019 or 2020. A new one-day record was set on July 19th, when the 430 appeared.

Listen to this story

Enjoy more audio and podcasts with iOS also Android..

By some criteria this is trivial. The UK received 32,411 asylum claims in the year to March. This is one-third of its peak in the early 2000s, which is low by global standards. The UK was ranked 5th among European countries in the 2020 asylum application and 17th when adjusted for population.Many poor countries Accept far more refugees..

However, the impact on domestic politics is not proportional to that number. As Maria Sobolewska and Robert Ford show in their book Brexitland, the British voted for Brexit primarily because they wanted more control over immigrants. The sight of asylum seekers floating across the strait is a very prominent sign that the government may not be doing what many Britons crave, right-wing think tank Will Tanner said. Of Onward says.

Therefore, the government is taking various policy measures to keep out asylum seekers. But most of the proposals are going in the wrong direction. Some will hurt them. For some, they sound tough, but they don’t reduce their numbers. A few people may even encourage more economic migrants — indigenous peoples of that kind feel the least sympathetic.

One approach is to make it difficult to leave for the UK. On July 20, Interior Minister Priti Patel agreed to pay the French government € 62.7 million ($ 75 million) to increase patrols along the northern coast of France. The other is to try to thwart asylum seekers by passing strict laws. Bills currently being submitted to Congress, as in most cases, criminalize those who arrive illegally. It will also facilitate detention and deportation of asylum-seekers and allow those who are ultimately allowed to stay (about half of the total when an appeal is heard) to stay shorter. Resettlements directly from refugee camps will be treated more generously. But many of these were never, and few, as covid-19 struck.

Making it difficult to leave France will probably help. Asylum seekers first boarded a large number of boats as it became difficult to board heavy trucks to reach Britain. This is partly due to the UK’s agreement in 2018 to pay an additional fee for fences and cameras around the port of Calais. Despite the additional patrols, the crossing will probably continue, but from a quieter section of the coast far from Britain. The cost of smugglers and deaths at sea can rise significantly.

In contrast, strict laws may make little difference, as judges may not persuade them. Some asylum-seekers are drawn to the UK because of their relatives. This includes almost everyone who camps in northern France before going to Britain, says the charity Refugee Rights Europe Francis Timberlake.

In a broader sense, behind the proposal is the idea that Britain is a “destination of choice,” as Patel states. It complements the country. Heaven Crawley of Coventry University, who has interviewed many asylum-seekers, states that they are generally lacking in information. Many have expressed a vague desire to go to “Europe”. Others prefer Britain for surprisingly naive reasons, such as being familiar with British football. “People aren’t trying to read in a treatise that British policy is horrifying and decide not to come,” she says.

Tim Hutton of the University of Essex studied why asylum-seekers choose the country they do. Distance is important. The longer the distance traveled, the shorter the distance traveled. Tighter border crackdowns or refusal to issue visas also reduce asylum applications. People are drawn to the country where many of their countrymen live. In contrast, attempts to imitate asylum-seekers by detaining them, reducing their small benefits, or limiting their ability to work have no effect.

Asylum seekers have endured so much by the time they arrived in the UK that they have little more deterrence. Last September, inspectors found dire conditions in several detention and processing centers. One was littered with rubble and resembled a construction site. Detainees had to wear wet clothes because there were too few dry clothes. Treatment was done outdoors. Nonetheless, asylum seekers said they were treated very well.

The UK asylum system has changed in another way over the last few years. Case processing is significantly slower (see graph). From over 70% in 2015, less than 30% will be heard within 6 months. The proposed law could slow things down even further. The Immigration Bureau has begun to postpone the case of the Board of Directors while engaging in an almost useless attempt to return asylum-seekers to transit countries, and the law allows it to continue.

Simone Bertoli and colleagues at the University of Clermont Auvergne studied the effect of processing speed on asylum applications. Countries that hear the claim immediately tend to receive more applications from countries that are more likely to be assured, such as Syrians, and fewer applications from those that do not. Conversely, migrants who use the asylum system as a back door to the labor market appear to be attracted to slumping countries. By being late, Britain could seduce more of the types of asylum seekers who are most likely to infuriate the public. ■■

This article was published in the UK section of the print version under the heading “Return to where you used to belong”.

Countries with few asylum seekers have even less hope

Source link Countries with few asylum seekers have even less hope

Back to top button