![]()
|
||||||||||||
|
Comments and suggestions,
please email info@salaam.co.uk
|
On the one hand, racist attacks and even murder of asylum seekers has reinforced the negative stereotypes for the man in the street - asylum means trouble. However the Right has spoiled the opportunity for a reasoned and balanced public discourse on the subject. The British National Party, though minuscule in numbers, has entrapped the mainstream politicians to match their anti-immigration and anti-asylum tone and language, though there is a tradition of illiberalism in Labour Home Secretaries, from the time of Merlyn Rees (1976-79), who introduced the hated 'virginity tests' on Asian women arriving to marry their fiancées! The present Home Secretary David Blunkett's reference in April 2002 to local schools being 'swamped' by the children of asylum seekers, was evocative of Enoch Powell's graphic anti-immigration 'rivers of blood' speeches in the late 1960s.
Various factors, some spurious and others justifiable, has made Asylum emerge as a large blip on the radar screen of public consciousness.It is necessary to address these concerns, recognise genuine problems and dismiss the myths. Asylum seekers to Britain are driven by 'push' and 'pull' factors. 'Push' factors are human rights abuses, war and repression; 'Pull' factors are language, family ties and work opportunities. Much has been made of the lax benefits regime in the UK, which supposedly acts as a magnet. The reality is that in Britain asylum seekers are not allowed to claim mainstream welfare benefits. A single adult receives about £40 per week - 30% below the poverty line. The Home Office is currently undertaking a 12-month study entitled "An Evaluation of Access to Early Legal Advice and Representation in the Asylum Determination Process". Asylum is likely to remain in the public eye and a focus of government attention. The aim of this Theme of the Month is to provide a point of reference on key facets of the Asylum debate.
|
|
||||||||||