REMARKS
The United Kingdom is a signatory of the 1951 Convention Relating
to the Status of
Refugees, the 1967 Protocol and the 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights
which states in article 14(1): «Everyone has the right to
seek and to enjoy in other
countries asylum from persecution». The Conventions and
Declarations are non-
binding instruments, therefore the right to grant asylum remains
a prerogative of the
country. By signing and ratifying International Treaties and
Laws, the United
kingdom shows its willingness to respect and abide by them. But
the promise to apply
the provisions contained in the International Treaties and Laws
is no more kept. In
fact the United Kingdom's reputation of shelter for refugees has
been called into
question. For on the field, the reality is that the United
Kingdom has turned its back
to all signed and ratified documents to implement deterrence
measures against asylum
seekers. It is well known that it detains and returns (refouler)
asylum seekers, practice
that is opposed to the 1951 Convention and the Universal
Declaration of Human
Rights. In so doing, the United Kingdom has become a human rights
violator. Its
behaviour has raised questions; what has happened to the country
to be a human
rights violator? What is the rationale of such change? The answer
surely lies in the
pre-eminence of the United Kingdom's national interests over any
humanitarian act.
The use of deterrence measures is aimed at protecting the welfare
system and race
relation. Though these two reasons are plausible, they are
nevertheless not sufficient
to justify deterrence measures against asylum seekers
According to the UNHCR index, the United Kingdom receives less
asylum seekers
and refugees than many non-industrialised countries such as
Pakistan and Tanzania.
MAIN HOST COUNTRIES END 2005
|
COUNTRY
|
RANK
|
Number of Refugees
|
|
Pakistan
|
1
|
1.088.121
|
|
Germany
|
2
|
781,116
|
|
Islamic Republic of Iran
|
3
|
716,611
|
|
United Republic of Tanzania
|
4
|
549,131
|
|
United States
|
5
|
549,083
|
|
United Kingdom
|
6
|
307,064
|
|
China
|
7
|
301,125
|
|
Chad
|
8
|
276,927
|
|
Kenya
|
9
|
267,731
|
|
Uganda
|
10
|
259,089
|
Source: UNHCR 2005
The table is interesting in the sense that it gives the country,
the number of asylum
seekers and refugees in its territory and its rank. We can see
that poor countries even
the poorest, Chad, host asylum seekers and refugees.
From the table, we will draw a comparison between the United
Kingdom and the
United Republic of Tanzania. The aim of the comparison is to
refute the arguments
Displayed by the United kingdom to implement deterrence
measures.
UNITED KINGDOM and the UNITED REP. OF TANZANIA AT A
GLANCE
|
UNITED KINGDOM
|
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
|
|
Status: Industrialised, developed country.
|
Status: Non-industrialised, under developed country.
|
|
Population(millions):59.4
|
Population(millions): 38.3
|
|
GNI (US $ billions):2,016.2
|
GNI(US$ billions): 12.6
|
|
GNI per capita(US$):33,940
|
GNI per capita(US$):330
|
|
GDP(US$ billions):2,140.9
|
GDP(US$ billions):11.3
|
|
Balance of payments US$ millions(net income):44,038
|
Balance of payments US$ millions(net income):- 68
|
|
Life expectancy at birth(years): 78
|
Life expectancy at birth(years): 46
|
Source: World Bank (2005)
The comparative table shows us that the economy of Tanzania, in
terms of wealth, is
poor than the United Kingdom one. Its GNI per capita and net
income are thousand
times inferior to the United Kingdom one. Yet Tanzania does not
deter asylum
seekers and refugees by putting them in detention or requiring
visa from them. That is
to say that the United Kingdom should not give as a pretext the
enticement of their
social goods to shut the door because asylum seekers are not
after anything except the
preservation of their life. Making conditions harsh to reduce the
number of people
applying for asylum will not solve the problem, it will rather
create another one. The
subjective character of the immigration controls coupled with the
power given to
immigration officers to decide the outcome of individuals' claims
will surely give
way to a situation of financial and physical corruptions. For
instance, the sexual
scandal that shook Lunar House, Immigration offices at Croydon,
in 2006 is still fresh
in our mind. At that period when immigration control was the
daily frontline of
newspapers and the opening news of the televisions, an
immigration officer was
caught granting Leave to Remain for an Indefinite Period to
Brazilian girls in
exchange of sexual intercourse. Another one was caught selling
British passports. We
should also bear in mind that detain asylum seekers for reasons
such as possession of
false documents is another way to push them into the hands of
traffickers and
gangsters.
As far as the removal of welfare benefits is concerned, it will
not deter asylum seekers
but create insecurity in the country. The legislation that
prevents asylum seekers from
working the first six (6) months of their claims and the one
removing benefits
entitlement will be source of begging, theft, mendacity, crime
and robbery. In a
capitalist and expensive country nobody can live without
financial support. Therefore
to prohibit work and remove financial support to a human being in
this country will
lead him to one of the scourges mentioned above.
As for the race relation, the example of the United Republic of
Tanzania is still
relevant. With a huge number of asylum seekers and refugees
living inside its
territory, no report of social violence or riot has been made
because of their presence.
The United Kingdom's fear of race confrontations stems from its
desire to apply the
policy of assimilation rather than integration. For assimilate
newcomers means to ask
and make them abandon their own way of life, culture and belief
to adopt yours.
Thing that is difficult to obtain from people who have been for
long time practising
their culture , religion and custom. The policy of assimilation
reeked of racism that
was why people reacted against it in the 1970s.Whereas accepting
newcomers the
way they are, with their customs, belief and make them feel part
of the society neither
inferior nor superior, is what is called integration. Since the
United Kingdom has
turned its back to assimilation to apply the policy of
integration, no riot or racial clash
has ever occurred.
For all the reasons cited above, neither welfare benefits nor
race
relation should dictate asylum policy in the United Kingdom, a
country which sees
receiving refugees as a mark of civilised society.
| 
