The UK asylum system has
lost all integrity. Everyone knows it is being abused
on a massive scale. The phrase "asylum seeker"
is utterly discredited in the public mind. If the concept
of asylum is to retain its integrity then the system must
be made impossible for bogus applicants to exploit. The
proposals suggested here will speed the application process,
identify the genuine, and restore integrity to a system
presently abused and discredited.
Officially, an "asylum seeker" or "asylum
applicant" is someone who has claimed "refugee
status" within the meaning of Article 1 of the UN
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28
July 1951, as amended by The
New York Protocol of 31 January 1967.
Refugee status is defined
in the Convention as someone: "owing to well-founded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or
political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality
and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to
avail himself of the protection of that country·"
The New York Protocol
removed from the definition of refugee the Convention's
original words which had defined a refugee on the basis
of, "·events occurring before 1 January 1951".
is an asylum seeker who has been "recognised as a
refugee and granted asylum".
Most asylum seekers are
not recognised as refugees. Most are considered bogus.
For example, in 2002 there were 84,130 applications, of
whom 8,270 (10%) were recognised as refugees, 20,135 (24%)
were "not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional
leave", and the remainder "refused asylum and
exceptional leave". (Asylum Statistics: United
Kingdom 2002. The annual Home Office Statistical Bulletins
Asylum Statistics: United Kingdom and Control of Immigration:
Statistics United Kingdom are available free from the
Home Office, Research Development and Statistics Directorate,
Room 264, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1H 9AT, Tel:
020 7273 2084, or at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/)
Below, we use the term
"Asylee" to include all those asylum seekers
-- that is, principal applicants, excluding dependants
-- who have been accepted for settlement, whether officially
recognised as "refugees" or not.
Recognising that Westminster should be the sole law-making
authority on immigration and asylum issues in Britain
and recognising that outside the EU we will regain control
of our own borders, enabling us to carry out the following
programme of reform, we propose:
Abolish Automatic Right
So long as Britain is signed up to the Convention, we
are required to admit whoever claims asylum, and keep
them here, pending a lengthy legal process to determine
their claim to refugee status. As open-borders advocate
Nick Cohen wrote in the New Statesman of 7 October 2002,
"The convention has nullified the efforts of successive
governments to close Britain's borders." Therefore
it is necessary to·
Withdraw from the 1951
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended
by the 1967 New York Protocol.
As Matthew Parris wrote in The Times of June 29, 2002:
Sometimes, something is so plain that we dare not acknowledge
it. At the root of all our difficulties over immigration
lies a simple cause, and nobody in mainstream politics
has the guts to admit it. It is the Geneva Convention
on the Status of Refugees. It is unsustainable and it
must go. If we cannot reach agreement internationally
to wind it down, then Britain should unilaterally withdraw.
foolish convention on refugees must be scrapped")
The 1951 Convention is
outdated and is being abused. It was not intended as a
means to move economic migrants around the world, nor
for those who are merely dissatisfied with life at home.
It will not be possible
to "amend" this international document, therefore
we need to withdraw from it so we are no longer bound
by it, and if necessary institute our own Convention,
addressing our own needs.
As our Declaration
of Moral Principles (Sovereignty, Nov 02) makes clear,
we believe everyone has a moral obligation to work to
make things better where they live, and to involve themselves
in the important work of restoration at home. Those who
struggle to change things at home should be esteemed over
those who simply run away.
Legislate to ignore specific
aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights
which prevent implementation of asylum reform, such as
Article 3 which prevents deportation of foreign nationals
judged to be a risk to security.
Quota of 2,000 Asylees
This is "principle applicants", excluding dependents.
For the latter part of the 1980s, when the world was just
as dangerous as it is today, arguably more so, asylum
applications were stable and few. "Asylum" applications
started to rocket from 1989 onwards, although still well
below numbers today, as above.
For example, in the 5-year
period from 1984-1988 the average annual number of principle
applicants "recognised as a refugee" or "not
recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave"
Over the following 6 years
the average annual number accepted almost quadrupled to
7,621 (See Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Asylum Statistics,
United Kingdom 1994, which also details the previous 10
We aim to bring numbers
down to 2,000 a year in order to approximate the historically
precedent, annual average for the relatively stable 5-year
period, 1984-1988, before "asylum" applications
rocketed and before the system became discredited.
from which an asylum claim will not be granted. Labour
initially abolished this, but has restored it.
at the British embassy, which would be best placed to
understand the situation on the ground.
J K Maunder suggested the following in a letter in The
Independent, 27 March 2000: One solution to asylum-based
immigration would be to place it on the same visa-based
footing as settlement in Britain and make a refugee visa
issued abroad mandatory. This would scupper 80% of undocumented
arrivals. All those without documents would be returned
Eric Nichols suggested
the following in a letter in The Daily Telegraph, 1 September
1998: We should judge an asylum seeker in the British
consul in the country concerned. No one should be considered
for asylum unless he can produce a special visa, which
the British consul would provide only on two conditions
being verified: that the applicant was in serious danger
of death, torture or persecution, and that there was no
country nearer than Britain in which he could reasonably
expect to be free of such dangers. To avoid visas being
traded, the consul would send a copy with fingerprints
and photograph, to the UK Immigration Authorities. This
important policy would cut the levels of bogus asylum
seeking to very small levels, meaning that the Reception
Centres would not be overflowing.
The Conservative Party
claims its objective is to take an annual fixed number
who have already been deemed refugees, and in need of
relocation worldwide, from the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR). This is a risky proposition, which gives
the UN the authority to decide.
It might only work if
Britain accepted a quota of no more than 2,000 from the
UNHCR a year, and abolished entirely asylum seeking into
the UK via any other method.
However, the UNHCR has
suggested it may not co-operate with Britain if it withdraws
from the 1951 UN Convention, as above.
Therefore, in the absence
of the UNHCR programme and the abolition of asylum seeking
via any other method, we would need to continue with our
plan, as above. That is, there would be no asylum granted
without a Visa.
If the monthly quota is
filled, there will be no asylum offered that month.
In the interim, and even
when the Visa Requirement is in place, we are still likely
to have some who arrive in the UK via other ways, and
without a Visa.
However, we acknowledge there will be some who arrive
at air or sea ports.
or fail to co-operate in re-documentation.
If discovered outside of these ports, they will be held
securely and returned forthwith.
until their cases are settled. This will see a vast decrease
in applications. The bogus will not want the hassle. Applications
will plummet to their pre-1989 figures. The few who are
genuine will be grateful to be staying safely and securely
under the protection of the British government. Families
to be kept together, and entitled to full education, leisure
and health facilities.
The time spent in these centres will be short because
the aim will be to reach a first decision within 2 weeks.
Many new jobs will be created in the Immigration Service,
to ensure this goal is met.
and therefore are not eligible for the full range of benefits
which accrue to a British citizen, until such time as
citizenship is granted. Granting such people the full
range of benefits enjoyed by British citizens undermines
the concept of national citizenship.
Some claim we should permit asylum seekers to work so
we can remove benefit entitlement. However, we aim to
speed up the process between application and decision.
Therefore, unless they have been granted refugee status,
an asylum seeker should not be in the country long enough
to have the chance to work. Allowing asylum seekers to
work would only encourage more economic migrants to come
seeking work under the guise of "asylum". To
stop the flow of bogus seekers, we need to prohibit them
from working, cut back on benefits available, and above
all, speed the process of decision, and where appropriate,
seeking to have the second hearing within a further 2
weeks, while the asylum seeker remains in Secure Reception.
If an applicant loses a case, he or she, and their family
will be kept in Secure Reception, until escorted back,
with the full cost of their stay and removal deducted
from that country's Foreign Aid allocation -- which demonstrates
that those countries which allow their citizens to come
here under false pretences, must pay for them. A Removals
Agency will be instituted whose duty will be to ensure
swift departure. Presently, those whose applications are
rejected can remain, because the authorities often don't
know where they are.
upon good behaviour. Any asylum seeker, refugee, or legal
immigrant who is not a British citizen, and is convicted
of a criminal offence, immediately deported to country
of origin and banned for life from re-entry.
An appendix to this Asylum
Policy, which deals with some of the commonly heard objections,
can be found here.
Common Objections Answered
"But these people have rights!"
All we hear about is the "rights" of asylum
seekers. What about their responsibilities? What about
their responsibility to arrive here truthfully? What
about their responsibilities to get their own homelands
in order? What about the rights of those of us already
here, who do not want to see our society transformed?
"We should believe them when
they say they are 'persecuted'
One man's persecution is another man's justice! Who
are we to side with someone just because he claims
to have been "persecuted"? Criminals and
wrong-doers always claim "persecution".
The IRA always claims to be persecuted by the British
State. Claims of "persecution" are not enough.
We have to establish the objective truth.
"We should have 'compassion'
for these people"
Emotive energy unleashed is dangerous. Like a warming
campfire, the flames have to be surrounded and controlled
by the stones of cold logic -- otherwise it will run
wild and burn down the forest. When you link "compassion"
with the dangerous and illogical act of opening the
borders to the rest of the world, then that is not
compassion -- it is destruction unleashed.
"Everyone who wants to live
here should be able to live here!"
This is the irresponsible and destructive position
of the open-borders lobby, masquerading as compassion.
It's like saying, "Everyone who wants to live
in my house should be able to live in my house."
How soon before life, for you, became intolerable!
"We've a responsibility to
the world's suffering people!"
There is no limit to pain in the world. There are
potentially hundreds of millions in the world today
who could conceivably claim to have a fear of "persecution",
which itself can be defined very widely. These people
are limited only by their ability to get here -- a
task which becomes easier every day.
Given these two facts -- the prevalence of potentially
eligible refugees, and the ease with which they can
arrive in Britain -- the questions are: Do we limit
the numbers? If we are agreed that the numbers must
be limited, then what is that limit? What criteria
do we use to set that limit?
These are the questions which the open-borders lobby
don't want to engage, because setting criteria, means
choosing and judging, which contradicts their belief
that "everyone is equal".
However, we recognise that many so-called asylum
seekers are economic migrants seeking a better way
of life. Therefore, a programme to stop the flow also
needs to tackle the international poverty which drives
CHALLENGE ECONOMIC MIGRATION
THROUGH BUILDING SELF-RELIANCE WORLDWIDE
The best way of improving the situation of the poor
of the world is not through letting them all come
here, or even through charity, but through politics.
We believe in self-determination for the UK and we
believe in it for all countries.
Some people promote debt-relief. However, to be effective,
the cancellation of debt in any country has to be
part of an overall strategy to enable the country
to stand on its own feet. It has to be part of an
overall strategy to build long-term self-reliance.
Simply abolishing a country's debt in the short-term,
but keeping it chained to the debt-based money system
in the long-term, is to keep it enslaved to the global
Thus, in coordination with debt-relief we promote
the following measures, which were advocated in 1998
by economics author James Gibb Stuart in regard to
Malaysia, and which are applicable to all countries:
A measure of foreign exchange control
to prevent a nation's reserves, its financial lifeblood,
from being sucked out by speculators.
Reverse the progressive liberalisation of financial
as this advance towards a global economy can rob developing
peoples of the benefits of their own national resources.
No privatisation of national assets as a device for
paying off government debt.
Such assets belong to the people, and should not be
put up for auction, where market forces can consign
them to foreign ownership. British experience of privatisation
proves that selling assets to reduce national debt
is only a temporary expedient. They can only be sold
off once, and when they are gone, the cycle of debt
and borrowing continues.
Avoid further borrowing, particularly in US dollars.
The recent round of currency devaluations has shown
this to be a treacherous device whereby international
entrepreneurs can buy up the local economy at bargain
Create own money debt-free.
Money incentives to stimulate commerce, agriculture,
industry and social programmes, need not be in the
form of expensive US dollars. All recognised, legitimate
governments can create their own debt-free money and
use it for essential national objectives.
These 5 acts: Stopping the haemorrhage of national
reserves by means of exchange controls; reversing
the liberalisation of financial markets; rejecting
the privatisation of public assets; avoiding foreign
loans or further borrowing; and steadfastly maintaining
social programmes, with government created debt-free
money if necessary - are essential acts of national
These are the mechanisms we encourage worldwide in
order to build the self-reliance and economic independence
of countries, thereby ensuring a decrease in economic
An Asylum Policy which restores integrity to Britain's
migration policy can be found here.