UK
Diane Abbott: Safe & legal routes are the alternative to Tory asylum-seeker policies #Lab24
By Diane Abbott MP
A cynical Tory distraction
Tory policies attacking asylumseekers were immoral, illegal, and unworkable. But they weren’t designed to be practical. Instead, they have long been part of the Tory arsenal of tricks and distractions designed to draw attention away from their other policies. It has been the most cynical type of politics, and their impracticality was highlighted by the fact that there were no Rwanda deportation flights ahead of the election. In reality, the deportation flights were designed to appeal to the Tory base, rather than to be an effective policy.
In their Alice in Wonderland politics, Parliament passed a law to assert that Rwanda is a safe country because the law says it is a safe country. We also had the spectacle of ministers railing against European courts when human rights abuses carried out during deportations were blocked by courts in this country. One of the strangest aspects of this reactionary charade is that it was frequently claimed that there is no alternative to the policy. This is completely untrue, and the incoming Labour Government rightly put a stop to it immediately.
We are not being ‘swamped’
First, we must remember that seeking asylum is a right given to all. It goes back to ancient times, so that in the Christian world it was enough only for a refugee to touch the church door to be granted asylum. Other cultures have similarly enshrined rights. In the modern era, the right to asylum is set out in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Britain was not just one of the signatories but one of the authors of the Declaration, which was the world’s response to the horrors of World War II, and specifically to the Holocaust. It was the codification of the slogan ‘never again’. Opponents of the right to asylum for the victims of war or persecution seem to have forgotten all this.
And contrary to Tory assertions, most asylum applications are successful. Two-thirds of initial applications are granted. On appeal (of applications initially refused), the proportion of successful applicants rises to over three-quarters. And the notion we are being ‘swamped’ by asylum-seekers is untrue and offensive. Around 60,000 people a year are granted asylum because they are legally entitled to it, far less than in other countries.
The need for safe and legal routes
There is a long-standing alternative that I and others have advocated for some time. It is backed by nearly all the charities and NGOs working in this area. It can be reduced to a mantra precisely so it can be readily understood and reiterated: the establishment of safe and legal routes for asylum-seekers.
In practical terms, establishing safe and legal routes for asylum-seekers means the creation of processing centres for asylum applications in a number of countries. There would be a network of such centres near the main conflict zones, and successful claimants would then be legally entitled to enter this country and could be given assistance to do so. France, for one, has long made it clear that it is willing to allow such a centre to be created, and it has been British ministers who have previously baulked at the idea.
Processing claims in this way would then overcome the compulsion to cross the Channel in small boats, one of the most hazardous possible ends to a long and dangerous journey for people seeking asylum.
Our alternative is practical, moral and workable. It upholds the best traditions of our society.
No comments:
Post a Comment