IMMIGRATION
According to The Times, the government has ordered immigration officers to halt deportations of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe. This decision comes in the midst of strong criticism of such deportations in the last few days, and comes despite a denial from both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister that the government would alter its policy.
There have been claims that those returned have been tortured or murdered, although the government claims that there are no substantiated reports of mistreatment.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has said that he is ‘amazed’ that the government has continued to send failed asylum seekers back to Zimbabwe and condemned the government’s policy as being ‘deeply immoral’. He further stated that: ‘You are often dealing with people who have been here for many years and have roots in the country and are suddenly, without warning, taken into the system’.
The problem with this controversy is that it ducks the real issue. It is not the administration of the asylum system that is at fault, but the whole concept of asylum seeking that is at fault.
Those presently complaining of potentially being returned to Zimbabwe or Malawi includes one, Crispen Kulunji, who claims to have bribed officials to give him a Malawian passport. But instead of settling in Malawi, he decided that he would prefer to live in the UK and so legged it across the entire African continent and Europe before using the magic words ‘I claim asylum’ once he got to the UK. He is now on hunger strike. The Home Office does not accept his story and insist he is a Malawian.
Another, Patson Muzuwa, has been given permission to stay in Britain, but is complaining that he now wants to bring his wife and children too. He left them behind when he fled Zimbabwe.
Another on Channel 4 News revealed that he had already been deported from the UK once when his claim for asylum was refused, but had merely legged it across Africa and Europe again and made yet another claim for asylum. Now he is complaining that he might be deported again!
More than 15,000 Zimbabweans have claimed asylum in the last 4 years. Only a few hundred of those claims have resulted in asylum status being given. The cost of processing an asylum seeker is roughly £20,000 per asylum seeker. The long term costs of housing and education etc are far higher. But at £20,000 for only 15,000 asylum seekers works out at £300million.
The estimates of the economic situation in Zimbabwe vary, as is to be expected given the type of regime in place, its unreliability and the economic situation. But a report from the Havard University based Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs in December 2002 made the following analysis:
The Zimbabwean economy has continued to contract, but even taking the per capita GDP as being US $300, then at an exchange rate of roughly $1.8 to £1, this means that the average per capita GDP is only £167.
In other words, the £300million that the UK has spent on 15,000 asylum seekers in the last 4 years is the equivalent to the average per capita GDP for roughly 450,000 Zimbabweans over the same 4 year period.
In deciding the merits of immigration, there are 2 main aspects to consider. What is in the interests of this country? And, given that there are despotic regimes and natural disasters around the world, how can we most effectively help genuine refugees?
No one has argued, and it is obviously not the case, that it is in this country’s interests to be spending £300million on dealing with 15,000 asylum seekers - especially when only a fraction of those claiming asylum have any legitimate basis to do so (even by the UK’s easygoing standards).
It is therefore the second question that is the crux of the present controversy. How can we best help genuine refugees? This is not being considered at all. What is happening is that people are pointing to Robert Mugabe and his various pogroms, and are then condemning anyone who advocates the deportation of failed asylum seekers as lacking in compassion, or possibly even being racist.
That is not good enough.
The best way to help the genuine refugees, who are not the fit young men who are paying organised crime rackets to smuggle them across 2 entire continents to get here, is to help them in Zimbabwe itself or neighbouring countries. To be spending £300million on 15,000 asylum seekers when that same money could provide an average income for 450,000 people is obscene. In reality, that same money would help very many more as refugees for obvious reasons would have a much less than average income.
Further, the UK should stop all economic assistance to Zimbabwe and those African countries that are supporting Mugabe. For example, President Mkapa of Tanzania has been quoted as saying: ‘I see no dispute to the elections in March. These are just attempts to discredit the Government. I have no doubts about the legitimacy of the Government of Zimbabwe’, and also: ‘The history of our countries is different and, therefore, the path to restoring the voice and ownership of the countries will be different between Tanzania and Zimbabwe. As African leaders, we are trying to explain to the Western countries the peculiarities of the Zimbabwean situation, but they have decided to hold on to their old prejudices.’
South Africa and many other African countries are also supportive of Mugabe despite his vote rigging and human rights abuses. One should not forget that only recently the UN has re-elected Zimbabwe to its Human Rights Commission! This was as a result of African support for Mugabe.
There is no hope for Zimbabwe so long as the West in general, and Britain in particular, continues to patronise communist and other despots in Africa. Instead the West needs to take those measures necessary to eject Mugabe from office.
Allowing the continuation of the present farce of asylum seeking is neither in the interests of this country or Zimbabwe.
There have been claims that those returned have been tortured or murdered, although the government claims that there are no substantiated reports of mistreatment.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has said that he is ‘amazed’ that the government has continued to send failed asylum seekers back to Zimbabwe and condemned the government’s policy as being ‘deeply immoral’. He further stated that: ‘You are often dealing with people who have been here for many years and have roots in the country and are suddenly, without warning, taken into the system’.
The problem with this controversy is that it ducks the real issue. It is not the administration of the asylum system that is at fault, but the whole concept of asylum seeking that is at fault.
Those presently complaining of potentially being returned to Zimbabwe or Malawi includes one, Crispen Kulunji, who claims to have bribed officials to give him a Malawian passport. But instead of settling in Malawi, he decided that he would prefer to live in the UK and so legged it across the entire African continent and Europe before using the magic words ‘I claim asylum’ once he got to the UK. He is now on hunger strike. The Home Office does not accept his story and insist he is a Malawian.
Another, Patson Muzuwa, has been given permission to stay in Britain, but is complaining that he now wants to bring his wife and children too. He left them behind when he fled Zimbabwe.
Another on Channel 4 News revealed that he had already been deported from the UK once when his claim for asylum was refused, but had merely legged it across Africa and Europe again and made yet another claim for asylum. Now he is complaining that he might be deported again!
More than 15,000 Zimbabweans have claimed asylum in the last 4 years. Only a few hundred of those claims have resulted in asylum status being given. The cost of processing an asylum seeker is roughly £20,000 per asylum seeker. The long term costs of housing and education etc are far higher. But at £20,000 for only 15,000 asylum seekers works out at £300million.
The estimates of the economic situation in Zimbabwe vary, as is to be expected given the type of regime in place, its unreliability and the economic situation. But a report from the Havard University based Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs in December 2002 made the following analysis:
‘In three years, Zimbabwe's GDP per capita has fallen by 30 percent. Government budget deficits are the highest in the world, over 20 percent of GDP. Zimbabwe's annual per capita GDP has fallen from well over $ 600 per person in 1998 to $ 300 this year. Inflation, running at 38 percent last year, is now a punishing 200 percent. One US dollar, six months ago capable of buying 150 Zimbabwe dollars, can now purchase 2,000 Zimbabwe dollars on the black market. About 60 percent of adult Zimbabweans have no jobs and no prospects now that commercial farming has been shut down and mining and manufacturing are slumping.’
The Zimbabwean economy has continued to contract, but even taking the per capita GDP as being US $300, then at an exchange rate of roughly $1.8 to £1, this means that the average per capita GDP is only £167.
In other words, the £300million that the UK has spent on 15,000 asylum seekers in the last 4 years is the equivalent to the average per capita GDP for roughly 450,000 Zimbabweans over the same 4 year period.
In deciding the merits of immigration, there are 2 main aspects to consider. What is in the interests of this country? And, given that there are despotic regimes and natural disasters around the world, how can we most effectively help genuine refugees?
No one has argued, and it is obviously not the case, that it is in this country’s interests to be spending £300million on dealing with 15,000 asylum seekers - especially when only a fraction of those claiming asylum have any legitimate basis to do so (even by the UK’s easygoing standards).
It is therefore the second question that is the crux of the present controversy. How can we best help genuine refugees? This is not being considered at all. What is happening is that people are pointing to Robert Mugabe and his various pogroms, and are then condemning anyone who advocates the deportation of failed asylum seekers as lacking in compassion, or possibly even being racist.
That is not good enough.
The best way to help the genuine refugees, who are not the fit young men who are paying organised crime rackets to smuggle them across 2 entire continents to get here, is to help them in Zimbabwe itself or neighbouring countries. To be spending £300million on 15,000 asylum seekers when that same money could provide an average income for 450,000 people is obscene. In reality, that same money would help very many more as refugees for obvious reasons would have a much less than average income.
Further, the UK should stop all economic assistance to Zimbabwe and those African countries that are supporting Mugabe. For example, President Mkapa of Tanzania has been quoted as saying: ‘I see no dispute to the elections in March. These are just attempts to discredit the Government. I have no doubts about the legitimacy of the Government of Zimbabwe’, and also: ‘The history of our countries is different and, therefore, the path to restoring the voice and ownership of the countries will be different between Tanzania and Zimbabwe. As African leaders, we are trying to explain to the Western countries the peculiarities of the Zimbabwean situation, but they have decided to hold on to their old prejudices.’
South Africa and many other African countries are also supportive of Mugabe despite his vote rigging and human rights abuses. One should not forget that only recently the UN has re-elected Zimbabwe to its Human Rights Commission! This was as a result of African support for Mugabe.
There is no hope for Zimbabwe so long as the West in general, and Britain in particular, continues to patronise communist and other despots in Africa. Instead the West needs to take those measures necessary to eject Mugabe from office.
Allowing the continuation of the present farce of asylum seeking is neither in the interests of this country or Zimbabwe.
posted by erc @ 10:15 pm
<< Home