BRITAIN: Labour follows Ruddock's lead on refugees

BY SARAH PEART
& MATT PRESTON

GLASGOW — Joining Kylie Minogue and XXXX beer in the list of embarrassing Australian exports to Britain is Canberra's racist policies towards asylum seekers. Judging by the British Labour government's white paper on asylum, migration and citizenship, Prime Minister Tony Blair's attempt to “take personal control” of refugee policy will involve adopting the Australian government's strategy of deterrence and detention.

The white paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, is the fourth attempt in less than 10 years to “reform” the asylum seeker system in Britain. In October, Home Secretary David Blunkett announced to the House of Commons that government policy on asylum seekers and immigration would be overhauled. The white paper was introduced on February 7, followed by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill which was published on April 12. It is presently being debated in the Commons.

The proposals pay lip service to the government's commitment to give asylum to people fleeing persecution. Their real purpose is to reduce Britain's “pull factor” and to speed the removal rate of asylum seekers who fail to be granted refugee status. Labour's cynical attitude was summed up by immigration minister Lord Rooker, who stated that “most asylum seekers are single men who have deserted their families for economic gain”.

Labour's U-turn

During the 1997 election campaign, Labour opposed the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act introduced by the Conservative Party government. The 1996 act reduced asylum seekers' right to appeal and introduced a “white list” of countries from which asylum seekers' application for refugee status would be presumed to be “clearly unfounded”.

The act was repealed within two years of Labour's 1997 election win. In an all too familiar fashion, Labour is preparing to reintroduce these same policies.

Most controversial is the proposal to reintroduce a policy similar to the “white list” system. Asylum seekers whose claims are “clearly unfounded” and who come from a list of countries judged to be “safe” will be sent back. They can then lodge an appeal from there. If that is considered too dangerous, the asylum seeker can be sent to a third country while the appeal is being processed.

Blunkett has suggested that Afghanistan, a country still deeply unstable and ruled by violent warlords, would be considered a “safe” country.

The proposal has been condemned by the Refugee Council, the Immigration Advisory Service and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The bill also includes plans to widen powers to interview unaccompanied children seeking asylum, increase detention capacity and increase the use of detention for families, build new accommodation centres and strengthen border controls. An immigration hotline which members of the public can phone to report suspected immigration offences may also be established.

Home Office memos leaked to the British Guardian in late May show the extreme nature of the measures being considered. They include deploying Royal Navy warships to intercept asylum seekers, using RAF transport planes for bulk deportations, tying British overseas aid to the willingness of governments to take back asylum seekers and adopting the Australian government's initiative of offering refugees “return grants”.

Blair's tough line

As “illegal” immigration and refugee flows rise to the top of the European political agenda, Blair is resolute on pushing a tough line. After meeting Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in May, Blair stated that the European Union should use “all the tools at its disposal”, including economic incentives and penalties, to ensure that governments accept deportees.

Blair's tough talk on combating “illegal immigration” has been rejected by the European Commission. On June 5, the development commissioner Poul Neilson slammed Blair's proposal that the EU should make aid to developing countries conditional on agreement to take back illegal migrants. Brussels also expressed concern that governments are overreacting and neglecting their duties to refugees under UN conventions.

Blair's attempt to force a deal with the French government to close the controversial Sangrette Red Cross camp has also been criticised by the UN High Commission for Refugees.

Situated near the entrance to the channel tunnel, the camp is used by thousands of asylum seekers preparing to travel to Britain. It opened in 1999 as a response to the growing numbers of refugees sleeping rough on the streets of nearby Calais. Closure of the camp will force extra hardship on those whose lives are already in turmoil.

The immigration issue will come to a head at the June 21-22 EU summit in Seville, where a common EU asylum and immigration policy will be debated. The intention is to create a “fortress Europe” which denies access to the world's poorest people.

Real picture

Politicians and the tabloid press have united to paint a grossly exaggerated picture of a crisis. “Pseudo asylum seekers" are “swamping” Britain, they declare.

The Guardian weekend magazine on June 8 reported that a Mori survey on public attitudes towards refugees, carried out in November 2000, found that after a year in which the tabloid Daily Mail had run more than 200 stories about asylum seekers and refugees, 80% of adults believed that refugees come to Britain because they regard it as a “soft touch”, 66% thought they were too many immigrants in Britain and 63% felt that “too much” is being done to help immigrants.

Respondents also believed that 20% of the population were refugees as opposed to the actual figure of 4%. While asylum seekers receive £36.54 per week in benefits, respondents believed they received £113 per week.

Contrary to Blunkett's claim that refugees are “swamping our schools”, only a tiny percentage of the world's refugees make it to the richer countries: 5% to Europe and less than 1% to Britain. Of the 15 EU countries, Britain ranks 10th in the proportion of asylum seekers in the population. Blunkett's “pseudo asylum seekers” are people who are fleeing violence, torture, war, environmental degradation or other forms of persecution.

Governments across Europe want to give the issues of immigration and asylum a high priority because of mounting concern that the issue is being exploited by right-wing and populist parties, as shown by the far right's recent electoral successes in France and the Netherlands.

Contrary to British Labour's claims that a “tough stand” on “illegal” immigration is essential to “tackle the growth of the far right”, it has been the failure of the Labour government to depart from implementing racist policies and seriously combat racism that has paved the way for the far right to emerge. It has been left to parties and organisations, such as the Scottish Socialist Party and the Socialist Alliance in England and Wales, to provide the anti-racist alternative.

However, even as the Australian government's racist refugee policies are being lapped up by the British Labour government, the spirit of anti-racist resistance and solidarity that has emerged in Australia is also being emulated by activists here.

As part of the National Refugee Week, anti-racist activists will converge in London on June 22 to protest British Labour's anti-refugee proposals. Activists will also be travelling to Seville to protest at the EU summit to oppose a fortress Europe.

From Green Left Weekly, June 19, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.