The Guardian view on refugees: don’t set them up to fail
|
Version 0 of 1. To become an asylum seeker in Europe is to have overcome adversity. First, to have survived the dangers in your homeland and found a means of escape. Then to have survived the journey and reached your destination. Only this week, Unicef warned that women and children were being raped, beaten and starved in Libyan detention centres. Last year, more than 5,000 migrants died attempting to cross the Mediterranean, and Balkan countries shut their borders, blocking many who had hoped to reach northern Europe. To have your claim recognised, and to become a refugee, is harder still. It means negotiating a complicated, alien and unforgiving system which often gets it wrong; around 30% of refusals in Britain are overturned in the courts. So refugee status is a mark not only of suffering but of the ability to withstand it. The attention already given to perilous journeys, and the populist backlash to the surging numbers of asylum seekers in Europe over recent years – though arrivals fell in 2016 – now needs to encompass what happens at their destination. Making a home in a new land is challenging even for those who move by choice and with plentiful resources. Now add in trauma and sometimes physical issues too; a language barrier; skills or qualifications that cannot be transferred. But as a Guardian series – The New Arrivals – beginning today shows, many of the problems they face are entirely unnecessary. It is right to press for the acceptance of the vulnerable – notably the child refugees denied entry by the axing of the Dubs scheme. Around 3% of asylum claims lodged in Europe last year were made in the UK. Applications in 2016 were not much more than a third of the 2002 peak, and Britain consistently has the lowest approval rates of the EU’s big five nations. Yet The New Arrivals reminds us that how we treat those gaining admittance is just as critical as who we do and don’t let in. We have not done our part if we let them through the door, but don’t allow them to make themselves at home. Of the big five, only Italy – handling much larger numbers – treats asylum seekers and refugees worse. Britain is, for instance, the only EU nation to allow indefinite immigration detention. MPs warned in December that accommodation for asylum seekers is a disgrace, citing rat and bedbug infestations. Financial support, at £36.95 a week, is far meaner than in comparable nations. Asylum seekers are almost never granted the right to work. And bizarrely, those recognised as refugees are routinely forced into destitution because they lose existing entitlements and accommodation before their new benefits and housing have been processed. The “move on” period is 28 days; the British Red Cross have found it takes an average of 42 days to first payment of benefits, and in some cases far longer. Extending that period should be a priority. Improving country guidance – found so shockingly incorrect in the case of Eritrea – and the quality of decision-making would reduce processing times and the stress and cost of unnecessary appeals. A proper dispersal policy, so asylum seekers are not just dumped in areas with cheap housing, is needed. Allowing them to work – as many European countries already do – would help them to integrate and to support themselves. Much could be learned from the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement programme, bringing in those already recognised as refugees. Though that too has its shortcomings, it is better funded and offers integrated support for 12 months. That has led to a two-tier system, and the challenge should be to raise up the way that others are treated, not engage in a race to the bottom. Treating people decently is the right thing to do. It ensures that they are able to contribute to their new society, in financial and other ways, as soon as possible. That is better for everyone. Those seeking asylum in the UK have already succeeded against the odds. Why do we then set them up for failure? |