So much about the immigration and asylum system is just completely unknown to people day to day. Some examples:
Asylum seekers are housed only if they have no £ or friends to stay with. Many asylum seekers are never housed by the state because they have somewhere to go. Asylum housing is usually very low quality in a random location so if it can be avoided people do.
Asylum housing is based on destitution and is ONLY while a claim is pending. People aren't allowed to work or claim benefits while waiting, but they also can't go to any other country (and say they are in danger in their home country), but it's a political decision
There are very limited and strict powers to house refused asylum seekers, but only really while their fresh claim is pending or while they are being removed from the UK. Refugees (accepted asylum claims) can apply for social housing, but are in the same position as everyone else.
When an asylum seeker's claim is refused any asylum housing they get is stopped, sometimes almost immediately. It can take a lot of work over weeks or months to prepare a fresh claim and in the meantime they are expected to live on the streets. Sometimes charities or hosts help.
Even when an asylum seeker is granted leave their housing is stopped quickly, so again they often become street homeless - and that's even when they're recognised as a survivor of persecution and extremely vulnerable.
The cost of housing lots of asylum seekers is solely a political decision. Other visa applications are turned around quickly - sometimes even in just one day - so it is a political decision to keep asylum seekers waiting months or years with the public paying for housing.
Even asylum seekers who have ££ when they arrive or a friend to stay with, can find themselves homeless and running out of money if they're left years without a visa decision. The government need to begin to make these decisions within a few months not years!
One really important point about asylum seekers is that most are from countries like Afghanistan where they will just be recognised as refugees. Refugees eventually get settlement in the UK and they and their kids become British. There is absolutely no benefit mistreating them.
The way people are disrespected in the asylum process - the lack of anyone to contact to sort anything out, the random delays and arbitrary, low quality decision-making - just would not be tolerated in any other government department. All made worse by the collapse of legal aid.
If there's something you wanted to ask about the UK asylum system or policy, or you want to know what the law says about an issue then feel free to ask. I will not however reply to far-right armchair racists asking questions in bad faith.
Getting a few questions about why people don't stay in France, so just linking in this thread where I've discussed that previously. In international law the test for asylum allows refugees to choose which country they wish to seek safety in.
The more I think about the illegal migration bill the more silly it seems. It’s just so very stupid. Apparently created by someone with the IQ of a table leg. The gov really want an appalled culture war about its racist, shocking contents but I’m not sure that’s my reaction.
If small boat arrivals aren’t refugees then just decide the asylum claims in the normal process - it doesn’t have to be done in a desperate rush but within maybe 2-3 months with access to professional assistance - and then if they’re economic migrants their cases will be refused
At the moment it’s taking the Home Office 1-3 years to decide these cases. They just need to decide them properly and efficiently and then people who aren’t refugees would be removable under existing powers. The UK can return people to most countries in the world.
In case it’s useful, I have worked intensively with a case with a trans person who is a sex offender. There was no suggestion their gender identity had anything to do with the sexual offence. The person was very dysregulated and unwell. Their gender was irrelevant to that.
People generally weren’t aware they were trans (their gender expression in line with birth gender) but we discussed the process of getting a GRC so they were aware. Their gender identity did not increase their risk to others in anyway.
We had a ‘no lone working’ policy in place with the person as did other services. This would have changed not at all if they’d had a GRC. We still identified them by their asserted gender and name and asked others to do so out of courtesy.
The inadmissibility process is the unwelcome sibling to downgrading refugee status. Asylum law is complicated but with these processes what you get is people who need proper advice. Hard to marry that up with legal aid market failure. This guidance suggests proper record keeping.
I guess a key point is that there is a lot more capacity for public law (mostly judicial review) work at the moment than for normal asylum work so the public law lawyers can use the records kept by NGOs.
What I’m hoping to do in January at @migrantsorg (in case it’s helpful for other charities) is review the files of those who claimed asylum since 28 June 2022 and check their position in terms of legal representation and their journey to the UK to see if there are gaps.
Good immigration case news in time for Christmas. Brief backround first. In June @Leary5Leary put a doctor friend in touch with me about a worrying case. @Project17UK also became involved and the family were taken on by @migrantsorg where I worked with them.
The family was a mum and two kids. One with a severe medical condition - 6 month prognosis without a bone marrow transplant. The family were being charged/quoted impossible NHS fees and their visas were due to run out.
When taking instructions they disclosed a fear of persecution, so I advised in favour of raising all the issues in a protection claim. I contacted the Home Office and the intake unit made reasonable adjustments, visiting the child's hospital urgently to register the claim.