information > challenging the myths
asylum and terrorism: the facts
Is our asylum system an open door for terrorists?
What impact has ‘the war on terror’ had on asylum seekers in the UK ?
Isn't it time we cracked down on particular groups or nationalities which might be judged to pose a threat to our security ?
Should the Government detain newly-arrived asylum seekers until it has been determined whether they are genuine or not?
Is the Government doing enough to control and monitor asylum seekers entering the UK ?
Is our asylum system an open door for terrorists?
Far from creating a haven for terrorists, the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, which defines the UK’s obligations to people seeking asylum, states that its provisions should not apply to any person who, “has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity…or a serious non-political crime…” It explicitly enables governments - subject to the oversight of the courts - to exclude individuals who, even though they may be facing persecution in their country, have been involved in serious criminal or terrorist activities. The Convention also allows a person with refugee status to be returned to his or her country if he or she has been convicted for a particularly serious crime and represents a danger to the community. (1)
Upon arrival in the UK, all asylum seekers are photographed, fingerprinted, security checked and issued with ID cards by immigration officials. Many have to report at fixed, regular intervals to police stations or immigration screening centres while their application is considered. Asylum seekers can be detained on arrival in the UK if they are considered a risk to national security or are suspected of having committed a crime. A would-be terrorist is unlikely to choose a route of entry that immediately brings them to the attention of the authorities, requires fingerprinting and carries the risk of being detained.
These stringent controls do not apply to the vast majority of the 90 million people passing through our ports each year – mostly as visitors on passports and visas - of which asylum seekers represent a tiny fraction. It is worth noting that those who committed the atrocities in New York on September 11 carried documents which allowed them to legitimately enter the US as visitors. Potential terrorists in the UK are equally likely to be legally resident citizens, tourists or visitors. In the UK, a total of 17 people were convicted under the Terrorism Act and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act between 11 September 2001 and 31 December 2004 (2). According to the Institute of Race Relations, as of August 2004, at least nine of those were known to be British nationals. (3)
A report published by the Association of Chief Police Officers found no evidence that asylum seekers are more likely than anyone else in the community to commit criminal offences, and that asylum seekers are more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators. (4) As the Rt Hon David Blunkett, MP said during his time as Home Secretary: “We should not assume that asylum seekers are any more likely to be terrorists than anyone else. That would be wholly wrong, and deeply damaging to social cohesion and good race relations in this country.” (5)
In fact, many asylum seekers are themselves fleeing fundamentalism or state terror. They are overwhelmingly the victims of terror, not the perpetrators. This is reflected by Home Office figures which show that the top five applicant nationalities in 2004/05 were Iran, China, Somalia, Iraq and Zimbabwe – all countries where wars, ethnic cleansing and well-documented human rights abuses have taken place. (6)
What impact has ‘the war on terror’ had on asylum seekers in the UK ?
Refugee Action is concerned that the unwarranted association of asylum with terrorism in the public mind has contributed to a climate of heightened hostility toward asylum seekers. There is a risk that these already vulnerable people may be subject to public humiliation, bullying or racial attack.
Some sections of the tabloid press give undue prominence to stories documenting isolated incidences of refugee criminality. On occasion, high profile arrests of asylum seekers have been made in relation to alleged terrorist activities, only for those detained to be released at a later stage without charge. Yet while arrests of asylum seekers make headlines, their release without charge attracts little press coverage and often goes largely unnoticed. This uneven treatment in the media may leave the public with a disproportionate and unwarranted fear that asylum and terrorism are linked.
Isn't it time we cracked down on particular groups or nationalities which might be judged to pose a threat to our security ?
Refugee Action would be very concerned at any plans to remove the rights of some asylum seekers on the grounds of their nationality, ethnicity or religion. This would be contrary to the 1951 Convention and would directly affect asylum seekers fleeing persecution from some of the harshest regimes in the world.
The vast majority of asylum seekers from any country are not guerrillas or terrorists, but ordinary people who have been caught in the crossfire of conflict. Most of the victims of these conflicts are not active participants on either side.
Should the Government detain newly-arrived asylum seekers until it has been determined whether they are genuine or not?
Many asylum seekers have been the victims of imprisonment and torture and arrive in the UK suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health problems. To effectively imprison them on arrival in the UK would be extremely harmful, particularly to pregnant women and those with special needs.
Such a scheme would also prove hugely expensive and unworkable. Even now that the number of asylum applications has fallen by more than 60 per cent, it would require dozens of new detention centres to be built, each costing millions of pounds each. That money would be better spent on ensuring that faster and fairer decisions are made so that the backlog of asylum applications can be cleared. This would mean that the whole system - including the awarding of protection, refusals, appeals procedures and removals - would be speeded up.
Refugee Action's 24 years of experience has shown us that detention centres cause refugees to become institutionalised, making it far more difficult for them to integrate into the community once they have been awarded protection.
Is the Government doing enough to control and monitor asylum seekers entering the UK ?
The UK asylum and immigration system is already stringently controlled. In the past three years, the Government has introduced a stream of tough legislation designed to tackle potential criminal activity and security threats. The 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act included measures to introduce high-tech physical recognition equipment to identify those who might pose a security threat. The Act also introduced induction centres for newly-arrived asylum seekers and imposed tough new reporting and residence restrictions. It also included measures to remove the right to appeal in certain circumstances and to fast-track removal from the UK.
In addition, the 2004 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act created new offences, punishable by jail terms, for those found to be entering the UK without travel documents or failing to co-operate with removal. It also introduced electronic monitoring of persons subject to immigration control. The new 2005 Immigration Asylum and Nationality Bill also contains measures to further strengthen border security and detect or deter illegal immigration.
While Refugee Action recognises that the Government has a duty to control UK borders, we believe such measures must be accompanied by safeguards to ensure that refugees fleeing persecution are not prevented from reaching the UK, thus rendering meaningless the protection afforded them by the UN Convention. Recent legislation threatens to criminalise asylum seekers, who have done nothing wrong in seeking safety here. Toughening up an already punitive system with the intention of deterring and removing many more people must not be achieved at the cost of jeopardising their right to a full and fair hearing of their case.
Those who call for ever more stringent controls risk perpetuating a culture of fear and suspicion towards asylum seekers, refugees and those who work with them. At a time when the rights and freedoms of all are under threat, it is more vital than ever before that we stand up for those fleeing terror and persecution.
Sources
(1) United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951/1967
(3) Harmit Athwal, 'Analysis: Who are the terrorists?', Institute of Race Relations, August 2004
(4) Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) of England,Wales and Northern Ireland Asylum Seekers Policing Guide, 2003
(5) Home Secretary David Blunkett, Article for the Evening Standard, 17 January 2003
(6) Home Office: Asylum Statistics, 1st Quarter 2005, United Kingdom 2nd Edition
July 2005
Please help - you can make a difference
"Whenever I see another mum bringing her children to school, I smile. But I am empty inside because I have lost my own children."