All About the Numbers

Why are current debates about immigration and asylum are ignoring the human side?
The past few weeks has seen our prospective leaders slogging it out over policy details, every last penny of their budgets, and the pressing question of political reform. But there is one issue that craves immediate attention, and yet hasn‘t received nearly enough of it - that of immigration and asylum, the two dirty words of the 2010 election. It is hardly surprising that politicians would rather be seen to be supporting a traditionally British (preferably fledgling) business, rather than be photographed at an asylum centre, trying to find out what they can do to improve conditions, given how little effect it would have on their poll ratings. They all agree, loudly and publicly, on the need to secure the economic recovery and to lower class sizes, but not one of them seems to be interested in developing a more humane asylum system.

The consensus among the Labour, Liberal and Conservative Parties is that the immigration system needs to change, but by change they don’t mean that it should be made fairer - by, for instance instituting a weekly allowance for single women and their children, or a better standard of living - they mean fewer immigrants should be allowed into Britain, and those who are here should have a less obvious presence in cities and towns across the country. The tragedy of our asylum system made itself abundantly clear when in March, a Russian family committed suicide from the fifteenth floor of their Red Road flat in Glasgow. Having already had their benefits removed, Serge Serykh, along with his wife and child, died on the day they were told they must vacate their flat.

It was convenient for the media that a couple of days after the suicide, it emerged that Serykh had mental health problems. As the case faded away, the papers all came to the same conclusion that asylum policy wasn’t to blame after all because Serge had indefinite leave to remain in Canada, but after accusing the authorities there of various subversive plots, left in 2007.
On reaching Britain, the family were placed in the unnervingly silent Red Road estate. The family found themselves to be one amongst hundreds of asylum seekers left in the flats; a sort of purgatory for those awaiting their fate. It is no wonder the area has been nicknamed The United Nations of Hell. (The flats, now synonymous with urban destitution, are facing demolition.)

On March 14^th, a demonstration was held in Glasgow in support of asylum seekers rights. The idea for the event was sparked by the Serykh tragedy. Over two hundred people marched from the Red Road estate to George Square with banners and placards. One young woman from Gambia attended the protest with her children. She explained to me the problems she faced living in the flats. She said that she often spent nights piled into other friends apartments because the area is so unsafe. As a result of a government funding cut for asylum seeker support, she and her family have to survive on less than £50 a week. She said that she is struggling to maintain even a bare minimum standard of living now. Her case has been rejected by the appeals tribunal and she now simply awaits the knock on the door from the deportation officials.
It has been all too easy for our political leaders to draw a cast-iron curtain of indifference over the immigration debate. And it is, therefore, just as easy for the general public to buy into the stereotypes that immigrants and asylum seekers want to avoid working, or can’t speak English, or are showered with cash, or all of the above.

A government survey from this February showed that 77% of the British people want to see immigration reduced, and 50% of men and 52% of women want to see it reduced “a lot”. The recent influx of Eastern European labourers has increased fears that immigration threatens British jobs and wages and this fear (which is fueled by a crucial oversight: that more than one million Brits live and work in other EU countries) further intensifies hostility towards those most in need of fair and compassionate treatment.

The uniformity of opinion with regards to the three main Westminster parties has given credence to the claims of the far-right. The British National Party unveiled its manifesto last week with the pledge to halt any further immigration from Muslim countries, and developed this policy on the preposterous assertion that “indigenous” British people will be in a minority by 2050. The sound and the fury of the ultra-right took over the immigration debate some years ago, during the Labour period of government, while those who have had the opportunity to stem the tide of anti-immigrant rhetoric have failed to do so.

Last weeks, the BBC’s flagship news programme Panorama addressed the possibility that the United Kingdom is becoming overcrowded and, despite its bleak predictions, managed to remain relatively free chauvanist hype. Nonetheless, it added strings to the bow of those who wish to take aim at vulnerable new residents in Britain.

Tales of wrongly detained torture victims, humiliating procedural checks and general neglect slide under the radar, as demonstrated by the Scottish media’s fleeting interest in the Serykh case., in favour of crowd-pleasing talk of percentage slashing, points systems and population caps.

After the Red Road march, the Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees stated that “the economic situation, the closeness of the general election, and the increasing threat from the BNP can only increase the temptation for politicians to ratchet up the scapegoating of asylum seekers. Their prediction has been right, as the Prime Ministerial debates have been characterized by a rampant populism and the operative words have been “cutting” and “decreasing”.

The dark side of this debate has been in the spotlight for too long. It shouldn’t be about “how many there are” and “what they cost”. We are not talking about the national deficit. Immigrants and asylum seekers are not abstract numbers. There needs to be a calm and reasonable debate about what the best model for an honest and moral immigration system is. That will begin when public opinion is regained from the hands of a tiny, hate-filled minority, who know only how to spread distrust and disorder.