Tory A-lister Sayeeda Warsi has just completed a report for the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust with Kate Adie OBE, Julian Baggini, Courtenay Griffiths QC and Bill Kilgallon OBE. The report - Moving on from Destitution to Contribution - argues that refused asylum seekers should be given "a revocable licence to work" so that they can benefit themselves, the taxpayer and local communities. In an article for today's Guardian, Ms Warsi describes the current plight of rejected asylum seekers:
"[They are] unable to work or contribute to society, unable to leave and sleeping rough. They are forced into destitution, relying on charity or working in the shadow economy, with all the dangers that can bring. It is wishful thinking to expect that, with little or no source of income, these people will return home voluntarily."
Many will see Ms Warsi's work as in tune with a Conservatism that is, as she writes, "interested in humanity and fairness." Others will worry that the system she recommends will only encourage more illegal immigration into Britain. This is one comment on the thread below her Guardian piece:
"If they do allow failed asylum seekers the right to work and maybe even benefits on top of that (because it's cruel to make them sleep rough if they're paying taxes) then I'll hop on a plane over to England on a tourist visa and claim asylum myself. It'll probably be much easier than getting a work visa."
Related link: Tories "very sceptical" of immigration amnesty
Rejected, i.e. bogus, asylum seekers should be deported.
A Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party should know better. There is no better example of why Party Vice-Chairmen should be elected by the members rather than appointed by the Leader.
Posted by: TFA Tory | April 04, 2007 at 09:05
Having worked at The Home Office and CPS and then as an Immigration Lawyer she should be advocating unlimited immigration to secure votes in Dewsbury...but this seems second best as a policy
Posted by: ToMTom | April 04, 2007 at 09:26
It's surely one thing for someone whose case has not yet been decided to be allowed to work and to pay instead of them claiming benefits (which is the position I agree with) and a wholly different matter for a failed asylum seeker (who should, by law, be deported forthwith) to be allowed to work.
There may be some clever political strategy at work here from this Joanna Come Lately to the Party but if there is, I fear I am missing it.
Maybe she will explain her case on ConHome, take questions from Tory Radio or appear on 18DoughtyStreet.com to explain her case in more detail...?
Posted by: Donal Blaney | April 04, 2007 at 09:28
Sayeeda has been doing poorly I feel in recent times. Her appearance on Question Time wasnt as strong as it could be and this again is a poor performance by her. If they are failed asylum seekers, then they should return home, not have our benefits because we have some obligation to do so. If they have no right to be here, then they have no right to State handouts or to employment.
Posted by: James Maskell | April 04, 2007 at 09:30
A late April fool. Love the "revocable" touch though - what do they have to do to get it revoked? And, once revoked, what is done then? The naughty step?
Posted by: aristeides | April 04, 2007 at 09:30
For goodness sake, why tremble at the prospect of returning these unwanted immigrants to their own countries? This is a policy for continued innundation.
Posted by: John Coles | April 04, 2007 at 09:32
I salute Sayeeda for her humanity. Anyone who has the guts and enterprise to travel across the world to Britain is exactly the kind of economic entreprenuer we need. Britain should not be afraid of larger scale immigration. It has been good for the US economy and Poles etc power our economy today. It would also be shameful to return desperate people to nations that have questionable human rights records.
Posted by: Jennifer Wells | April 04, 2007 at 09:38
How do we know they are desperate?
Posted by: James Maskell | April 04, 2007 at 09:40
Britain's working classes are the main victim of uncontrolled immigration as Polly Toynbee has realised. Immigration gives rich people cheaper decorators and puts native Brits out of work.
Posted by: Alan S | April 04, 2007 at 09:42
Conservatism needs to be three things: principled, compassionate, and pragmatic.
On pragmatic and compassionate grounds Sayeeda is right. Failed asylum seekers are not getting deported and are de facto a burden on the state. Such has been Labour's failure on immigration and asylum that I frankly doubt we have the resources presently to deport them.
However on principle, that of not rewarding illegal immigration and encouraging it, this needs a little more.
I would suggest a triple-barrelled approach:
1. Grant to failed asylum seekers a revocable right to work. If they prove themselves as good workers and non-criminals they could be put on the path to a visa; if not, since they've registered, we'll have a better idea of where they are for deportation. Meanwhile they get to contribute and not burden us so much.
2. Secure the borders with a far tougher immigration and asylum policy, more police, and fewer immediate benefits. Never process asylum applicants inside the country. In future they get no further than the airport. Package this with a range of measures designed to reduce the immigration burden on the welfare state.
This has the dual benefit of taking care of the insurmountable problem we presently have without making it worse in the future. It is also compassionate to those people who are already here and has economic knock on effects, such as not undermining UK minimum wage workers, saving council bills, etc.
Posted by: Tory T | April 04, 2007 at 09:47
I agree with TFA Tory, once the asylum seekers lose their first ruling they should have no appeal and should be deported.
Why should non-citizens have the same rights (to appeal) as citizens? Ah I forgot the Human Rights Act? If so that is what needs to be changed.
In the period before their first legal ruling then asylum seekers should receive support within a secure facility.
Posted by: HF | April 04, 2007 at 09:47
Make that double-barrelled. It doesn't need anything more!
Posted by: Tory T | April 04, 2007 at 09:48
Failed asylum seekers should be deported, not allowed to work here. A proposal of this nature will only encourage illegal immigration.
Posted by: Sean Fear | April 04, 2007 at 10:00
No I don't think so.
The report does not go into any detail as to why failed asylum seekers are unable to leave the country swiftly.Help for them to do this should be given but that's it.
If their application has been rejected that should be the end of the matter.
This may seem harsh but I feel that if this report is enacted in law Britain will become an even stronger magnet for asylum seekers than it already is.
Posted by: malcolm | April 04, 2007 at 10:04
If failed asylum seekers were allowed to work then every person who is here on a tourist visa, work permit or has had an application rejected while in this country would claim asylum, overstay and start to work!
In any event I find this very odd from a person who at the last eletion was claiming that the immigration policy of Michael Howard was something she proposed.
Posted by: Adam | April 04, 2007 at 10:15
Jennifer Wells has a callous disregard for her fellow citizens...where does she suggest they find work ?
Has she seen the unemployment rates in London, Bradford, Sheffield etc ?
Has she any notion of how the Minimum Wage is being flouted and how the cost of Tax Credits will explode as soon as the new immigrants qualify to claim ?
Posted by: TomTom | April 04, 2007 at 10:15
Jennifer Wells has a callous disregard for her fellow citizens...where does she suggest they find work ?
Has she seen the unemployment rates in London, Bradford, Sheffield etc ?
Has she any notion of how the Minimum Wage is being flouted and how the cost of Tax Credits will explode as soon as the new immigrants qualify to claim ?
Posted by: TomTom | April 04, 2007 at 10:20
I can only suppose that specifying the OBEs and QCs who were involved in this report was an attempt to make it credible. But it's a load of liberal nonsense. What the report is really saying is that no one should "fail" the asylum test, just as all shall have "passes" at school, regardless of merit.
Jennifer Wells above seems to have missed the point entirely, suggesting that deportation is "shameful", even though the individuals in question will have had their cases examined with all risks taken into account, and all human "rights" acknowledged.
Posted by: Og | April 04, 2007 at 10:22
Tom Tom, I've never really bought into the argument that, in these days of fairly easy international travel, migrating to Britain makes you some kind of dynamic entrepreneur.
Posted by: Sean Fear | April 04, 2007 at 10:23
First, the government announce amnesty for 200,000 failed Asylum seekers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/02/nasylum02.xml)
Now a 'conservative' is proposing something akin to such an amnesty by extending rights to those who have no rights under the law in this country?? This beggars belief! I thought the conservatives were for less immigration and, more importantly, law and order.
All asylum seekers should be given a fair hearing under the law. But if their claim fails they should have to obey the legal process like we are all compelled to do. This does not mean giving failed asylum seekers effective rights of citizenship.
I am appalled a conservative candidate (though, not surprisingly an A-lister) has come up with such a ludicrous idea.
Posted by: Tim Aker | April 04, 2007 at 10:25
This is not a practical suggestion at all. The UK is already seen as a soft touch, and this sort of policy will send even more voters flocking to the BNP. You can't have controlled immigration and simultainously give failed asylum seekers the right to work here.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | April 04, 2007 at 10:26
Does anybody think we have the manpower or resources to deport the vast numbers of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers here already?
I would like to see a complete clampdown on immigration and asylum with a much lower limit and an Australian skills-based formula, but it seems to me that the sheer numbers presently burdening us require addressing and that deporting them is impossible on a practical level.
If deportation were feasible I would support it, but I fear it is not and we must look at the situation as it is whilst improving it for the future.
Posted by: Tory T | April 04, 2007 at 10:31
One factor worth considering is that once you give either an offical amnesty to illegal immigrants, or a de facto amnesty, as Sayeeda Warsi is proposing, you then trigger off a load of chain migration.
After all it is "inhumane" that people who've migrated here can't bring family members to join them.
Posted by: Sean Fear | April 04, 2007 at 10:31
"Does anybody think we have the manpower or resources to deport the vast numbers of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers here already?"
Probably not. But they should not be given any offical right to remain here. In time, that will mean giving them the right to claim benefits and to bring in family members to join them, as well as encouraging fresh waves of illegal immigrants to come over here, in anticipation of further amnesties.
Posted by: Sean Fear | April 04, 2007 at 10:33
Sean but that is why I propose coupling it with the far stiffer policies on asylum, benefits, and immigration and closing our porous borders, as above. The two must go together or it can't work.
Posted by: Tory T | April 04, 2007 at 10:37
We have enough people coming in here from Europe with the rights that they have under the Law so why should we give rejected asylum seekers the right to work before being deported. I believe that they should be returned to their own Country immediately especially since many have travelled across many borders before ariving here in the UK.
A true asylum seeker should seek that status in the first country which they arrive in and not wait until they reach the UK. I cannot believe that an 'A' lister or for that,anyone on the Candidates list should make such a suggestion. This most certainly is not the Tory Party I joined many years ago.
Posted by: Cllr Bruce Mackie | April 04, 2007 at 10:41
"A true asylum seeker should seek that status in the first country which they arrive in and not wait until they reach the UK."
I am sure Sayeeda Warsi does believe that. Her proposal is to do with those who currently burden the state and are too numerous for deportation. It is not contradicted by a desire for a much tougher immigration policy.
Posted by: Tory T | April 04, 2007 at 10:55
Britain should not be afraid of larger scale immigration. It has been good for the US economy
The absolutely cruicial difference between the UK and US is that of space. We are simply out of room, unless we are going to build new cities in eg the Scottish highlands.
You can't blame people from countries much poorer than our own for wanting to come here, but we simply can't fit everyone who'd like to come.
It's easy to type this sat at a keyboard with electricity and clean water on tap of course........I suspect a week in Darfur or the slums of Delhi would leave me with a different view, but just where do we draw the line....
Posted by: comstock | April 04, 2007 at 11:02
"Does anybody think we have the manpower or resources to deport the vast numbers of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers here already?"
If there was the will to do it then it could be done. We could even offer amnesty to a maximum of 5% of the illegals, provided they helped to deport the other 95%.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | April 04, 2007 at 11:09
Good post Comstock.
Posted by: malcolm | April 04, 2007 at 11:10
Failed asylum seekers should not be in this country more than 30 minutes after being rejected.
Indeed the bulk of failed seekers should never have made it into this country in the first place. Our borders are porous and the UK is seen as being the land of opportunity, to such an extent that many will gladly part with money to criminal gangs of smugglers to illegally enter the UK.
The international laws relating to asylum and displaced persons needs to be revised and brought up tp date. I see no reason for Africans, Asians and Middle Easterners to demand and expect entry into the EU or the UK at the drop of the asylum word. These people should seek succour in contiguous nation states and if those states are overwhelmed, then the EU or UN will provide money and aid.
This country has been cynically exploited over the last few decades by the asylum business and it is time that we hardened our hearts to the whole little game. Asylum should only be granted to those that have gone by the book and demonstrated a need for safety, rather than the need for economic exploitation. It may well be harsh, but, in the long term will reduce cross continent migration and protect those at risk.
Empty talk will only give hope to the millions that want to come to the UK and EU to make the effort and pay the criminals and risk life for nothing.
Posted by: George Hinton | April 04, 2007 at 11:11
Britain should not be afraid of larger scale immigration. It has been good for the US economy
Evidence ?
To have the population density of England the USA would need a population of 2000,000,000 and would therefore need the population of India or China to settle there
Posted by: TomTom | April 04, 2007 at 11:46
"Does anybody think we have the manpower or resources to deport the vast numbers of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers here already?"
If we have the resources to tax 60 million people, we have the resources to deport a few hundred thousand
Posted by: ToMTom | April 04, 2007 at 11:48
I cannot believe that it is beyond the resources of the UK to deport rejected asylum seekers. If it is the case then we are really in some mess. Wonder what Margaret Thatcher would have done about such a situation. We really have to get a grip of this sorry state.I can see some difficulty arising if we are fortunate enough to win the next election as one of our Vice Chairmen was a party to this report.It looks like that we can look forward to a futher flood of asylum applications! Can we not post a message that the Country is full. Room might be available however if some of our able young people leave to set up home in Australia where they seem to have a more stringent policy in place.Am I being too cynical?
Posted by: Cllr Bruce Mackie | April 04, 2007 at 11:55
I cannot believe that it is beyond the resources of the UK to deport rejected asylum seekers. If it is the case then we are really in some mess. Wonder what Margaret Thatcher would have done about such a situation. We really have to get a grip of this sorry state.I can see some difficulty arising if we are fortunate enough to win the next election as one of our Vice Chairmen was a party to this report.It looks like that we can look forward to a futher flood of asylum applications! Can we not post a message that the Country is full. Room might be available however if some of our able young people leave to set up home in Australia where they seem to have a more stringent policy in place.Am I being too cynical?
Posted by: Cllr Bruce Mackie | April 04, 2007 at 11:56
This is nonsense. If someone's application for asylum in the UK has been rejected, they should be deported.
Posted by: Dave Bartlett | April 04, 2007 at 12:13
"Britain should not be afraid of larger scale immigration."
Well it is and rightfully so. I don't see why immigration is such a "controversial" topic when a large majority is in favour of tougher controls and, by implication, deportation. Despite the fact that many of these people are unwanted they still arrogantly state, when interviewed, that they will stay here and go underground. But of course the local population must shut up and celebrate cheap labour etc.
Posted by: Richard | April 04, 2007 at 12:15
...and there was me wondering why Sayeeda had not been seleted anywhere yet!
Posted by: Anon | April 04, 2007 at 13:35
people get rather excited about asylum. I am not sure it is much of an issue thse days - rather more significant is the millions from Eastern Europe
Posted by: matthew | April 04, 2007 at 13:42
Sayeeda Warsi's a prat, isn't she?
Posted by: Not Brian Coleman | April 04, 2007 at 13:59
If we were to accept this silly proposal then we might just as well give up on having any kind of immigration controls at all. After all we would then have a situation in which anyone from anywhere could arrive in the UK, make a nonsense asylum claim, have it refused but then get to stay on and work here anyway. It is a great shame that a person holding high office in the Conservative Party has chosen to associate herself with such nonsense.
Posted by: Matt Davis | April 04, 2007 at 14:09
I am afraid that Sayeeda was so busy being "compassionate" that she forgot to be a Conservative too!! Sorry to be harsh - but this simply hasn't been thought through properly. The whole point of someone's asylum claim failing is that they are not deemed to fulfil the requirements to be allowed to stay in this country and therefore they should be deported as soon as reasonably possible.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | April 04, 2007 at 14:27
people get rather excited about asylum. I am not sure it is much of an issue thse days
Matthew, Sayeeda Warsi used to work in her father's Immigration Law Firm in Dewsbury; this is just what the BNP ordered for its election leaflets in that mill town....and no doubt it will play well in Burnley, Oldham, Batley, Halifax etc.
There are ways to make life hard for Conservative Council candidates in the North and she choose one of them
Posted by: TomTom | April 04, 2007 at 16:37
Sayeeda Warsi has always come across pretty well when I've seen her on TV- an intelligent, articulate, non-posh Muslim woman who is also a Conservative. However, I think this proposal is nuts and misjudges not only the instincts of the traditional Conservative voter, or indeed the traditional Northern voter, but the public at large. For goodness sakes, this proposal didn't even get general approval earlier in the week when it was put up on the Guardian's Comment is Free (sic) blog!
It is a shame that Ms Warsi didn't make a public statement to the effect that failed asylum seekers should be deported immediately. That's not a racist or uncompassionate line to take and she'd have been a good person to make that point in a believable manner.
Posted by: Angelo Basu | April 04, 2007 at 16:52
What a pity she's not on this week's Question Time .
Posted by: michael mcgough | April 04, 2007 at 17:57
This is a nuts policy, I agree with 99% of the posts here.
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | April 04, 2007 at 19:24
If they aren't considered a potential security risk and they are able to pay their own way then I don't see any reason why they shouldn't stay and pay tax and NI contributions, why not deport a lot of the BNP people (drop them in mid-Atlantic with concrete wellies perhaps) who complain about immigrants taking their job when in many cases immigrants are contributing to their benefits. People who are from abroad who are not asylum seekers, have not been given leave to remain on grounds of asylum and have not been granted citizenship should not receive any education, health or welfare assistance from the state though.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | April 04, 2007 at 19:38
You really must be joking. We're just a small crowded island. We have enough legal immigrants without keeping illegal ones. Send them back!
Posted by: Paul Cope | April 04, 2007 at 19:43
National Security and keeping out criminals should be the overwhelming concern of immigration policy. Where people are infringing the laws here or are considered a National Security risk then they should be deported even if it is considered that they have a valid case for asylum.
I don't think people should be allowed to remain in the UK illegally, I see no reason though why people who can support themselves should not be allowed to remain if they are no terrorist or criminal threat and in fact it would make sense to allow joint claims where people could both claim asylum and be allowed to show that they could support themselves without state assistance. Obviously if someone can't support themselves financially and does not have a valid asylum case then they should be deported. Anyone considered to be possibly terrorist or encouraging terrorism should be detained under Anti-Terrorist legislation for questioning and punishment, anyone else considered dangerous or a nuisance should be deported.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | April 04, 2007 at 20:12
This is a nonsense. Failed asylum seekers should be deported, as it has been proven that they do not have a case to remain here. Such an approach will only encourage more illegal immigration. Sayeeda is stupid to take this line - the BNP will be rubbing their hands with glee.
As I write, there are Bulgarians camping in Hyde Park in central London because they cannot find work and have nowhere to stay.
Posted by: Cllr Alexa Michael | April 04, 2007 at 22:56
why not deport a lot of the BNP people (drop them in mid-Atlantic with concrete wellies perhaps) who complain about immigrants taking their job when in many cases immigrants are contributing to their benefits.
Voice from the Asylum ?
Posted by: TomTom | April 05, 2007 at 05:55
We should be doing the "right thing' by asylum seekers. They are largely irrelevent in terms of numbers, compared to 20,000 a monnth of legal migrants and god knows how many illegals, and are the deserving cases anyway.
Boston in lincs has 10,000 migrants and yet has settled under a 1000 asylum seekers in 3 years - this puts it in perspective. The more we do the "right thing" by these people the more we can do the "right thing" to all the illegal economic migrants who are destroying rural UK, collapsing wage levels, forcing more people into the welfare trap and are the cause of ALL the support received by BNP and UKIP.
We must seperate the two issues and doings the right thing by asylum seekers is a sensible policy.
However, all of this is a waste of time if we do not close the borders, require visas for ALL who arrive and then we can be seen as the sensible party on immigration. We have a woman, Lin Homer, on 200K a year in the home office that cannot even estimate the illegal migrant population because she is deliberately not counting them.
I have posted elsewhere on why this is the case but the bottom line is easy - we should do the right thing by 'asylum seekers', deport those rejected, protect the EU migrants from exploitation and trafficking by insisting on visa's before they arrive and reassure the public that an economic collapse in an EU country will not see 600,000 people arriving in the UK (a serious risk in current times). Once the unrestricted supply of cheap labour can be controlled, not stopped, we can then start getting 5 million people back into jobs that do not require state income support. Its all about economics.
We need to propse a coherent and caring strategy on migration which starts with finding out who comes in and out of the country. We simply cannot take another 1m migrants from Eastern Europe, Turkey etc and the public know it.
Posted by: Steve | April 06, 2007 at 01:20
LOL, your Leadership are laughing their backsides off at you. Its like winding up a pet dog to see how much it will take before it finally snaps back at its beloved master.
Is there *anything* these swine could propose that would cause any of you to leave? Somehow I doubt it. Laughable.
Posted by: DSD | April 06, 2007 at 09:37
Attitudes like this are another nail in the Conservative Party's coffin. Expect to see more of your former loyal supporters migrate to the BNP.
Posted by: Riaz | April 06, 2007 at 10:24
It's no wonder that I used to vote Conservative.
Posted by: Allan@Aberdeen | April 06, 2007 at 11:36