David Blunkett’s new measures to toughen up the asylum system were unveiled earlier this week. It was announced that asylum seekers could go to prison for up to two years if they destroy their passports or travel documents on the way to Britain. It is thought that this would make claiming refugee status more difficult if the refugee doesn’t hold the correct papers. Not only is the home secretary taking direct action with the asylum seekers plans have also been revealed to target ‘unscrupulous and unqualified’ legal advisors in Britain who encourage asylum seekers to make unwarranted appeals.
Some would argue that the number of asylum seekers allowed into the country needs to be controlled. Members of the host country in particular can be hostile towards the asylum seekers. This is because asylum seekers are seen as taking advantage of the benefits provided by the country. This includes the NHS, subsidised housing. As asylum seekers are not entitled to work this can often lead to their reliance on the basic benefits at the expense of the tax payers and again this heightens hostility between the two groups. Likewise, memners of the host country tend to be worried in terms of cultural aspects
The new reforms have attracted much media coverage. According to the Independent (28th October) the new measures can be seen as a success for British asylum policies. According to the article the home secretary, ‘has succeeded through administrative stealth, in something few would have thought possible’. The article continues to argue that despite the new measures the UK will remain faithful to the legal obligations of obligations of the1951 UN convention. The convention formally defined a refugee as a ‘a well fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’. However, it can be argued that as the UK is presenting obstacles in the way of asylum can they really promote themselves as a liberal and democratically free country? This is the argument taken by Theodore Dalrrymple.
Similarly, in favour of the new measures the Daily Star (28th October 2003) argues the new rules will enable genuine claiment the right to be let in quicker and conversely those can’t provide the necessary documents will be deported just quickly. Nonetheless, these viewpoints tend to offer a one sided account of the new measures. Research taken by journalists tends not to be objective as the journalists values can bias the research and the information presented. In contrasts, political scientists tend to take a scientific approach in there study of political issues. This concept will be examined further below.
However, there has not been overwhelming support for the new measures. As mentioned above journalists values tend to hinder their ability to present information objectively therefore where support for the measures can be found objections towards them are also likely to be found. Some would argue that asylum seekers come to countries such as Britain in order to establish a better life for themselves as a result of political or religious persecution. Thus if a family is forced out of their house and the last thing they will have on their mind is whether they are carrying the correct documentation. This is the view taken by Theodore Dalrymple- Times, Oct 28th as mentioned above. Dalrymple contests the argument that asylum seekers sponge off the state. According to Dalrymple the aims of asylum seekers is self- improvement and not the reliance on the country welfare state. Dalrymple article on the new asylum measures concentrates on the perspective of the asylum seeker themselves. With this approach to the study of the reaserch the journalists concentrates their attention toward the individual behaviour of the actor and how their situation influnces their behaviour. Similarly, according to Alan Travis (Home Affairs editor, Guardian, Tuesday 28th 2003) the asylum system cannot work ….. Moreover, Travis quotes Jan Shaw of Amnesty International the new measures would in fact punish the ‘already vulnerable people’. According to Shaw torture victims for example were highly unlikely to have the necessary travel documents required to stay in the country.
In addition Steve Pope (Guardian) argues that despite asylum seekers being portrayed by the media as ‘national pariahs’ they do actually drive the UK economy which is dependent on their cheap labour.
However, the question remains of whether the articles presented by journalists can be taken at face value. This is because journalists differ in their treatment of politival issues. In the majority of cases it remains difficult for the journalist to take an objective viewpoint as their own views, morals and values can affect how they present their research. Moreover, journalist are unlikely to research and area or political issue in which they have no interest this in turn can lead to bias and misrepresentation of the data. Therefore, journalists differ from political scientists who try to remain objective in their study. The aim of behaviouralists is to establish law like generalisations and thus they tend to be associated with quantitative data.
In conclusion the highly controversial issue of asylum has attracted a wide scope of disagreeing opinions. Thus in order to gain a balanced understanding of the political issue in question a wide range of sources need to be examined.