Top Ten Myths about Afghanistan, 2010

Source: Informed Comment (First Published 27/12/10)

10. “There has been significant progress in tamping down the insurgency in Afghanistan.”

• Fact: A recent National Intelligence Estimate by 16 intelligence agencies found no progress. It warned that large swathes of the country were at risk of falling to the Taliban and that they still had safe havens in Pakistan, with the Pakistani government complicit. The UN says there were over 6000 civilian casualties of war in Afghanistan in the first 10 months of 2010, a 20% increase over the same period in 2009. Also, 701 US and NATO troops have been killed this year, compared to 521 last year, a 25% increase. There were typically over 1000 insurgent attacks per month in Afghanistan this year, often twice as many per month as in 2009, recalling the guerrilla war in Iraq in 2005.

Read more

HAT News is not responsible for the content of external websites. Inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement.

Charlotte Kingsbury takes a look at refugees in Nottingham

What do the Mini, fish and chips, Marks & Spencer and the Bank of England have in common? Cornerstones of British culture? Well, yes. And like many other truly British things, we have refugees fleeing persecution in their homelands to thank for them.

From what you hear in Parliament and the press, you’d be forgiven for thinking we were overrun with bogus asylum seekers, taking our taxes and lolling on free furniture in des-res council homes. In actual fact, the number of asylum seekers in this country is now at its lowest for almost twenty years, the process by which asylum seekers need to prove their legitimacy has never been as strict (and dehumanising) as it is now; claimants can expect to be finger-printed, questioned, medically examined, imprisoned and otherwise treated like a criminal suspect. All this after a life-threatening journey, perhaps in the hands of money-grabbing smugglers, to escape terrible persecution whilst grieving the loss of loved ones who have been left behind or who have already died. Serves them right for not asking whatever dictatorship they were running away from for their passport, birth certificate and life savings before coming here, eh?

Read more

ICM poll reveals negative opinions on Asylum

One in four British people still believe asylum seekers come to Britain to claim benefits, according an ICM poll for the British Red Cross.

Even though 89 per cent correctly said the definition of an asylum seeker is someone fleeing persecution in their own country, 28 per cent still thought an asylum seeker is someone who has come to this country to illegally look for work.

The results of the poll – which surveyed over 2,000 people – show conflicting opinions and a lack of knowledge about the legal definition of asylum.

The results of the ICM poll for the British Red Cross are published ahead of this year’s Refugee Week (14th – 20th of June). The Refugee Week is a UK-wide programme of arts, cultural and educational events that celebrates the contribution of refugees in the UK, and encourages a better understanding between communities.

Questioned about the level of support asylum seekers fleeing persecution are given, the majority of people overestimated the amount of money asylum seekers are given each week.

57 per cent of people thought that asylum seekers were given vouchers to cover living expenses up to £100 a week.

14 per cent thought the weekly amount was over £100.

Read full report

Twelve myths about refugees and asylum seekers

Newspaper headlines say Britain is under siege from asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are blamed for higher taxes, crime, rising house prices, hospitals waiting lists, cheap labour, terrorism and AIDS. Mainstream politicians either agree or refuse to challenge these stories. Read more

Myths about Immigration #1 – “Britain is a ’soft touch’”

By Barry Curtis|Bazza Online

This is the first in a series of blogs to be published over the next few weeks questioning commonly held assumptions with regard to immigration. The provisional outline for this series confronting ‘myths about immigration’ runs as follows: (1) “Britain is a soft touch” (2) “Immigrants take jobs away from native Britons” (3) “Immigrants are a drain on the welfare state” (4) “Britain is overpopulated” (5) “Immigrants lower wages for the rest of us” (6) “Immigration controls need tightening”.Ultimately this series will be arguing for an ‘open door’ approach to immigration, showing that the numbers coming to the UK are not strongly influenced by government policy on immigration controls. Nevertheless such controls cause immense suffering and cost more than the ‘problem’ they’re trying to prevent.

Now to begin with the first myth: “Britain is a soft touch”…

Last year, the net migration to the UK was 163,000 people. Of these, most are coming to Britain in search of work (economic migrants). Others are coming to study here. Others are fleeing persecution (asylum seekers). A lesser number are staying in order to marry a British citizen. Every year many thousands migrate to the UK and many thousands emigrate away from the UK. Last year the total amount of newcomers was 590,000 whilst those that left totalled 427,000. This gives us a figure for net migration to the UK of 163,000.

This figure seems high to some people, and they believe people come here because “Britain is a soft touch”. By this, they mean we apparently let anyone in, give them housing and benefits, and generally let them undermine ‘our way of life’.

However this is a misleading picture of the reality of the situation. In truth restrictions are only minimal with regard to economic migrants from EU countries. This is the case across the EU. If you are from a non-EU country, you have to demonstrate you have certain skills that are needed by the British economy. Recently the list of desired skills has narrowed, and employers are obliged to seek out native Britons to hire first before they cast the net out to include economic migrants. If you are from a non-EU country and are rich, then you can stay. But if you are poor and unskilled, you will have a difficult time convincing the authorities of your worthiness.

For the best part of the past two decades, the government has been designing policies to try and deter people from coming to the UK. The most recent device with regard to economic migrants wishing to settle is New Labour’s points-based system for citizenship. (If the Tories get in next year, they will add to this a physical cap on numbers). Under the points-based criteria for citizenship, immigrants can earn points by joining an Establishment political party, doing voluntary work, and joining ‘neighbourhood watch’. They lose points if they show an active disregard for ‘British values’ such as going on a heated anti-war demo, or questioning the ‘British way of life’. Just as you earn Clubcard points at Tesco, now you can earn citizenship points by being docile, supporting all wars, and never mocking the Queen.

The citizenship test demands you are able to speak English, and answer questions such as ‘according to British custom, where does Father Christmas come from?’ and ‘what should you do if you accidentally spill someone’s pint in a pub?’

Unfortunately the problem with all this is that it involves an impoverished conception of citizenship. Rather than it meaning you are a free and equal member of a body politic with every right to steer it in a way you choose, New Labour’s understanding of citizenship only involves obedience and conformity.

Because the rules on who is a worthy economic migrant are quite strict, many would-be immigrants try and claim asylum instead. However the processing of asylum claims is also very strict and if you are not a ‘real’ asylum seeker you will be labelled ‘bogus’ and deported. Thus some would-be immigrants try to enter the country illegally such as the case a couple of days ago where three immigrants jumped off a ferry bound for England in gale conditions. Sometimes illegal immigrants are found dead in the back of a lorry. Even if they make it safely inside the country, they can be targets for ruthless exploitation such as the 18 Chinese cockle pickers who died in 2004 when the tide came in. These are all examples of the desperate lengths people go to in order to live in Britain and they confirm that official policy does not make Britain a ’soft touch’ for economic migrants.

With regard to coming here to study, PM Gordon Brown recently announced he wants to make it tougher to get a student visa, and restrict any part-time work you can do while you are here, thus making it even less appealing for would-be students. A Russian student quoted in a left-wing newspaper said “We say it’s like jumping on the last carriage of the train – it’s getting harder all the time.” So Britain is not a ’soft touch’ for students.

With regard to migrating to Britain in order to join your spouse, the Government makes this awkward. In 2007, they raised the age you can do this from 18 to 21. In addition to checks on whether your marriage is really ‘genuine’ not ‘bogus’ and the bureaucracy this entails, an application for indefinite leave to remain costs £800. So Britain is not a ’soft touch’ for migrating spouses.

Finally is Britain a ’soft touch’ for asylum seekers? Definitely not. There are three main ways the authorities deal with you if you are an asylum seeker: detention, destitution, and deportation. Many asylum seekers get locked up in prisons or concentrated in camps such as Campsfield House in Oxforshire. Here, some have risked life and limb trying to escape. Internees have been quoted as saying things like “I came here to escape persecution, but it’s no different here”. If you are let loose, you are not allowed to work for twelve months. And even after this time, the Government has attempted to block people’s right to work in case after case. Asylum seekers also do not get the full amount of benefits that native Britons are entitled to. Instead they have to subsist on 70% of the value, paid in the form of vouchers that are only redeemable on food at the Co-op. The vouchers come in £5 denominations and you do not get change. Given that the Co-op can often be miles away from where you are staying (you don’t get any option on where you live), this is grossly inconvenient. The situation is so bad that Comic Relief, without publicising its efforts for fear of a backlash from Middle England, has spent a proportion of the funds it raised to support destitute refugees within Britain. In 1997, the Red Cross started to distribute food parcels to asylum seekers in Britain, saying that without them they’d starve.

During the past five years some 77,000 people have been refused asylum from countries that the UK Foreign Office has described as “dangerous and unstable”. What amounts to an astonishing 40 refugees a day are facing a closed door when they arrive in the country which until recently provided refuge to those escaping terror and persecution. There is widespread sectarian violence, lawlessness and violent insurgency in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Iraq. Yet destitute citizens fleeing the pandemonium are being denied safety and sanctuary, with as many as 13,131 Iraqi nationals having their applications for asylum turned down. Therefore Britain is not a ’soft touch’ with regard to asylum seekers.

So to conclude, next time you hear the phrase “Britain is a soft touch” clumsily bandied about, take it with a pinch of salt. Better still, challenge it.

The truth about immigration: Citizenships granted fall by 35,000 in a year

Refugees do not have it at all easy in Britain

SO THE cat’s now well and truly out of the bag. The TUC/Refugee Forum campaign to allow asylum seekers the right to work, featured on the BBC’s Politics Show, has shown that far from living a lavish existence “at the expense of UK taxpayers”, people in our region fleeing persecution and abuse are barely surviving on a weekly £35 supermarket voucher.

That is it. No ‘free mobile phone’, no trips to holiday parks, no subscription to Sky Sports 1 or even Setanta.

The reality for asylum seekers is that their lifestyle in the UK is pretty grim. We offer safety and security, something of which we should be proud. The fact that the UK is a well-established, mature democracy in which people can and do expect to live free from fear is part of our natural assumptions of citizenship. Although this has been earned over generations of struggle we now take it for granted. Many asylum seekers are here for pursuing such aspirations in their own country.

The right to work affords a certain level of dignity, status and respect. I’ve heard first hand the frustration and confusion experienced by people who want to work, who have the skills and talent we need in this region, but who are prevented from being able to work by a government policy that makes no sense at all.

Doctors, electricians, plumbers – all highly committed and desperate to make a contribution – are unable to do so. I heard the story of ‘Mary’, who has completed A-levels, finished a successful chemistry degree and would want to move into teaching “to give something back”, but is stopped from doing her PGCE because it involves working in a school – yet we’re short of science teachers!

This not only flies in the face of some of the more rabid discourse that accuses asylum seekers of “sponging off the state”, which is patently untrue, but preventing people from working also panders to these prejudices. Arguably, in times of economic downturn focusing on challenging these myths and supporting individuals in need is even more important. History tells us that recessions provide a breeding ground for racism and xenophobia, there are nefarious interests that do prey on insecurities to seek support for their own divisive agenda.

Clearly we must, and are, taking what steps we can to protect workers and employers from the worst effects of the economic turmoil. I believe these global dynamics will impact relatively less in the North East and we will recover relatively quicker than other areas.

We must also guard against exploitation of these current economic insecurities by the likes of the essentially racist BNP. Their pattern is to identify people’s anxieties and to place the blameon groups and individuals they hate, like asylum seekers. This doesn’t help at all and plants the seeds for an unstable, divided community that perpetuates rather than resolves the challenges we face.

Source : nebusiness

‘Disastrous’ impact of the myth of ‘HIV health tourism’

The UK Government’s policy of charging so-called ‘health tourists’ for HIV treatment and care is a “public health disaster” based on myth not fact, Yusef Azad, Director of Policy and Campaigns for the National AIDS Trust (NAT) told last week’s British HIV Association (BHIVA) Autumn Conference during a session on treating migrant populations and their eligibility for care.

HIV health tourism is one of the Government’s main justifications for “a harmful, costly and inhumane charging policy,” according to a new NAT report, The myth of HIV health tourism. The results of that policy were highlighted at the conference by a panel consisting of an HIV clinician, a human rights lawyer, a GP who has cared for many asylum seekers with HIV, an HIV-positive migrant advocate, and Mr Azad.

Since April 2004, overseas visitors, refused asylum seekers, undocumented migrants and visa overstayers have no longer been entitled to HIV treatment and care from the National Health Service (NHS) in England, although treatment for all other infectious diseases and sexually transmitted infections continues to be free to everyone on public health grounds irrespective of residency status. (The NHS in Scotland and Wales have different policies.)

Earlier this year, a High Court ruling resulted in HIV-positive refused asylum seekers being entitled to free HIV treatment and care for as long as they remained in the UK. But the judge refused a claim that there was a human right to NHS treatment, saying that any discrimination in the rules was justifiable so as to discourage ‘health tourism’.

Yet a new NAT report that “separates facts and evidence around migration from fears and misinformation”, argues that there is no evidence to demonstrate that HIV health tourism to the UK exists. Allegations of ‘HIV health tourism’, says the report, “make a serious charge against the integrity and truthfulness of many HIV-positive migrants to the UK, effectively alleging that stated reasons for migration to the UK are at best a pretext and at worst totally untrue. Given the discrimination and marginalisation experienced by many migrants we must question very carefully any claim which might add to social hostility”.

The report also notes, “the claim of health tourism has been central to the Government’s policy of charging refused asylum seekers and other migrants without lawful residency status for healthcare. The Government argues that free NHS care for those without what they deem to be a legitimate reason to migrate to the UK acts as a ‘pull factor’, encouraging illegal immigration and discouraging refused asylum seekers from leaving. Charges for NHS care for certain categories of migrant were introduced to end the ‘pull’ of free NHS care and address the so-called problem of ‘health tourism’.

“Is there really evidence of HIV health tourism which would justify on grounds of immigration policy the singling out of HIV for NHS charges alone amongst all serious or sexually transmitted infections?” asks NAT. Over the course of twelve pages, the paper robustly argues that there is no evidence to demonstrate that ‘HIV health tourism’ is “a significant or real motivation for migration to the UK” and considerable evidence to demonstrate otherwise, “in particular the lower rates of HIV prevalence compared with country of origin, the long average delays [an average of five years] between arrival in the UK and accessing HIV testing and care, and the evidence available on the actual motivations of migrants coming to the UK”.

Dr Le Feuvre, a Kent GP, told the conference that NAT’s conclusions match his own experience. “We had tens of thousands of [refugees and asylum seekers] coming through East Kent in the last ten years. I only personally remember one person amongst those tens of thousands who seemed to be coming here for medical treatment and the majority of people diagnosed with HIV, and who left the [Dover Induction Centre], left with it being diagnosed after their arrival and not before.”

One of the paper’s recommendations is that “since the provision of free HIV treatment has no bearing on migration trends, the basis for the Government’s policy of charging for HIV treatment is wholly undermined. It has been demonstrated elsewhere that the policy actually increases costs to the NHS and endangers public health. The Government must review its policy on NHS charging so as to exempt HIV treatment from charges.”

The impact of this policy was brought into sharp focus at the BHIVA conference by Professor Jane Anderson of Homerton University Hospital, east London, who provided a case study to illustrate the desperation faced by HIV-positive undocumented migrants in England. She told the conference about a 35 year-old East African woman who was refused a prescription by a medical team outside of London when she had only three days supply of antiretrovirals left and no means to return to her country of origin. “We gave her an immediate prescription for antiretroviral drugs…and gave her a travelcard from our charitable fund so she could get food and support from other charitable sources,” she said.

She argued that HIV care in the UK should be for everyone. She noted that the new UK HIV testing guidelines, which include a list of ‘indicator diseases’ prompting the offer of opt-out testing “is only ethically acceptable if positive individuals are immediately linked into appropriate HIV treatment and care. Yet,” she asked, “we are meant to send them to a place where they’re going to get a big bill. Is this appropriate practice?”

Adam Hundt, a human rights lawyer provided an overview of the complex rules and regulations governing access to secondary NHS treatment and care, which he described as “a bit of a minefield”. He noted that there are situations, people, and diseases exempted from the charging regulations including treatment given at an emergency department, 34 infectious diseases (including TB and viral hepatitis) and all sexually transmitted infections apart from HIV which he said, “is a policy decision”.

There is also an exemption for continuing a course of treatment, including treatment for HIV, as long as someone has lawfully entered the UK. “Unhelpfully,” he noted, “there’s no definition of what ‘a course of treatment’ is.” The Government recently clarified that ‘treatment’ does not necessarily mean antiretroviral therapy, but in fact, can mean continued monitoring of immune and clinical status due to an HIV diagnosis.

He noted that there is also much confusion amongst clinicians over what constitutes ‘immediately necessary treatment’ which should be provided to anyone regardless of their ability to pay. “It basically specifies that if someone requires treatment because their condition is life threatening, or because if treatment is not given immediately it will become life threatening, or because permanent and serious damage would be caused by any delay then they must be given treatment regardless of whether they can pay or not and then be charged for it later,” he said.

Dr Ian Williams, BHIVA’s Chair, recently wrote to the Department of Health to argue that HIV care should be considered immediately necessary in the same way as maternity care. “I think the most important thing to remember,” noted Mr Hundt, “is that it’s a matter of clinical judgment which should not be second-guessed by administrative staff.”

In the discussion that followed, Prof. Anderson pointed out the paradox of one Government department, the Department for International Development, supporting universal access to HIV treatment and care overseas, but another two Government departments, the Department of Health and the Home Office “denying that care free here and also sending people back through various legislation and legal decisions to places where there’s no care. Why can’t we have domestic policies that are the same as foreign policy?” she asked.

References
National AIDS Trust. The myth of HIV health tourism.NAT, October 2008.

BHIVA Plenary Session 2. Treating migrant populations: eligibility for care. BHIVA Autumn Conference, London, 2008

Article published in aidsmap news on Monday 20 October 2008.