Today is International Migrants Day, a day set aside to recognise the important contribution of migrants while highlighting the challenges they face. ECHO reporter and former immigration advisor Patrick Graham reflects on the impact of immigration on our communities, and the nature of the difficulties people can face with the system.
Almost everybody has an opinion of asylum seekers (political migrants) and that includes me, but is my opinion based on facts, experience or malicious gossip and hearsay?
I worked as an immigration advisor and advocate for 16 years in Liverpool and Manchester between 1989 - 2005. I advised hundreds if not thousands of people coming to or already in the UK, including students, visitors, family reunions and asylum seekers.
READ MORE: I was sent to Liverpool randomly and now I've opened a business here
The word asylum seeker is used negatively by politicians and the media in general and this resonates with the public, many of whom view them with contempt, suspicion and even hatred. Although the terms asylum seeker and migrant cross over, they come to the UK for two entirely different reasons.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) website states: “A migrant is someone who changes their country of usual residence. An asylum seeker is someone who does so from fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, social group, or political opinion. In this sense, asylum seekers are generally counted as a subset of migrants and are included in official estimates of migrant stocks and flows.”
Asylum seekers, as we see and hear, are being classed as "economic migrants" by the government, despite the fact they have claimed asylum. According to the Oxford English Dictionary migration is firstly defined as: "The movement of a person or people from one country, locality, place of residence, etc., to settle in another; an instance of this"
This can include economic migration, forced migration due to fear of persecution, someone studying in another country or working. The families of former and current government ministers who are from an overseas background came to the UK as "economic migrants". Despite this they enact legislation that prevents people in future from coming here for the same reasons. They pander to public votes and race bait much of the public to believe they would have a better way of life if immigration was vastly reduced, as they are a drain on public services and the economy.
As an immigration advisor and advocate I saw people come to the UK with just the clothes on their backs, who were doctors, lawyers, engineers, schoolteachers, bank managers, workers and other professionals. Many of these skills the UK had, and still has, a shortage of.
These are people who some among the British public have wrongly labelled scroungers and freeloaders who come to the UK to “live” off the benefit system. Anyone on benefits knows only too well that to live off them is extremely difficult, and a life on benefits is often reduced to existing, not even survival. Many people who work have to claim benefits too in order to survive and cannot say they “live” off their incomes.
To say people come here to live off the benefit system is untrue and unsupported by the evidence. Prior to Brexit the government asked its Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to report on the economic and social impacts of EU migrants in the UK, which also included non-EU migration too.
The September 2018 report carried out by Oxford Economics found that: "The average UK-based migrant from Europe contributed approximately £2,300 more to UK public finances in 2016/17 than the average UK adult. The average European migrant arriving in the UK in 2016 will contribute £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits over their time spent in the UK (assuming a balanced national budget), and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero."
These statistics alone do not form my opinion, which I have long held due to my work with people from all over the world and seeing how they strive to contribute by working and being self-reliant.
I have worked with and assisted people applying for asylum in the UK who came here via many different means, or were already here as students or visitors etc, while others came in the back of a lorry or other clandestine means. Among many of those already here, situations developed in their home countries which made them fear being persecuted if they returned; for example, a change in government or war. All had to claim asylum regardless.
The fear of persecution could be for a number of reasons, for example being involved in what their government saw as political activity in the UK. This could simply be criticising their government or attending a demonstration supporting a British organisation opposing what their government was doing.
This resulted in family members being arrested, tortured, imprisoned without a fair trial or murdered by their government or agents acting on their behalf. If hiding prior to fleeing their country they could be tried, unfairly, in their absence. There are many scenarios.
You can genuinely fear persecution because of the activities of a family member, friend or associate which you have no knowledge of or involvement. This is known as imputed political opinion, which impacts people in their own countries and in the UK.
Under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, about 150 countries are signatories who agree to offer protection to people in fear of persecution. This protection is a legal right.
Generally asylum seekers have no intention or desire to leave their country, home and sometimes families, but circumstances beyond their control force them to due to fear for their life and or liberty. Imagine if attending a picket line or supporting strike action in the UK could land you many years in prison or even cost you your life - it is indeed a scary thought.
Freedoms we take for granted in the UK would not amount to arrest, persecution, imprisonment, torture of even loss of life. However, I think the UK is going down a dangerous path where some of these basic freedoms and rights to peaceful protest are coming under attack via the government's Public Order Bill.
In my opinion this behaviour leads down a path that no country should go, and countries deemed oppressive by the UK started out like this too.
University College London’s Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) states: "immigrants to the UK who arrived since 2000, and for whom we observe their entire migration history, have made consistently positive fiscal contributions regardless of their area of origin. Our analysis thus suggests that – rather than being a drain on the UK’s fiscal system – immigrants arriving since the early 2000s have made a net contribution to its public finances, a reality that contrasts starkly with the view often maintained in public debate.
"Additionally, our research points at the strong educational background of immigrants. For instance, while by 2011, the percentage of natives with a degree was 24%, that of EEA and non-EEA immigrants was 35% and 41%, respectively."
A case for economic and educational benefit to the UK in all the above. This goes against the drain on the public purse we hear all too often from politicians and tabloid news outlets.
As the current Home Secretary (Suella Braverman) put it, we're facing an "invasion."
This language is dangerous as invasion implies aggression, hostility and conquest. The reality for me is immigration implies betterment and enrichment of the UK.
Many people in the UK have an origin from elsewhere, especially those who arrived in the last 77 years, from within Europe, since the end of WWII.
Many asylum seekers, I believe, were refused simply to keep the figures of those granted Refugee Status low. What the public did not know was that out of those refused most were granted Exceptional Leave to Remain, now called Humanitarian Leave.
They were allowed to remain in the UK as it was deemed unsafe for them to return to their countries. By definition they were a Refugee as they had claimed asylum and it was unsafe to return for reasons set out in their claims.
This lesser status denied them automatic entitlement to have immediate family join them and of course played with the figures on who was refused asylum, giving the public a false narrative.
The ONS said: "The provisional estimate of the number of people emigrating out of the UK long-term in the year ending June 2022 was approximately 560,000. Non-EU nationals accounted for 195,000 of this long-term total, EU nationals accounted for 275,000 and British nationals 90,000."
Data available suggests that as of 2019 there were almost a million British nationals living in other EU countries, excluding Ireland. 90,000 British “economic migrants” leave the UK each year to better and enrich the countries they go to, just like those who come here.
Migration is natural to humans and people throughout history have moved for varied reasons. People must show compassion and empathy to all, not just those who look like you.
My family came to this country as British citizens in the 1960s from the Caribbean but still faced racism as I do to this day, even though I was born here. It would be hypocritical of me to support policies to prevent people coming here for legitimate reasons.
Priti Patel’s family came to the UK as economic migrants. She later became Home Secretary and overseer of what in my opinion were racist and extremely hypocritical policies, which would have prevented her own parents coming to the UK.
The vast majority of asylum seekers, wrongly labelled "migrants", actually bring benefits to the UK on many levels, including other migrants (such as students and workers). As an immigration advisor I’ve seen asylum seekers settle and become business owners, doctors, accountants and much more.
The one thing they had in common was they were eager to contribute and become self-sufficient and did not want to claim benefits or be supported by the state. They took advantage of opportunities that many “native” citizens take for granted and ignore, which allowed them to seek and obtain employment and be self-reliant, paying taxes and so on.
I believe most people who say asylum seekers mainly come here for benefits know more British citizens who fit that description than actual asylum seekers and so called "migrants". If many looked a little into their own family history they would find they descended from migrants and “economic migrants” too.
An interesting thought to close on. People from Ukraine have been accepted by the British public by the hundreds of thousands with open arms. Don’t get me wrong, people from Ukraine deserve protection, but equally so do all people from countries also ripped apart by war.
The main difference I see is colour for this open acceptance.
We are told there is no room for maybe 30,000 or more asylum seekers from parts of Africa and the Middle East. Those opposed to asylum seekers from countries in Africa and the Middle East etc remain silent on this hypocrisy because it supports their class, racist and xenophobic narrative. Safe passage is given to Ukrainians while others have to risk their lives in backs of lorries or crossing the channel in small boats to escape similar situations.
This opposition is mostly made up of people who start a sentence with, “I’m not racist, but…” or “I’m not against asylum seekers, but…”
Think and be informed before you judge - it will save lives and improve your own.
Get the top stories straight to your inbox by signing up to our what's on newsletter
READ NEXT
Dad taking out loans to feed his kids and keep house warm
Bar staff step in and 'seize crowbar' as man stabbed in street brawl
ITV Lorraine fans 'switch off' as they make same complaint minutes into show
Woman shot in stomach by police during standoff has knife charge shelved
