Thursday, July 24, 2003

BBC SHAME

I'm not talking about Andrew Gilligan, Dr Kelly or Alistair Campbell.

Last night I had the misfortune to see the BBC's Panorama special on asylum as part of the Asylum Day. To say that the BBC-TV (I didn't hear any of the radio programmes) treatment of Asylum was glib and facile is to give it too much credit. From what I saw, rather than treating the subject in a cool and dispassionate way, the channel trivialised the debate and then, in the Panaorama programme, reduced the issue to the usual base level - "all asylum seekers are economic migrants", "they're taking our jobs, our council houses, our beneifts", "they are all out to cheat the system", "they are all criminals".

It was more than half-an-hour into that dreadful programme beofre the snidey presenter admitted grudgingly that some asylum seekers might actually be escaping persecution. Well, since more than 25% of applications for asylum are granted then I guess even the Daily Mail might admit that. But, what of the other 75%? About 13,000 unsuccessful applicants were deported last year. It is true that many asylum seekers "disappear". A lot of them wind up taking jobs (illegally) below the minimum wage. How else are they supposed to survive if they cannot legally claim benefits? Even the Government's own studies show that all migrants (not just asylum seekers) make a huge contribution to the economy "£2.5bn the net fiscal contribution made by migrants - including asylum seekers - in 1999/2000". In addition, migrants repatriate a significant proportion of their earnings back to their homelands.

I was pleased to see that David Blunkett, Home Secretary, for once talked some sense about the asylum myths.

I highly recommend reading this article which does treat the subject in n honest and dispassionate way. I highlight (in my passionate way) the following passage:

Britain a soft touch?

"...the government's own research paints a different picture. Though there is obviously a possibility that asylum seekers will tend to tell an official agency what they think it wants to hear, a study last year appeared to show that asylum seekers do not choose their destination country following scrutiny of asylum policies or rational evaluation of the welfare benefits on offer. It found that asylum seekers assume that all western countries are democratic, and also modern, affluent and therefore rich in opportunities. The most important factor in decision- making is whether an asylum seeker has family or friends who already live in one of the countries being offered by an agent. Language is the next most important factor, then cultural affinity - particularly important to the respondents was the cultural legacy of empire."

There are much wider issues. Panorama did highlight the criminal element that prays on those that enter the country illegally. The lack economy in jobs, benefits and forged documents is unavoidable consequence of the growth in migration. But, that is a policing, not an immigration problem. My own view is that the immigration policies are fundamentally wrong. Criminalising people who are desperate, for one reason or another, is not the way to deal with the issue. It takes a wider based policy that both tackles the root causes of migration and the consequences. I say open up borders to those who seek to live, work and contribute to the well-being of this country. Here's a source that agrees.

:: Posted by pete @ 12:49