Forsaking failed asylum seekers really is the last straw

Such people lose their National Asylum Support Service accommodation and are given hostel accommodation, food and £10 a week, under certain conditions. These are that they must sign a declaration accepting the deportation order and must accept a hostel place anywhere in the UK, regardless of family ties or support networks. As a consequence, hundreds are sleeping rough (HT 5 November, page 7).

It seems pertinent to ask what we mean when we say “failed asylum seekers”. How have they failed? Are they not very good at seeking asylum? Do they not make a good case for themselves? Or do they just not satisfy the criteria of a civil servant whose own idea of torture is not being allowed to smoke in the office? And doesn’t the fact that they cannot be returned rather tend to add credibility to their application?

Ask any immigration lawyer for examples of reasons why asylum applications fail. You will be told of cases of women – victims of multiple rape by militiamen – being interrogated by immigration officers in a manner no court or police station has been party to in 20 years. You will hear of cases where people are asked why they were only wounded and not killed, or why they were spared when their sister was hacked to death.

Or, since Iraq is topical, try this one. Bear in mind it’s nearly four years old and that Jack Straw was home secretary in those days – so it tells us something about his personal journey. Following, then, are extracts from a letter – given to me by an asylum seeker’s defence solicitor – written by a Home Office official and dated 9 January 2001: “You claim that following your arrest and detainment in August 1988, that you were advised against continuing to be pro-active for the IWCP [Iraqi Workers’ Communist Party]. You continued to work for the party and were involved in writing political slogans on walls, although you were aware of the illegality of this activity. The secretary of state considers that you have expressed a fear of prosecution not persecution.”

Did you enjoy the clever little rhyme? It gets worse. “You have stated that you refused to attend your conscription to military service, as you where [sic] opposed to the beliefs of the military, in particular there [sic] attitude to Kurdistan.”

At the time, the Home Office said this asylum seeker could expect to receive "a fair trial under an independent and properly constituted judiciary" in Iraq

In dismissing the idea that a Kurd living under Saddam Hussein might have baulked at being forced to help crush his people, the official cites a United Nations handbook, saying: “A person is not a refugee if his only reason for desertion or draft evasion is his dislike of military service or fear of combat.”

It is shameful enough that the UN appears to endorse compulsory military service, but I doubt whether the intended meaning of the handbook is that a man who risks torture and death for refusing to fight for a tyrant against his brothers is a lily-livered coward or just not a morning person.

But that was probably the view of Saddam’s government, which executed the applicant’s brother when he refused military service. Nevertheless, the view of the Home Office official was that: “The Iraqi security forces would only convict and sentence a person in the courts with the provision of proper jurisdiction” and the applicant “could expect to receive a fair trial under an independent and properly constituted judiciary”.

The man’s claims of torture were simply dismissed. Clearly a failure. He let down Saddam’s regime, he let down the Iraqi army. And he failed to convince the Home Office that he deserved refuge from the Ba’athists – whose human rights abuses were only bad enough to be the fall-back justification for a devastating war. Now that they’ve been overthrown, I dare say even exiles here will be urged to return to Iraq to rebuild the country. Then we won’t have to worry about them at all. Jack Straw really is something, isn’t he?