The Courier & Advertiser (Angus and Dundee)
Migrants are not the problem, though it suits the Tories to pretend they are
We now know that the man who firebombed an immigration centre in Dover last month was motivated by “extreme” rightwing terrorist ideology. This conclusion by counter-terrorist police makes Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s recent comments about asylum seekers all the more shameful.
In the wake of the attack on the centre, the home secretary made a statement to the House of Commons. After half an hour or so, I had to turn it off.
The callous way that both she and some of her Conservative party colleagues spoke about people who come to the UK seeking refuge was sickening.
When she described people crossing the channel as an “invasion” it was clear the audience she was pandering to.
And – spoiler alert – it wasn’t one that sees people seeking asylum as worthy of compassion or respect.
Yesterday, the UK Government and its French counterpart reached a deal to increase patrols to detect small migrant boats leaving France.
There will also be investment in port infrastructure and drone technology will be used to detect crossings.
This news is sure to set off another wave of anti-asylum seeker rhetoric from those who should, frankly, know better.
The UK government seems intent on reframing hatred as patriotism.
In the warped world they live in, you judge how much somebody loves their country by how much they hate the people that seek refuge there. This kind of divisive language has real-life consequences.
Ms Braverman has suggested – both implicitly and explicitly – that a sizeable proportion of the people who cross the channel in small boats are deceptive infiltrators, motivated only by money.
I wonder, how much money would somebody have to offer you to risk your life in dangerous waters?
I bet the figure you arrive at is a damn sight more than the £6 a day that asylum seekers get to survive on. If their temporary accommodation includes meals, it’s even less: a paltry £8 a week.
An £8 budget from which you need to somehow afford public transport to Home Office appointments, toiletries, tampons and a sweetie as a treat for your child who is feeling unsettled in a brand new country. Could you do it? I know I couldn’t. UK Government policy is the reason asylum seekers are housed in Perth hotels.
The reason the UK is seeing an increase in the number of hotels – like the Station Hotel and the Queen’s Hotel in Perth – needed to house asylum seekers isn’t because the UK is being “invaded” by economic migrants.
It’s because the Home Office has failed in its duty to process asylum applications in a timely manner and ensure there are safe routes for those who want to come here.
According to research by the Refugee Council, more than 40,000 people seeking asylum have waited between one and three years for a decision on their claim.
A total of 725 people, including 155 children, have waited more than five years for their claim to be processed.
That is a shocking indictment on our broken asylum system – although, I suppose it’s a lot easier for politicians to misrepresent asylum seekers than it is to deal with an administrative backlog that was created by their own incompetence.
There’s nothing patriotic about a meanspirited approach to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
The Conservative Party is now trying to pretend the reason we’ve got to treat asylum seekers and refugees with so little compassion is because the UK has its own problems to deal with. It’s the “charity begins at home” argument and coming from that lot, it is a hollow one.
Low-income Britons used to be the Tories’ favoured bogeyman. They were the “shirkers and scroungers” who necessitated an outright assault on our social security safety net. Brutal austerity, the legacy of which we still suffering today, as the costof-living crisis bites.
Politics is all about priorities. The UK Government has shown in recent weeks that its main priority seems to be shifting the blame for its own failures on to vulnerable people seeking refuge. *****
At the weekend, my tiny overlord was doing rehearsals for her theatre group’s upcoming Christmas show, which meant I spent a lot of time hanging around between drop-off and pick-up time.
I was working on my laptop in a nearby cafe when a couple came in with a beautiful wee baby. It was at that sweet-spot age, when they’re robust enough to hold their necks up but too young to run around overturning tables.
The baby was babbling away quite the thing: a lovely musical sound that served as pleasing background noise.
That was until the parents started a relentless campaign of shushing. The baby would babble quietly, the parents would shush loudly. On and on it went.
I know sometimes parents do this in public places for the benefit of the other adults around but please, I’m begging you, don’t.
Kids make noise. Any noise they make that isn’t full-throated screaming is a gift.
Shushing, on the other hand, will never not be irritating.
The Home Office has failed in its duty to process applications