I agree that at first it seems that those who have been refused asylum in the UK should not be entitled to any of the benefits of British citizens or those who have been granted refugee status. After all, they are not deemed to have a sufficiently strong case to have fled their own country and remain in the UK. However, after looking into the campaign in greater depth, it is clear that the current system is both flawed and ineffective. There is definitely something to be protesting about.

The point of the campaign is that the channel through which potential asylum seekers apply for asylum seeker status is often flawed. In addition, sometimes those who have been refused are unable to return to their country of origin for legitimate reasons. In practice it is extremely difficult to forcibly remove people to countries where there are serious safety issues, uncooperative governments, difficulties in obtaining travel documents or unreliable travel routes. For example, Home Office statistics show that no more than five people were forcibly removed to Somalia in 2005. In these circumstances it is unacceptable for the government to leave refused asylum seekers destitute. Some provision should be made for them.

Until recently the government more readily granted a temporary form of protection – called ‘Exceptional Leave to Remain’ – to asylum seekers from unstable countries. In 2002 ELR was applied to one in four initial asylum determinations. This was replaced in 2003 and by 2005 only one in ten received this type of protection. Many of those who would once have qualified for protection today find themselves refused and destitute.

Further, there is evidence that many refused asylum seekers with genuine cases have had their applications refused because of flaws in the UK’s system. For example, refused asylum seekers reported that they had interpreters with insufficient skills to present their case fully and accurately in English. Incorrect details of human rights abuses were provided in the courts. Similarly, some received poor quality legal advice.

Although people may doubt the validity of accounts gained from refused asylum seekers themselves, experts have also long expressed concerns about whether some asylum seekers receive a full and fair hearing of their claim. Decision making in relation to some nationalities is particularly poor. For example, in 2006, 47% of Somali nationals, 44% of Eritreans and 41% of Zimbabweans who appealed had their refusals overturned. This raises serious doubts about the quality of initial decision-making. For every person who successfully overturns a poor decision, many more may be falling through the net due to a lack of quality legal advice.

Even if it was desirable to force all refused asylum seekers out of the country through forcing them into abject poverty, it is not a realistic solution to the problem. Even though the government is removing people faster than ever before, at the present rate it would take 14 years to clear the backlog, at a cost of almost £3.2 billion – enough to build 12 new NHS hospitals. Meeting this target is highly unlikely. By severing contact with refused asylum seekers and losing track of their whereabouts, destitution makes removal nearly impossible for most.

It should be noted that the government does offer what is called ‘Section 4 Support’ for failed refused asylum seekers. However, many destitute asylum seekers are not eligible for this support and others choose not to apply for it, mainly because they see it as a plot to return to their country of origin, something which they may be terrified to do. For some refused asylum seekers, even though they do not fit the now narrow definition of a refugee, they may have fled violently unstable countries and experienced violence, torture, rape, or loss of family members. Even if the government accepts that you have been persecuted, you may be refused asylum unless you can prove there is a significant risk it will happen again.

Many refused asylum seekers are too fearful to return voluntarily as they are from countries torn apart by conflict or where human rights abuses are rife. While their countries remain volatile, they consider starving and sleeping on the streets in Britain to be the lesser of two evils.

It is estimated that up to 284,000 refused asylum seekers are still in Britain for whatever reason and forcing them into an underground existence of destitution and humiliation is not going to solve the problem.

This campaign does not promote the idea that we should accommodate all people who wish to live in the UK. It does also not argue that all people who seek asylum in the UK are automatically qualified for refugee status. However, it is a valuable way of highlighting the plight of tens of thousands of refused destitute asylum seekers and pointing out the flaws in the system.