An update from the CEQ Asylum Group about how to engage in-person and by writing to your MPs.

There will be an Interfaith Lobby of Parliament next Tuesday 17th November during which people will be asked to arrange to speak to their MPs about some specific points of the Asylum Bill which is going through parliament right now. If you are interested in taking part, you can find more information from the organisers HIAS+JCORE and the Joint Public Issues Team.

Following the lobby there will be a talk at Central Methodist Hall (near Parliament) – tickets need to be booked in advance: Refugee welcome in practice: the role of faith communities today.

Obviously not everybody will want to go London to do this, so we are encouraging Friends to try to speak to their MPs at their surgeries or if that is difficult, to write to them. You may also like to ask your Meeting to write.

The Interfaith Lobby is focusing on three points:

1. Oppose temporary refugee status, which will create cycles of uncertainty for vulnerable people and harm integration – the current proposals will mean that some refugees would have to wait for 20 years or more to be granted permanent settlement. This would mean living in limbo for many years, with constant fear and uncertainty, and would certainly not promote integration of those who have come here to seek safety and who really want to make a contribution to society.
   
   The concept of “earned settlement” is a travesty of our international commitments to welcoming people fleeing from war and persecution and these plans have been criticised by many MPs including Angela Rayner, who said that they were “un-British” and “a breach of trust”. There is an interesting article about this based on a post by the Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh (who has since removed that post, so we may wonder why that happened) – which you can read via the Guardian: Minister says Mahmood’s migration policy will ‘prolong integration’. We could also point out that the fee to renew visas every thirty months now stands at almost £4000 per person each time, which is unacceptable. 
   
2. Reject the Refugee Tax, a policy that would create further financial hardship for newly-granted refugees. The suggestion is that while people who are not granted refugee status are put on the 10- or 20-year route in which they have to pay enormous fees to renew their visas every thirty months, people who have been granted refugee status and are thus recognised as being in need of protection, will be expected to pay a fee of £10,000 to repay some of the costs of providing housing and support while they were waiting for their case to be decided. Full repayment would be necessary before permanent settlement could be achieved. 
   
   There are two issues here: First of all, asylum-seekers are not allowed to work while waiting for a decision, which is why they are dependent on state support. Many skilled asylum-seekers have qualifications which are not recognised here and even when having been granted refugee status, they will often be unable to find employment which would allow them to pay back this amount (which will be means-tested).
   
   Secondly, the costs are very high because of the gridlock in the asylum system and the fact that people can wait up to 20 years for a decision, or have to wait for a year or more for a positive decision to be implemented. If asylum-seekers were allowed to work, they would become more self-sufficient, be able to keep their skills well-honed, and also pay tax. 
   
3. Reopen refugee family reunion. The closure of this route is dividing families and disproportionately penalising women and children. The continued lack of safe routes will not help reduce dangerous channel crossings. This is a shocking decision which is unworthy of any government which claims to support families. 

If your MP should point to the government’s new “safe routes” proposals, we can point out that these proposals will have a minimal effect – the numbers will be capped at hundreds rather than thousands, the UNHCR will be involved in the decision-making and the Home Office will retain control over who can be sponsors. The focus on Afghan women and girls will be smaller and less generous, and the Named Sponsorship scheme is putting the burden of responsibility on to community groups.