Refugees `forced onto the streets'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.HEATHER MILLS
Home Affairs Correspondent
The withdrawal of welfare benefits from asylum seekers was an unlawful attempt by ministers to deter refugees from seeking sanctuary in the UK which breached United Nations agreements, a High Court judge was told yesterday.
Since the benefit changes came into force last month 200 asylum seekers have been left penniless on the streets or in emergency night shelters - with more joining them every day - as they wait for the authorities to decide their claim.
Yesterday, Nicholas Blake QC said Peter Lilley, Secretary of State for Social Security, had abused his powers when he introduced new rules which will affect about 30,000 asylum seekers.
The changes deny benefits to anyone who fails to make a claim the moment he or she enters the UK - even if they make their way straight to the Home Office on the day of arrival. They also deny benefits to those appealing against an immigration officer's refusal. As asylum seekers are not allowed to work for six months, they will have no means of survival.
Mr Blake, representing the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said the removal of benefits was inconsistent with the purpose of social security legislation.
It was, he alleged, motivated by the desire to deter asylum seekers, in breach of Britain's obligations under the UN Convention on Refugees.
The Government is contesting the claim. It had been due to fight on a double front, but it successfully put off an embarrassing High Court challenge by two London Tory councils by offering to pay 80 per cent of the extra charges the councils will incur by having to house refugee families.
The hearing continues today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments