Letter: No justice in asylum lists
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.From Mr Alasdair Mackenzie
Sir: For years, refugees have been calling for their asylum claims to be dealt with speedily and fairly. The measures explained (letter, 29 November) by Ann Widdecombe, Minister of State in the Home Office, meet the first of these requirements but certainly not the second.
As Ms Widdecombe states, the Home Office has set up two separate lists of countries. It is seeking, first, to designate by law certain states as safe from persecution (the so called "white list"), while a second group of countries is being included on a "short procedure" list. The latter allows for supposedly "straightforward" asylum claims by people from those countries to be subject to an accelerated decision process.
Although the Home Office has drawn back from designating Algeria and Nigeria as safe, both countries do appear on the short procedure list. They share space with Sao Tome and Cape Verde, which do not feature in Amnesty International's annual report: the Home Office apparently thinks that people fleeing some of the world's most savage regimes are as "straightforward" to assess as those from places where there are no human rights abuses at all.
In fact, the practical effect of this short procedure will be little different from designating the countries in question as safe. People raising credible concerns for their safety are likely to be refused asylum, purely because, within days of arrival, they are unable to provide documentary evidence to support their claims. The potential for injustice is huge, and the Home Office is simply ignoring legal representatives such as ourselves when we state that these time limits are physically impossible to meet.
As the short procedure does not require legislation, our concern is that it is an attempt to bring in a "white list" through the back door.
Yours sincerely,
Alasdair Mackenzie
Co-ordinator
Asylum Aid
London, N1
29 November
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments