This House believes that the right to asylum should not be absolute

It is not clear that the system works at all. The majority of those who apply for asylum are working-age males,[1] which implies that there is a strong economic angle. And worse still, even if countries decide that an applicant has no basis to their claim they are frequently unable to deport them because they often go missing, as 75,000 in Britain have,[2] or because, perversely, they may be punished on return to their country for having sought refuge. So essentially the asylum system provides a loophole for unrestricted immigration, which is both expensive, and dangerous for states. In the age of global terrorism it is a huge risk to allow undocumented individuals to enter and roam freely within any country.

[1] Blinder, Scott, ‘Migration to the UK: Asylum’, The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, 23 March 2011.

[2] Whitehead, Tom, ’75,000 asylum seekers have gone missing in past 20 years’, The Telegraph, 6 April 2011.

Much of the fear of the asylum system being used by economic migrants is simply media hysteria and xenophobia. The vast majority of asylum claims (in the UK around 75%) are still rejected, which shows the system works.[1] Also it is not being abused in the way many people believe. Very few people are willing to leave their family and community, pay to travel thousands of miles to new country, in risky circumstances, with only a small chance of being accepted there, unless they have real reason to fear for their safety. The numbers of people seeking asylum are not historically unprecedented either, and most applicants still come from countries we recognise as dangerous, such as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Compared to other forms of immigration the numbers who are accepted via the asylum regime are negligible.

[1] Blinder, ‘Migration to the UK: Asylum’, 2011

There will always be trafficking as long as there aren't open borders. And we should maintain strict controls on both immigration and asylum. States must focus on the needs of their people first, and the reaction of citizens in accepting countries is quite rightly the feeling that their hospitality and good intentions are being abused at the moment. The social harms that these feelings cause - suspicion, xenophobia, racism and disruption of social harmony and tolerance[1] - are too large and too damaging to the actual citizens of states to justify the maintenance of a failing system that may help some few outsiders. The responsibilities of governments to their own citizens must come first.

[1] Lægaard, Sune, ‘Immigration, Social Cohesion, and Naturalisation’, Centre for the Study of Equality and Multiculturalism, p.2

The concept of a nation is an artificial one[1] – there is no logical reason why we should draw lines on maps and declare that people may not pass from one side of a line to another without permission.  Moreover xenophobia and racism can only be tackled by exposure to people from other cultures, not insulation from them – and in any case, policy should not be dictated by the prejudices of a few racists.

[1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London 1991, p.5.

It is extremely difficult to tell if someone is a genuine asylum seeker or not; for obvious reasons many will have little or no documentation, and all the evidence that they have suffered persecution may be in a faraway country and impossible to obtain.  In many cases it may be impossible to prove that the person claiming asylum is even from the country that they claim to be from.

Asylum decisions are therefore based largely on a judgement call by the investigating officer on whether they thing the person in front of them is being truthful or not – that leaves the system open to motivated people who are economic migrants or may even pose a security threat.

There have been no serious links between terrorism and the asylum system. The 9/11 hijackers all had visas and recent terror cells in Europe have all been 'home grown'. If anything an asylum system provides more security and border control for states. Even if there was no asylum system, people would still flee persecution but instead they would be forced to turn to people traffickers to circumvent all border controls, and thus never be documented or assessed at all. This would also increase the already huge numbers of migrants, especially women, who are exploited by traffickers in sex and underground industries, and also the sheer number of people present in a country of which the authorities have no knowledge.

It is not clear that the system works at all. The majority of those who apply for asylum are working-age males,[1] which implies that there is a strong economic angle. And worse still, even if countries decide that an applicant has no basis to their claim they are frequently unable to deport them because they often go missing, as 75,000 in Britain have,[2] or because, perversely, they may be punished on return to their country for having sought refuge. So essentially the asylum system provides a loophole for unrestricted immigration, which is both expensive, and dangerous for states. In the age of global terrorism it is a huge risk to allow undocumented individuals to enter and roam freely within any country.

[1] Blinder, Scott, ‘Migration to the UK: Asylum’, The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, 23 March 2011.

[2] Whitehead, Tom, ’75,000 asylum seekers have gone missing in past 20 years’, The Telegraph, 6 April 2011.

Much of the fear of the asylum system being used by economic migrants is simply media hysteria and xenophobia. The vast majority of asylum claims (in the UK around 75%) are still rejected, which shows the system works.[1] Also it is not being abused in the way many people believe. Very few people are willing to leave their family and community, pay to travel thousands of miles to new country, in risky circumstances, with only a small chance of being accepted there, unless they have real reason to fear for their safety. The numbers of people seeking asylum are not historically unprecedented either, and most applicants still come from countries we recognise as dangerous, such as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Compared to other forms of immigration the numbers who are accepted via the asylum regime are negligible.

[1] Blinder, ‘Migration to the UK: Asylum’, 2011

There will always be trafficking as long as there aren't open borders. And we should maintain strict controls on both immigration and asylum. States must focus on the needs of their people first, and the reaction of citizens in accepting countries is quite rightly the feeling that their hospitality and good intentions are being abused at the moment. The social harms that these feelings cause - suspicion, xenophobia, racism and disruption of social harmony and tolerance[1] - are too large and too damaging to the actual citizens of states to justify the maintenance of a failing system that may help some few outsiders. The responsibilities of governments to their own citizens must come first.

[1] Lægaard, Sune, ‘Immigration, Social Cohesion, and Naturalisation’, Centre for the Study of Equality and Multiculturalism, p.2

The concept of a nation is an artificial one[1] – there is no logical reason why we should draw lines on maps and declare that people may not pass from one side of a line to another without permission.  Moreover xenophobia and racism can only be tackled by exposure to people from other cultures, not insulation from them – and in any case, policy should not be dictated by the prejudices of a few racists.

[1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London 1991, p.5.

It is extremely difficult to tell if someone is a genuine asylum seeker or not; for obvious reasons many will have little or no documentation, and all the evidence that they have suffered persecution may be in a faraway country and impossible to obtain.  In many cases it may be impossible to prove that the person claiming asylum is even from the country that they claim to be from.

Asylum decisions are therefore based largely on a judgement call by the investigating officer on whether they thing the person in front of them is being truthful or not – that leaves the system open to motivated people who are economic migrants or may even pose a security threat.

There have been no serious links between terrorism and the asylum system. The 9/11 hijackers all had visas and recent terror cells in Europe have all been 'home grown'. If anything an asylum system provides more security and border control for states. Even if there was no asylum system, people would still flee persecution but instead they would be forced to turn to people traffickers to circumvent all border controls, and thus never be documented or assessed at all. This would also increase the already huge numbers of migrants, especially women, who are exploited by traffickers in sex and underground industries, and also the sheer number of people present in a country of which the authorities have no knowledge.

The principles which underlie the asylum regime are as valid as ever. Millions still face persecution, death and torture globally because of who they are or because of their convictions. Democratic countries still have a moral obligation to offer protection to these people. We all recognise it as a horrendous failing by the countries who turned away Jewish refugees in the early days of Nazism where both the United States and the UK turned away large numbers or refugees,[1] and only the Dominican Republic was willing to take in large numbers.[2] This should never happen again. Developed nations have both the wealth and security to make them the best destinations for those seeking refuge.

[1] Perl, William R., ‘The Holocaust conspiracy: an international policy of genocide’, 1989, pp.37-51 

[2] Museum of Jewish Heritage, ‘”A Community Born in Pain and Nurtured in Love” Jews who were given refuge by Dominican Republic’, 8 January 2008.

It would be nice to offer safety to everyone who genuinely deserved it, but practically it is almost impossible to tell who is genuinely fleeing persecution, and who is simply seeking economic benefit.  In many cases there may be a combination of the two.  Tracking down the histories of applicants to verify their claim is frequently impossible, and enormously expensive. The point of moral obligations as opposed to legal obligations is that it is the donor who decides how great their sacrifice should be. States may perfectly fairly decide to try to protect refugees in more affordable and uncontroversial ways, such as providing aid to refugee camps and foreign governments who work nearer crisis areas. Accepting refugees is not obligatory.

Signatories of The 1951 Convention on Refugees have a legal responsibility to offer asylum to any foreign national who has a well-founded fear of persecution, for political, religious, ethnic or social reasons, and who is unwilling to return home. Moreover the refugee is protected against forcible return when his life may be threatened, something which is an obligation even for countries which are not parties to the convention bust respect as it is part of international customary law.[1] This treaty is one of the cornerstones of international human rights law, and as such states should uphold it to the letter.

[1] Jastram, Kate, and Achiron, Marilyn, Refugee Protection: A Guide to International Refugee Law’, P.14.

The Convention on Refugeehood was written in, and for, a totally different world. Its framers would never have anticipated the ease with which global travel is now possible, allowing huge numbers both legitimate and illegitimate to apply for asylum. Migrants can now move between countries with ease, 'shopping' for the place they see as being softest. If democracies feel these numbers are too great they should always put restricting them ahead of out of date laws.

Democratic nations preach the language of freedom, human rights and justice. They encourage those who live under oppression to oppose their rulers and work towards these goals. This is all rendered hollow, and hypocritical if they then refuse to protect individuals who are persecuted for taking the brave and noble step of working to improve their societies. Not only is this a moral failing but practically very harmful too. It is in the interests of democratic nations to spread democracy and peaceful forms of government. If the people of authoritarian nations don't feel they have the support of other, then the incentive for them to risk everything and stand up in the name of freedom is diminished, and so too the best chance of change in such oppressive regimes.

Democratic nations can support like-minded groups in all manner of other ways, such as funding and training opposition groups, giving them international representation, and by applying pressure to oppressive governments. With individual asylum applicants they are still faced with the same problem of assessing who has genuinely taken a “brave and noble” step, which is very hard. Furthermore it is not at all clear that the hope of asylum is a motivator towards political action. Revolutions and resistance forces existed long before the creation of any formal asylum regime, and continue in the contemporary absence of any access to them. Often by harbouring those who have opposed oppressive regimes, perhaps in a similarly violent manner, states drastically reduce their ability to negotiate with and apply leverage to the authoritarian governments that are the problem in the first place.