REBUTTAL 1
The first misleading example is the picture on the cover of a little smiling girl, perhaps eight or nine years old, possibly of Middle Eastern extraction, and under the headline of "Liar? Thief? Cheat?"

The Big Issue is guilty of misrepresenting her as a typical asylum seeker.

Firstly, this little girl is only here because her parent(s) are here. She did not come here herself. Secondly, as the information available from the Refugee Council itself makes clear, in the year 2000 the average age of asylum applicants was 27 and over 80% of applicants were male. www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/downloads/ind_soc_release.doc

REBUTTAL 2
According to a report on page 4, Robina Qureshi the Director of "Positive Action in Housing Ltd: the Scottish Ethnic Minorities Housing Agency" has asked every Scottish MP and MSP whether they agree that the Dungavel removal centre has "no place in a civilised society and should therefore be closed down".
For background information on Dungavel, see our page here.

She never quite asked us the question, but let's respond anyway:
A civilised society must be able to control its borders, otherwise it will descend into anarchy. Detention is always going to be a necessary element of any immigration and asylum law enforcement programme. Indeed, it is always going to be a necessary element of any law enforcement programme. In those cases where detention is necessary, it should be for the shortest possible time.

REBUTTAL 3
In the same article on page 4, The Scottish Refugee Council's Chief Executive Sally Daghlian was quoted as saying with regard to the detention of families at Dungavel: "The government should end this practice immediately and bring Scotland in line with the rest of the UK and with international norms."

Intrigued by what on earth she was talking about, we emailed to ask her to "explain what you mean by bringing 'Scotland in line with the rest of the UK'? How does immigration law enforcement in Scotland, which is the competency of Westminster, differ from immigration law enforcement in the rest of the UK?"

We received the following response back (email 2-9-03) from Julian Simpson, Press Officer of the SRC: "the report on Dungavel Removal Centre by the Chief Inspector of Prisons that was published on August 15 stated that Dungavel is 'the only removal centre in the United Kingdom that routinely holds children and families for lengthy periods'. We find this unnaceptable, [sic] hence our Chief Executive's remark that 'The government should end this practise [sic] immediately and bring Scotland in line with the rest of the UK'."

Of course, as we replied: "It is hardly surprising -- due to the tiny number of families with children who are detained for extended periods of time -- that there is only one removal centre in the UK presently so doing. However, other removal centres in the UK could also provide this extended stay facility if it was required, and it would be perfectly legal for them so to do. The only reason these other removal centres are not holding families for extended periods is because Dungavel provides this function at present. Given these facts, for your Chief Executive to talk in terms of 'bringing Scotland in line with the rest of the UK' is a nonsensical and clearly confusing phrase -- suggesting as it does some legal anomaly -- which some could interpret as a misrepresentation of the issue."

Mr Simpson responded that "we will have to agree to disagree on this one."

Information available on the Scottish Refugee Council's own website illustrates how few people are actually being detained. We are told that Dungavel is the only detention centre in Britain which houses families for extended stays. It has the capacity to accommodate 148 asylum seekers, yet according to Home Office figures, there were only 80 detainees as of March 29, 2003. The Home Office does not record a breakdown of that number in terms of sex or age. www.scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/Documents/detention.pdf

REBUTTAL 4
On page 8 is a letter from a Richard Haley, who represents something called "Scotland Against Criminalising Communities". He claims: "The recent deportation of the Ay family amounts to an act of terrorisation designed to deter other asylum seekers and intimidate their supporters."

It is testimony to the fact that people like Richard Haley have spent so long talking to their own supporters that they cannot see how such a statement makes them look foolish in the eyes of the rest of us.

The Ay family was deported after their final appeal -- to the House of Lords -- failed and they were no longer legally entitled to remain in Britain under both British and EU immigration law. An article on how the asylum appeals process works in the UK is here. More information about the Ay family is here. We learn from the above letter that the Home Office, in a letter to the family's lawyer, took the "gravest" view of attempts to prolong the Ay family's stay.

On page 9 is an advertisement for something called the "Scottish Asylum Seekers Consortium". One of its aims is to "Counter the myths about asylum seekers spread by certain sections of the media". Good! In that case, perhaps the "Consortium" should start with this edition of The Big Issue....

REBUTTAL 5
The "15 Page Asylum Special" formally begins with an article by Editor Claire Black on page 19. The picture accompanying it shows a little ethnic minority girl looking at a blackboard with an assortment of derogatory terms for ethnic minorities. The article is headed "Do you have this many names?"

The implication of the picture is that anyone who does not support the massive levels of immigration and asylum seeking into the UK, and who wants to see our borders controlled and immigration and asylum law upheld and enforced, is just some kind of racist who is just ready to hurl vitriolic abuse at little ethnic minority girls.

Having framed the issue in those terms, Claire Black's debate doesn't get any better:

REBUTTAL 6
"....even less would contest that there is a basic level of human rights which must be upheld when dealing with people seeking asylum."

The idea that detention contravenes "human rights" is held by all the anti-detention campaigners. This, and the idea that detention is not "compassionate", are the only two "arguments" which they have.

For example, Bishop Mone of Paisley says that conditions at Dungavel breach Article 37b of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Scottish Refugee Council (SRC) claimed, in an email to me (3-9-03) that detaining children for long periods of time at Dungavel was also "contrary to UNHCR guidelines on detention."

When I specifically cited the UNHCR guidelines which can be found here and asked their Press Officer, "In what way is the detention of children at Dungavel in contravention of the UNHCR guidelines? Or is this simply just your matter of opinion?" he did not specify, other than to direct me to the SRC website which is similarly lacking in specifics.

In other words, the idea that detention contravenes "human rights" or UN guidelines or conventions, is really just their matter of opinion which has no legal basis.

REBUTTAL 7
"Scotland's people, who pride themselves on their friendliness and hospitality, must show that they share a sense of justice and decency which stands at odds with our government's treatment of those seeking asylum."

To the extent that Scotland's people think about immigration and asylum, Scotland's people want to see Britain's border controlled. They want to see an immigration and asylum policy which manages the numbers, and controls the movement, of people entering and leaving. They want to see immigration and asylum law upheld and enforced. And Scotland's people want to see a speedy removal of those people who are not eligible to stay. To the extent that Detention Centres are a necessary element in any immigration and asylum control programme, then Scotland's people want to see the removal system speeded up to ensure that people are detained for the shortest possible time, on route to departure, with the minimum of opportunities for unscrupulous lawyers to exploit the system for their own financial and political ends.

REBUTTAL 8
"The silence of the Scottish Executive on the plight of those ensnared in the immigration system speaks volumes ..."

Immigration policy is not a competency of the Scottish Parliament. However, it is agreed that the Scottish Executive should speak out. Scotland's people want to hear our political representatives making the common sense points which we are making in this article. Scotland's people want to be assured that the Scottish Executive is prepared to stand up and defend the integrity of Scotland's borders, and the integrity of immigration and asylum law. Scotland's people want to hear a strong case being made for immigration and asylum control. Scotland's people want to hear a strong defence of whatever laws are necessary to get that job done. Scotland's people are tired of hearing our politicians apologising and sucking-up to those who seek to abolish our borders altogether.

REBUTTAL 9
"... which must be met with resistance and the persistent demand that Scotland does all it can to meet the needs of those seeking sanctuary."

Scotland is bending over backwards to do what it can "to meet the needs of those seeking sanctuary". Problem is, too many of the people "seeking sanctuary" are imposters who are not entitled to it. Consequently the system is overloaded. That is one of the reasons why the appeals system is so slow. That is one of the reasons why some families are kept in detention for long periods.

With the exception of an article from Phil Gallie MSP, The Big Issue does not suggest any helpful policies to stem the flow of imposters, so that we can genuinely "meet the needs of those seeking sanctuary." If The Big Issue genuinely wants to "meet the needs of those seeking sanctuary", it should make an effort to be constructive. Calling for the abolition of detention as an element of immigration and asylum law enforcement, is simply an irresponsible and often politically-motivated call for immigration law to become unenforceable and consequently, unworkable.

There then follow on pages 24-26 some profiles of asylum seekers, and refugees. The difference between an "asylum seeker" and a "refugee" is that a refugee is someone who has been granted asylum status.

REBUTTAL 10
On page 27 there is an article by someone called Willy Maley, who is described as "Professor of Renaissance Studies" at the University of Glasgow. Maley appears to have been enlisted to lend a "historical" angle to the proceedings, but Maley's history is entirely partisan, revealing his prejudices early on by using the republican term "the British state" in order to describe that place -- otherwise known as Britain, or the United Kingdom -- where we all live.

He seems to be trying to make the usual case that Britain had immigration in the past and so this means we should just accept present levels of immigration today. But as we have shown previously if we want to use the history of immigration to Britain as a guide, we should be closing the door, not opening it even wider.

REBUTTAL 11
He assures us that, "The government's immigration and foreign policies are racist through and through."

Yeah right! The government is allowing total net immigration into the country of 240,000 people a year, every year, www.migrationwatchuk.org/BulletinNo7.asp but to people like Willy "British state" Maley, this is "racist through and through". Short of paying their assisted passage into the country (and banning all dissent) there's nothing more the government could do to prove it isn't "racist". Presumably Maley's next article will accuse the Pope of being an atheist!

You know, to engage in political discourse with other people, there has to be a certain level of common ground. Maley's language here suggests it is almost as if he is trying deliberately to make himself un-debatable. This is the sort of language people use when they spend their entire lives speaking to people who think like themselves, and don't really care what the rest of us think.

There follows a general article on the workings of the immigration system.

And then on page 30 there is an "Asylum Seekers: Myths and Facts" article. Several of their "facts" are worth addressing:

REBUTTAL 12
The Big Issue claims: It is a myth that asylum seekers are illegal.
We say: Asylum seekers are not "illegal" in the sense that they have not broken any laws by claiming asylum. However, the vast majority of them are here under false pretences. That is, they are claiming to be something they are not. They may not be criminals, but they are often imposters.

REBUTTAL 13
The Big Issue claims: It is a myth that most of them are economic migrants.
We say: Only 10% of applications in 2002 in the UK were recognised as genuine refugees and granted asylum status, with an additional 23% not recognised as refugees but granted "exceptional leave to remain". See Table on page 12 of the Home Office's Asylum Statistics 2002 pdf file at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb803.pdf

You can obtain a copy of the above bulletin, or previous bulletins, free of charge, by writing to:
Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Room 264, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1H 9AT, or requesting by Tel: 020 7273 2084, or Fax: 020 7222 0211 or email publications.rds@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

REBUTTAL 14
The Big Issue claims: It is a myth that we are being "swamped".
We say: Around 240,000 net people are coming to Britain each year. See the above Migration Watch Bulletin No 7. Of this number, there were 84,130 applications for asylum in 2002 alone. See Asylum Statistics 2002 above. These are massive and unsustainable numbers.

REBUTTAL 15
The Big Issue claims: It is a myth that Britain is a soft touch for immigrants because "even within the EU, in 2001 the UK ranked 10th in terms of asylum applications".
We say: The verifiable fact is that in 2001 the United Kingdom received more asylum applications than any other EU country. Yes, more asylum applications than any other EU country. See the government spreadsheet here for the 2001 figures which expose The Big Issue's incompetence and false claim: www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6317.xls

Yet there, on page 30, in black and white, is the brazen falsehood that, "Even within the EU, in 2001 the UK ranked 10th in terms of asylum applications." So what, we are entitled to ask, is The Big Issue playing at? Does it really expect us to swallow such an obvious deception?

A little research indicates The Big Issue must have lifted its "fact" from the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) website www.cre.gov.uk/gdpract/refuge.html

However, even this website stated that the UK ranked 10th in the EU "in relation to the overall population [of the UK] in 2001". The Big Issue for some reason omitted that vital information. But it gets worse, because even by this measurement, both The Big Issue and the CRE website are wrong...

As the above government statistics show: by relating numbers to the overall population of the host country, the UK ranked joint seventh with Luxembourg. Comparing figures to the host country's population is very misleading, however. The real measurement is the overall numbers, and if you want to compare these numbers to the host population figures, then you should compare it to relative host population density per square mile.

However, clarifying the issue, and getting their facts right, never seems to be a priority for the open-border fanatics.

REBUTTAL 16
The Big Issue claims: Britain takes only 2% of the world's refugees.
We say: The important statistic for our purpose is the number of asylum seekers coming to the United Kingdom. In this regard, it is a fact that the UK takes in more asylum seekers than any other officially recognised "industrialized country" in the entire world!

For proof, check out the pdf file entitled "Asylum applications lodged in industrialized countries: Levels and trends, 2000-2002" prepared by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Geneva, March 2003, which can be found on the right hand side of the UNHCR page at www.unhcr.ch/statistics

See Table 1: "Total Number of Asylum application lodged, 2000-2002." Of all the 37 officially "industrialized countries" in the world, the United Kingdom tops the list as having received more asylum seekers over this period than any of the other industrialised countries in the world, including the United States!

It is outrageous that The Big Issue tries to hide this fact and confuse the issue by talking about "2% of the world's refugees", a figure which includes refugees in African and Asian countries, and according to Migration Watch here confuses a stock of asylum seekers with a flow of asylum seekers.

There then follows some welcome words of common sense from Phil Gallie MSP who makes the obvious observation that the majority of asylum seekers are "young men who have put personal interest before that of their families and communities". And, we might add, presumably left the women and children behind, and home alone, to be "persecuted".

REBUTTAL 17
Finally, the "15 Page Asylum Special" ends with an interview with someone called Margaret Woods, who is the "Trade Union Organiser at the Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees". She refers to the much-publicised deportation of the Ay family and says,"We were gutted about the whole situation and also the realisation that that sort of thing happens day in day out to hundreds of refugees."

Not in Britain it doesn't! According to Home Office Asylum Statistics 2002 (see above), in the year 2002 asylum removals including voluntary departures, and excluding dependants, rose to a record 10,740.

Therefore, far from "hundreds of refugees" being removed daily, only around 29 applicants, excluding dependants, are being removed daily and some of those are leaving voluntarily. Of course, if the system were improved, hundreds of asylum imposters should be getting removed daily.

In conclusion: In the absence of any sensible arguments, the favourite debating methods of the open-borders brigade are: making wild unsubstantiated claims and emotive generalisations, using hyperbolic language, appealing in an almost religious manner to notions of "shame" and "guilt", being selectively "compassionate", making accusations of "illegality" which are nothing more than personal matters of opinion, disguising the real figures by using irrelevant statistics, and stating blatant falsehoods as "facts". For more on these methods, and more information exposing and countering the myths about asylum seekers, Dungavel and detention centres, and making the case and arguments for Dungavel detention centre and other detention centres in the UK, see our reports here and here.