Whilst no one would ever want to see genuine cases cut adrift, we have seen abuse of our asylum system on an industrial scale. Likewise, the number of unaccompanied children coming into the UK rocketed once it became apparent that it could be an effective means of getting first the child, and then the entire family indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

I don't feel we can go on denying this. I don't blame the majority of asylum seekers. But this system which benefits only trafficers and immigration lawyers (some who have become wealthy people from this system), is unfair and unsustainable.

Do we need to continue legal aid for asylum seekers? Could we not achieve a fair and rigorous system via an internal departmental process instead, such as is used for benefit claimants for example? There could then be a right to an appeal to a tribunal, with a second appeal granted in exceptional circumstances.

This would appear to satisfy our international obligations, including under the ECHR.

most asylum seeker are simply an Economic migrant,and nothing is wrong about being an Economic migrant,they have made it very difficult for people from third world country to integrate to society or pay tax as most of them are here illegally,it will be cheaper to allow them to work and save money,
If you're a family and someone from your family has migrated to Europe or America, you'll be wealthier, but you're also, for example, more likely to start a business, so employ other people in the local area and so the benefits spill over and benefit whole communities and societies," she said,Immigration is too good to be stop,

I do not understand why Illegal immigrants or whatever still persist in wanting to come to the UK. The country is destitute. With millions of unemployed people and lots more to follow. The governments main aim should be to help the indigenous population, not bail out charities and smart arse immigration lawyers. engaged in the so called human rights industry. I am sorry but charity begins at home.

Is this body a victim of it's own success or of the overwhelming numbers on the blag ?
Perhaps it's time to make asylum claims only valid when the claim is made in consulates and embassies in the applicant's country of origin - where a clearer assessment of danger or need can be made.

Re the comments just posted - shouldn't you be reading your Mail on Sunday or getting ready for the latest English Defence League ruck?

Mr Flabbybum - "abuse of our asylum system on an industrial scale" - facts, figures? "Could we not achieve a fair and rigorous system via an internal departmental process instead" - er, that's what this charity actually does.

freethepeopleok - "most asylum seeker are simply an Economic migrant" - wrong. Most asylum seekers are fleeing persecution, war, rape and other forms of torture.

roarengleberg - "I am sorry but charity begins at home" - you're not really sorry, are you - but you do come across as extremely sad.

Cutslikeawife - "Is this body a victim of it's own success or of the overwhelming numbers on the blag ?" Neither - it is a victim of the Legal Services Commission's inability to get its act together and cough up the money it owes.

It may be selfish but there will have to come a time when immigration and asylum seekers from the poor countries to the rich countries will just have to be curtailed. It is pure mathmatics and a logistical time bomb. It has been calculated that around 200 million people, mostly young, from impoverished South and Central American, African and Asian nations seek a better life and see Europe and America as the goal. The opening of borders and globalization has allowed mafia gangs to exploit them and human rights activists and lawyers act on their behalf to obtain social benefits regardless of the fact they have entered the country illegally. There is simply no way we can take in millions of people from other countries.
At a time when the economic crisis and national debts have led to unemployment, increased taxes and lower living standards in the rich countries, it is also a question of how to pay for an influx of people who have no means of sustaining themselves or their families. There are several issues to consider. Too many immigrants today have no real desire or intention of integrating into the Western way of life leading to the creation of a nation of ghettos with different cultures, laws, religions and traditions. The concept of a nation state will ultimately disappear because a multi cultural society cannot become one society with the same values. Cohabitation is virtually impossible. More important, the exodus of youth from poor nations will prevent any possibility of their developing their economies leading to increased poverty. It therefore seems obvious that the only solution to ensure a prosperous and peaceful future for the world is to pump financial aid into the poorer nations to ensure they can improve education and health, and develop their infrastructure and economies. In other words assist in pulling them up closer to our level rather than face the risk of dragging us down to their level. This requires a fundamental shift in the aid programs of the World Bank, IMF and G20 nations and the political will to end corruption that prevents money from finding its way to the people instead of Offshore bank accounts

Isn't one of the main problems here simply ignorance ? Most people in this country see aylum seekers as scroungers, who are getting our jobs etc etc. In fact asylum seekers are not allowed to work whilst their cases are being decided, even if they wish to and have skills to contribute to our society. Mostly they are victims of torture and persecution. Shouldn't we show them some compassion? Not all of them will be allowed to stay here once their cases have been heard, but at least this way we know that those who are allowed to stay are doing so justifiably.

If anything forcing the closure of this charity could well lead to more illegal immigration as these people will slip througfh the net or go underground.

Before you go making sweeping statements get your facts straight first. And finally those quite' smart arse lawyers' and other staff who currently work for tis organisation will lose their jobs and be signing on the dole by the Summer. How much is that going to cost the government?

This is an instance of one of the problems which will arise in relation to the implementation of "The Big Society". Small charities cannot survive if they're forced to wait for payment from government for many months. Also, they're going to have difficulties in accepting the high costs of tendering under EU procurement rules, particularly as success in the bidding process will not be guaranteed.

fairymary - ?In fact asylum seekers are not allowed to work whilst their cases are being decided, even if they wish?

I am well aware of the not allowed to work rule and when asylum seekers come to Britain they know of the not allowed to work rule or if they didn?t know then they are very quickly informed that they are not allowed to take up employment. If these people really want to work then they can go to another country (their first safe country for instance) and work. They choose to sit on their backsides for years and not work whilst living off our benefit system. Also, why would any responsible employer employ a person whose background cannot be checked out ? most of these asylum seekers arrive without any passports or documents as to who they are. Work? Haven?t you heard? Britain is in a recession. The indigenous are looking for work.

?Mostly they are victims of torture and persecution?

Mostly they claim they are fleeing from murder, rape, torture, persecution, blah, blah, blah, yawn, yawn, yawn.

The UK is awash with illegal immigrants as it is, and feel-good entities such as RMJ just promote ever more illegals to try and sneak into the UK.

Here's a thought: if the UK would be be less illegal immigrant friendly...wonder of wonders there'd be less illegal immigrants trying to sneak into the UK.

Good riddance so-called "Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ)"...

who at the MOJ made the ridiculous claim that the RMJs clients could simply find other representation?? this is laughable when firms doing asylum work are leaving this area of publicly funded law in their droves because of the financial impossibility of doing this work. the MOJ knows this, and that is one reason why they support the work of the RMJ.

and just WHO is reading this article and posting comments this morning?? Please take yourselves off to the Daily Express...

What's with this talk if illegal immigrants? Surely the issue here is asylum seekers, which is not the same thing at all.

And for all this talk of being overwhelmed by asylum seekers, does anyone really think that the 5,000 or so we let stay are really going to cripple the country?

Issues of asylum really are issues of life and death. Sadly lawyers are required to represent people through the asylum process because the system is stacked against the asylum seeker, with the UK Border Agency intent on refusing claims and leaving it for the courts to sort out their mess, meaning genuine claims are dragged out through the courts, costing the taxpayer far more money than if the right decision was made in the first place. Take the issue of refugees from Darfur for example, the government spent years and hundreds of thousands of pounds trying to argue that non-arab Dafuris could return to Sudan where they were at risk of genocide because only to finally concede that their stance is no longer tenable.

The route of this funding crisis is down to the government, firstly the UKBA in delaying for months and years in making decisions on claims, and then the LSC for refusing to pay legal aid providers until the decision has been made.

Disclaimer: i once worked for the RLC now RMJ organisation.

I can tell you that the work undertaken was of better quality than most private other providers and as a result the RMJ had to pick up the peices when the intial claim was so badly managed. This meant more cost to the taxpayer because of a subsequent appeal and costs involved.

All asylum cases must have at least a 50% chance of being won or you cannot take on the case, according to LSC rules.

Whilst quality legal representation costs, it is more effective than a client having to represent themselves as it takes a lot longer to sort out what is a valid argument and what is not. Also a qualified lawyer can advise his client which is relevant information and which is not. The other factor is that if you really want asylum claims dealt with quickly then you need to have adequate funding provided or cases will get delayed because of non legal representation and the backlog will build up.

Also it not easy to simply go to another provider as it takes time and they will be in the same situation, and will be unwilling to take on more clients if they have to wait two years to be paid.

The sums involved are owed to legal organisations who have completed the work, how would any of you like to do a job and then wait up to two years to be paid, you cannot simply go and shop for your weekly shop and then expect to hand them an IOU for over a year hence.

I would like to point out to 'MrFlabbyBum' that immigration lawyers are not wealthy. Lawyers who work for firms or organisations who do legal aid work earn considerably less than their commercial counterparts.

I am currently doing the training to become a solicitor on the Legal Practice Course and part of that has covered Legal Aid.

Why don't you go compare the salaries offered on the recruitment pages of a legal aid provider and then compare them to a top commercial firm? You'll see what I mean. If it was about money people would not work in this area of law.

With legal aid you have to show that a client's case has merit and they do not have sufficient means to pay for it themselves. Otherwise the LSC will not fund it. Plus with immigration and asylum there is the 50% threshold which is not used for other areas of law. So, it is not as easy as you seem to think.

Get you facts straight rather than make assumptions.

Bjerkley - ?And for all this talk of being overwhelmed by asylum seekers, does anyone really think that the 5,000 or so we let stay are really going to cripple the country??

5,000? - don?t be daft - the 1200 LEGALLY FAILED asylum seeking families (circa 5,000 including dependents) in Glasgow have just recently being given an amnesty to stay in Britain - and there are thousands more in Glasgow waiting for the right to stay.

There are an estimated 283,500 - 450,000 failed asylum seekers in the UK. Boris Johnston reckons there are some 700,000 illegals in the country - Nick Clegg pre-election said there were 900,000 illegals. How many failed asylum seekers (absconders) are part of the 700,000 - 900,000 illegals.

In passing, it is estimated that of the asylum seekers in Scotland who get their papers to stay in Britain, approx. two-thirds take off for England. Sorry England, really mean that, I know you are full.

Glasgow is now the revolving open door to England for assorted immigrants wishing to make it into England.

Blokem - I meant 5,000 a year that we let stay. We don't allow vast numbers of asylum seekers to stay here legally, which is the point I was making, in response to the previous posters who claim that the country is being overwhelmed by asylum seekers being allowed to stay in the country. It's not true.

The issue of illegal immigration is separate in that sense since how it is handled and enforced does not undermine the point I made.

Bjerkley,

Your annual figure of 5,000 asylum seekers being allowed to stay is still daft ....

.... that would be 50,000 over the past 10 years, not so ....

*144,000 ASYLUM SEEKERS ALLOWED TO STAY IN BRITAIN AFTER CLAIMS BACKLOG
More than 63,000 of the 450,000 historic cases that were found to have slipped under the radar for years have now been told they can stay.
Many are because they have been in the country for so long hat the Home Office would have difficulty trying to remove them on human rights grounds because they have effectively settled here.
Officials working through the so-called legacy backlog have so far examined 197,500 cases and there has been a 32 per cent approval rate, Lin Homer, the chief executive of the UK Border Agency, told MPs yesterday.
If that continues then some 144,000 will be able to stay once all the cases files have been looked at, in what the Tories have labelled an amnesty by the back door.
The 450,000 files in the Case Resolution Programme were unearthed in 2006 after the foreign prisoners scandal.
Among them are claimants who should have been deported as far back as the mid-1990s.
Ministers have promised to work through all the cases by 2011, while also having to deal with all fresh asylum claims and those failed cases still awaiting deportation.

* source: telegraph.co.uk 09 Jul 2009

My apologies to the readers, apostrophes in my postings are being changed to questions marks - probably due to software incompatibility.

Its not daft, since its based on official current data. Of current applications, about 5000 claims are granted. I make no comment about numbers 10 years ago, and that is not inconsistent with the point that a backlog in dealing with applications has caused a mess.

The point is not that we have too many people making claims or that too many claims are accepted, but that the system itself has caused problems that need to be dealt with.

Bjerkley.

The 50,000 I quoted was based on your figure of 5,000 per year, ie, 5,000 x 10 = 50,000 - not the "numbers 10 years ago" but the numbers from 2000 - 2010.

The official figures quoted via telegraph.co.uk are asylum seekers who were allowed to stay legally.

Regardless of whoever is responsible for the absolute shambles to which asylum and immigration has sunk, there are many, many more asylum seekers than 5,000 a year being allowed to stay - that was your point - and I have shown your claim, consistent with those of asylum supporters, to be a load of balderdash.

No you haven't shown it to be balderdash, since you've tirelessly missed the point each time. The figure of 450,000 was historical applications not dealt with, and that was several years ago, the figure has dropped significantly by now. That was also under the old system anyway, and was hardly official policy to not deal with them, just complete shambles.

Under the new system, while far from ideal, the backlog is probably around under 10,000. But the point remains that of current applications, there are about 5,000 accepted and the vast majority are returned willingly. Thats my point and it remains correct. All the figures are here http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/asylum.html

And as I said in my original post, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are not the same thing.

It's very distressing to see so many Guardian readers so abysmally ignorant of the issues. RMJ is about representing asylum seekers. Seeking asylum is a fundamental human right and an entitlement under international law. An economic migrant is absolutely not the same thing as an asylum seeker (though it is of course true that some people are rightly refused asylum on the grounds that they are in fact economic migrants.)

Yes, the huge numbers in recent years have overwhelmed the system. But the way to deal with that problem is to make the system fairer and much much more efficient than it currently is. UKBIA has an appalling record for slow decisions, wrong decisions (an extraordinary number of decision letters refer to the wrong country! - not a confidence inspiring fact), losing paperwork and frankly their treatment of people is so deficient in respect that it can be designated inhumane. And that's before we even start on immigration detention issues, including the detention of children.

What is needed is a) to improve the training of people dealing with this inside BIA, b) to employ enough people to clear the backlog, c) to set a timetable within which a robust and defensible decision will be made (which should reduce the number of appeals that currently are made because the initial process is so poor), d) improve the quality of representation for asylum seekers at appeal - so YES, YES, YES we absolutely need to protect the work that RMJ does so well and to have a legal aid regime that supports the much improved decision process trhat is so badly needed, e) allow asylum seekers to work at least if they wait more than 6 months for a decision but ideally sooner.

The answer is simple. The government has promised to retain the level of foreign aid spend instead of cuts as in social services . At an administrative stroke transfer budget responsibility for asylum seekers and all other immigration costs including housing prisons and medical to the foreigh aid dept dfid with spend covered by cancelling say aid to India which is so rich it buys up Corus. . This will concentrate minds of the government in the obvious choice , spend on aid in real 3rd world countries or alternatively lavish £££ on lawyers in UK paid to spin out the appeal process.

Bjerkley,

?All the figures are here http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/asylum.html? .

This lead is overflowing with all sorts of information relating to asylum and immigration. Quote the section which backs up your balderdash claim that 5,000 asylum seekers are allowed to stay in Britain annually.

You said: ?Under the new system, while far from ideal, the backlog is probably around under 10,000.?

More balderdash from you.

*A new backlog of tens of thousands of asylum claims could be building up because officials are chasing targets they are not going to meet, the new immigration watchdog has warned. John Vine, the Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, said promises to clear the 450,000 so-called "legacy" historic files by 2011 in unlikely to be met while a pledge to deal with most new asylum claims within a six-month period by the end of next year is "unachievable".
As a result, almost 30,000 claims are already beyond the six month period.

*source: Telegraph.co.uk 26 Feb 2010

Clare E23

I agree that there are lawyers not making a lot of money, and that applies to immigration as it does to most areas. Senior partners sometimes exploit junior staff very badly in the legal profession.

But I do know what I'm talking about here. I know of people in immigration law who have made a fortune from the system, and not all of those are running large law firms either.

There is also, and this is perhaps my cynical mind at work, an unhealthy relationship between these lawyers taking on immigration cases, and certain staff within some pro-asylum and pro-refugee charities who help to keep cases going on and on, whilst these lawyers make various repeat fees. Add that up in terms of several dozen a year, and you're talking big bucks.

Blockem - I've provided you with a link to all the statistics relating to asylum seeking. You've provided a newspaper report. Stop being lazy and read the link I've given you.

And other newsreports put the figure as under 10,000. The hysterical telegraph put it as more, but no newspaper can be relied upon as a source, so what's the original source for your tired old anti-foreigner claims. I've given you true data, which if you have any interest in finding out the correct situation you'd read, to back up my claims. All you've done is recycle right wing press reports.

Your turn to provide some accurate statistics, not some biased news stories.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "If RMJ fails, we accept that there will be some disruption while their clients look for help from another adviser. However, LSC [the body that oversees legal aid] believe that capacity will not be adversely affected as clients and caseworkers will be able to transfer to other organisations, as has happened in similar situations."

it's disingenuous of the Ministry of Justice to rely on what the LSC states it believes. the problem is the LSC's system of payments, and its total lack of understanding of the needs of its voluntary sector contracts, or of anything outside of its own internal and self-interested viewpoint. of course capacity will be affected by the closure of this organisation.

it's not only Refugee and Migrant justice which is adversely affected by the LSC's administration of the legal aid system - all areas of social welfare law rely heavily on charity and voluntary sector organisations to provide legal help, and i can only liken the nature of this so- called partnership with an abusive relationship - and who do you think is the battered wife - the charity or the statutory authority?

fortunately for the LSC, they can count on the words 'refugee' and 'migrant' to set off daily mail standard ' frothing at the mouth, and escape any opprobium for it's clumsy, over- complex and bureaucratic systems and dalek-like sensitivity. debtor, benefit-claimants and tenants may expect the same sort of sympathy, i guess, when they lose the already limited outlets providing access to justice. nobody working in social welfare law expects things to get better, only worse...and every time organisations close down, more caseworkers will decide they're through with working under the LSC's steenking contracts...

the eejit of the week prize has to go to CurtisLeMay for this doozy -

feel-good entities such as RMJ

feel-good?

I was going to prepare a reasoned response to the bile and stupidly crass assumptions made by some of the posters but I am honestly to pissed off to do so after reading some of the comments!

What some of these show is a fundamental (willful?) ignorance of this country's international obligation, an abhorrent willingness of mixing immigration / migration with International Protection issues, an ostrich's attitude and willingness in ignoring not just the UK but most of the G20's economic policies which are directly linked not just to the human rights crisis but also the economic crisis in developing countries.

I really do not want to presume or make any suggestion as to who /what they are but the linking of refugee issues to immigration raises a certain question in my mind and the mention of "smart" immigration lawyers enriching themselves on the system, another.

It creates the image of small mindedness amongst other things.

Having relocated to NZ it was ironic for me to see that the bulk of immigration to these shores comes from the UK and the Brits hold the NZ national record for...illegal immigration.

You would not want the smart immigration lawyer over here to lose his /her sense of empathy as we seem to have done in the UK now, would you?

And please, do check the numbers and the facts.

Competent legal representation is a benefit to the taxpayer as it assists in weeding the weak claims from inception as well as ensuring through adequate disclosure of all material facts that claims do not stay in the system longer than they should and those who do not meet the criteria do not take up court time.

The weakness of the Home Office decision making process accounts for at least 70 % (if not more!) of delays in all claim.

Finally, please do let me know if you find an abundance of smart immigration lawyers out there reaping the benefits of the system as that would be an avis rara indeed. Law Practices doing decent asylum or immigration work on legal aid are going the way of the Dodo!

Well here is a novel way to reduce their costs, follow the correct reqirements of asylum.
If a potential asylum seeker has passed through any safe countries on his/her way to claim asylum in the UK,said person should be deported with no appeal.
This may be seen as harsh by some but is follows the letter of the law regarding asylum.

As the RMJ is a charity I assume it is entitled to make public appeals for money. Why hasn't it done so?

Vankedi1968 -I am not sure what 'correct requirments of asylum' or letter of the law regarding asylum' you are referring to.

The refugee convention makes no mention of claiming in the first 'safe country' as one of the 'requirements of asylum'. It requires that a person is outside his country of origin and has a well founded fear of persecution in that country. The issue of 'safe third countries' is not one envisaged by the 1951 convention at all. The principle of non-refoulement requires that no person is returned to a country where they have a well-founded fear of persecution, and to say that a person's fear is not well-founded just because they may have passed through other countries first is nonsense.