![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
In an interview with Tony Saint, a former UK immigration officer:
(with respect to asylum interviews at the point of entry)
You are handing over something to a 3rd party to completely interpret it anyway they want and the fact of the matter is that, of course, case workers who work at the home office are there to refuse people. They are not really there to grant asylum in most cases. They are there to refuse in most cases. And that's what their job is. That's obviously not policy, but it's a fact of life. I don't know, but I imagine a case worker who was granting everyone asylum, he or she wouldn't last very long in the job. People aren't that daft. They know what they are there for. They know why they are being employed to do this job.
(interviewer) And they are there to refuse.
Yes. The fact is that is what their job is.
There is an article by him here.
It scares me that some of the people he describes in this article are the people who make crucial decision about asylum. You may not be aware, but the UK government is intending to introduce new asylum legislation which includes "segmentation". This basically means that when you claim asylum you are pre-judged and put into a category based upon how likely you are to be removed. Which category you are put in, influences the level of legal support you get.
Under this new legislation a decision will be made 5 days after you claim asylum. This means that you have 5 days to get a lawyer, gather evidence in support of your application and generally work out what is going on. Given that asylum seekers are usually entering a completely different culture and may speak limited English, this is a tall order.
October 10 2005, 09:52:22 UTC 6 years ago
The woman had come to Australia from China and was suffering depression from the loss of her son, who went missing under mysterious circumstances. The woman was trying to apply to stay in Australia on medical grounds.
That conversation, and many similar ones to follow, made me realise that yes, the case officers at DIMIA are trained to first reject the cases they are handed.
October 10 2005, 23:03:52 UTC 6 years ago
Overdone
I work for the Immigration Department, and I must admit that I felt pretty embarrassed after reading your front page ( The Age, 7/10). No, not because of my employment — it was the thought that I had paid good money to read this hysterical trash that made me feel a bit ashamed.
What topic prompted not just the use of almost the entire front page, but even red ink in the headlines (something I have never before seen)? Surely it was something more serious than the recent mass murder in Bali or the many immensely important issues that face us. Well, actually, it was about the handling of a single case by a large government department.
Certainly the case was wrongly handled. However, the result was not that anybody died or was even injured, but an unfortunate woman in need of help ended up in a place where she received compassion and care in peaceful surrounds.
Having gone almost off the scale in its treatment of such a story, what will The Age do when something really big needs to be reported?
Michael Saville, Ashburton
(The Age, 8th October 2005)
I certainly find it interesting that Vivian Alvarez Solon can be described as having "ended up in a place where she received compassion and care in peaceful surrounds."
October 11 2005, 09:01:00 UTC 6 years ago
October 12 2005, 02:35:44 UTC 6 years ago