Refugee charity hits out at Glasgow's call for asylum seeker pause
The Scottish Refugee City has hit back after Scotland's largest local authority said it was struggling to cope with the number of asylum seekers who were sent there.
Glasgow is the UK's most significant 'dispersal centre' for asylum seekers outside of parts of London and council bosses have said the numbers are putting a strain on its already stretched resources, especially in housing.
They have demanded that the Home Office, responsible for UK migration policy, stop sending asylum seekers to the city.
But Sabir Zazai (below), the chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council said that the city must find an alternative solution which including continuing to welcome asylum seekers.
(Image: Eloise Bishop)
He said: 'We believe that any decision by Glasgow to pause receiving people seeking asylum in the city would do more harm than good, and potentially lead to a rise in people sleeping on the streets.
'We don't know how long a 'pause' Glasgow is seeking or what conditions the council would need to see met in order to restart welcoming people. There is currently no clarity around what the benefits of a decision like this would be.'
Zazai argued that migration had brought many benefits to the city, adding: 'Local areas have benefitted from new businesses, cultures, skills and expertise. Having supported refugees in Scotland for 40 years, we have seen first-hand how Glasgow and other parts of the country evolved to embrace people rebuilding their lives here. We don't want to lose that progress.'
And he said that his organisation understood the pressures facing councils, which he said were mirrored in the Scottish Refugee Council's work.
READ MORE: Piers Morgan stunned following American journalist's Gaza genocide response
Zazai added: 'Homelessness and housing make up a quarter of the calls to our helpline.'
However, the charity boss said that these pressures were not caused by the 'people themselves' but rather by 'bad political decisions' – the responsibility for which lay both with local and central government.
He added: 'Glasgow and other cities declared a housing emergency several years ago, yet the chronic lack of social housing in the city remains inadequately addressed.
'Hundreds of people, many of whom have been traumatised by the asylum process, are still living in unsuitable temporary accommodation with no path to somewhere safe and settled to live.
'The UK Government fails to meaningfully engage on this issue, despite a clear and pressing need for action. The current asylum system creates social and economic barriers for people trying to rebuild their lives.
'It does not allow people to provide for themselves and their families, and it does not recognise the vital role that local communities play in supporting people. A piecemeal approach to problems and no desire to fundamentally improve an inhumane and ineffective asylum system is what has led us to this point.'
Zazai said that a 'failure to protect vulnerable people at risk of homelessness' would be a 'devastating dereliction of duty for all government officials', adding: 'We hope that an alternative solution is given the attention that it is urgently required.'
Glasgow City Council and the Home Office were approached for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
19 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Spending review is ‘settled', says Downing Street
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to announce funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects on Wednesday, as she shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. On Monday morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. 'The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change.' The Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development. Last week the Chancellor admitted that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, amid the Whitehall spending wrangling. Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned that Wednesday's announcement will include no new funding or projects for London. The mayor had been looking to secure extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line on the Underground, along with the power to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police. A source close to the mayor said on Monday that ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'. They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.'
NBC News
30 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump travel ban hits immigrant family coming to U.S. amid bloody civil war in Myanmar
A Burmese American woman was eager to bring her siblings over to the U.S. from Myanmar amid a more than 15-year wait for visas. She'd been hoping to reunite with them since the 1990s, during military rule in her home country, so her brother's family could start a life in the U.S. But a day after she bought the plane tickets, President Donald Trump ordered a travel ban that included Myanmar. The woman, 51, and her husband, who were granted anonymity due to fear of retaliation, had sponsored her brother and sister-in-law to immigrate to the U.S. The siblings were then were hoping to bring their own adult kids, too, so that they wouldn't have to fulfill mandatory military service in the country's active civil war. With the travel ban in effect Monday, they said the policy has a heightened impact on people from war-torn countries like Myanmar who had hopes of finding sanctuary in the U.S. 'It's really frustrating because we were on the cusp of securing their safety to leave that situation,' said her husband, 57, adding he felt like a 'rug got pulled out from under us in an instant.' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Trump's policy is in the 'best interest of the American people and their safety.' 'His commonsense, country-specific travel restrictions include places that lack proper vetting, exhibit high visa overstay rates, or fail to share identity and threat information,' Jackson said. 'The restrictions fulfill the President's day one promise to protect American citizens from dangerous foreign actors who may come to the United States and cause us harm.' The travel restrictions, announced on Wednesday, completely bar entry to the U.S. for people from Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, in addition to those from Afghanistan, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Other countries, including Cuba, Laos and Venezuela, are under partial travel restrictions. According to Trump's proclamation, several of the countries on the list had declined to accept the repatriation of their nationals while others had visa overstay rates that the administration deemed 'unacceptable.' A few countries lacked 'the competence of the central authority' for issuing passports, the proclamation said. Jackson also pointed out a section in the proclamation that allows for applications for refugee status. 'Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to limit the ability of an individual to seek asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal, or protection under the [international Convention Against Torture], consistent with the laws of the United States,' the proclamation said. However, after he took office, Trump limited refugee admissions for almost all countries including Myanmar. And in May, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to revoke the temporary legal status of more than 500,000 immigrants that was granted by the Biden administration. Those immigrants came from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and are now subject to deportation. Myanmar was among the nine countries in the latest proclamation that Trump also targeted during his first term. In fiscal year 2023, the U.S. issued 13,284 visas to the country, with business and tourism permits making up the most common types of visas. Myanmar recorded 1,384 overstays that fiscal year, equating to an overstay rate of almost 30%. The new travel ban comes as Myanmar's violent military regime fights to hold on to power after it seized control from the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi in a 2021 coup. Since then, violence has escalated across the region as the military clashes with ethnic minority rebel groups and pro-democracy militias. 'Junta forces have slaughtered thousands of civilians, bombed and burned villages, and displaced millions of people,' Tom Andrews, United Nations special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar, said in a press release earlier this year. 'More than 20,000 political prisoners remain behind bars. The economy and public services have collapsed. Famine and starvation loom over large parts of the population.' Under the new travel ban, anyone who obtained a visa prior to the policy is still able to come to the U.S. But there's confusion over how the restrictions will be implemented and enforced. The Burmese American woman and her husband are among those with concerns, particularly as there have been several cases of lawful permanent residents and citizens being swept up in the dragnet of Trump's immigration policies. 'It's terrifying to think that they could be randomly picked up because somebody had a bad day at the office, or somebody didn't do their job or didn't believe that their visa was true,' the woman's husband said. 'It's quite frankly terrifying.' For the woman, reunification with her brother has been a long time coming. She became a citizen in the late 1990s and began the process to help bring her sibling over a few years later. At the time, Myanmar had been under the control of a strict military junta that held power from the 1960s until 2011, and for decades had kept the country in a state of extreme isolation and deprivation. She said her brother, whose children were just a few years old then, hoped to come over and root his family in more stability. 'Their circumstances in Myanmar at that time were very, very bad. That was the system that I grew up in. There was no future for them, no prosperity,' the woman said. 'My brother was concerned for his children's future and education.' Amid moves and address changes, the couple said they never received the standard letter notifying them that the woman's brother had been able to progress in his visa process. They assumed the wait was a product of notorious immigration backlogs. It wasn't until the situation in Myanmar intensified again in recent years that the couple found out that the brother was close to finally being able to immigrate. But by then, the woman said, her brother's kids had aged out of the system. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, those who turn 21 before being approved for legal permanent resident status are no longer considered a child for immigration purposes and need to file an entirely new application, prolonging the green card process. At this point, the woman said, her brother and sister-in-law said they were willing to risk possible detention to come to the U.S., particularly if it meant easier access to the American immigration system that would enable them to fight to get their children to come over as well. However, with Myanmar's military draft in effect, the family is particularly concerned for their safety now that the travel ban adds another barrier to leaving. 'The reason they wanted to come here was for their kids,' the woman said of her brother and sister-in-law. 'Now, it's really hard to bring my nephews here to save their lives.' Quyen Dinh, executive director of the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, said the bans are ultimately another part of 'the engine of Trump's mass deportation machine.' 'It's focused on demonizing immigrant families and communities by denying them family reunification, that we all rightfully deserve to be whole — especially now, when the world is more dangerous than ever,' Dinh said. Rather than protecting individuals' safety, Dinh said, she believes Trump's policy punishes those who need an escape from dangerous conditions. 'It perpetuates the violence that is happening across the world, as opposed to creating conditions for peace or humanitarian relief, and for these families who've been separated,' Dinh said. She also said she views the ban as evidence that the U.S. is misunderstanding its role as a humanitarian leader. 'We've got people who are legitimately trying to escape a civil war,' the woman's husband said. 'Now, because of some arbitrary decision by the Trump administration to pick a certain number of countries … without consideration of the actual cases, without an exception policy, it hurts them. They've done nothing wrong.'
The Herald Scotland
33 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Senior council leader ‘confident' of more spending review support for the poor
Rachel Reeves announced that nine million pensioners in England and Wales will receive the winter fuel payment this winter, in a £1.25 billion U-turn on the Government's previous position. Speaking exclusively to the PA news agency, Sir Stephen welcomed the move and other recent measures such as the extension of free school meals. Sir Stephen Houghton is leader of Barnsley Council (Dominic Lipinski/PA) But he said a broader package of initiatives aimed at supporting low income working families is now necessary and would represent an 'important political statement'. In a statement released by the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities (Sigoma) in response to the announcement on winter fuel payments, Sir Stephen said: 'I am confident that the Chancellor will continue in this spirit and use the upcoming spending review to provide further financial support to councils who are working hard to deliver for residents in challenging times.' When asked to explain why he is confident at a time when revenue spending will be limited by factors such as slow growth and high borrowing costs, he said: 'Speaking to ministers (in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government) and speaking to advisers in the department. 'I have spent 14 years lobbying for this unsuccessfully with the previous government. 'I am confident because (local government minister) Jim McMahon is a former council leader, and he gets it. 'We have got to make sure that he doesn't get overruled by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister who are getting pressure from other parts of the country. 'I think he will hold his nerve.' Sir Stephen identified reducing transport and social rent costs as measures which would benefit the community in Barnsley and elsewhere, adding they should be part of a 'comprehensive' support package. 'That will do the Government good, both politically and by helping the people that need it the most,' he added. On capital investment, Sir Stephen warned of a 'real danger' that the Treasury will prioritise infrastructure spending on big cities to secure a 'maximum return'. 'Civil servants are telling ministers that the problem with that is it provides the least political return because these cities are already voting Labour,' he said. Advocating an alternative approach, Sir Stephen added: 'Left behind communities deserve to have economies that function effectively, and you can get growth there as well if you invest. 'These are the places that have been leaving Labour. 'Why can't you have a decent quality of life if you live in Bolton, Bury, Blyth or Grimsby? 'Those communities are the ones that, for 30-odd years, have seen the big cities be the be-all and end-all. 'That leaves you with Brexit. 'It leaves you with, from a Labour perspective, Boris Johnson majorities in red wall seats. It leaves you with riots last year. 'It leaves you with Reform (gains in the local elections) just a month ago.' 'We need a short-term package of measures to say 'we are bothered' – life is hard,' he added.
