The rejected asylum seekers living lonely lives among us, on a pittance
|
Version 0 of 1. Polly Toynbee deserves our gratitude for highlighting the unbearable conditions our state imposes upon refused asylum seekers (No money and no way back home – the fate of thousands rejected by the UK, 19 December). These conditions are such as to render understandable any drift into antisocial behaviour which might ensue. Those of our acquaintance, however – stateless single men originally from central Africa, single mothers from eastern Europe – live innocuous if lonely and pointless lives among us on the pittance we offer them, unable to volunteer, unable to work, subject to the labyrinthine complexity of Home Office bureaucracy and deadlines incomprehensible to many with or without English, awaiting ultimately that unannounced 6am intrusion by a large group of Home Office agents primed by an individual’s decision to arrest and remove, to their own country or any other willing to accept them, forcibly should resistance to such violence be encountered. The speed of such operations allows for little humanitarian intervention to which in any case the Home Office and/or MPs fail to respond in time, and concerning which information is not easily available on the specious grounds that such information affects the individual’s rights to privacy. This is the situation for many now, before “the latest screw-tightening immigration bill”. And we consider ourselves a civilised society!David Cragg-JamesYork • The importance of the work done by freelance Home Office interpreters can’t be overstated, given the often distressed state of those for whom interpretation is the only medium through which their histories and situations can be communicated and set out for assessment of possible residency status. In updated guidance to interpreters (18 August 2015), the Home Office makes it clear that “All interpreters are self-employed and inclusion on our lists does not offer any guarantee as to receiving work or continued inclusion. Therefore there is no formal commitment or contract”. Whatever assurances the Home Office central interpreters unit might have offered, in a government department that operates as a dictatorial fiefdom, Home Office officials could certainly (and legally) be selective in their approach to which interpreters are favoured with work after a boycott and which are not, however anonymous the interpreters’ fair payment campaign, with potential hazard for asylum seekers and others “interacting with immigration officials” (Home Office interpreters in boycott threat, 21 December).Bruce Ross-SmithOxford • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |