There’s a certain blurring here of the point of the system:
People seeking asylum in the UK and Europe on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are routinely seeing their claims rejected because of a widespread “culture of disbelief” and an “impossible burden of proof”, researchers have said.
Calling for a major overhaul of the way asylum systems treat LGBT+ claimants, the team from the University of Sussex said that across Europe, one in three were refused because officials simply did not believe their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Four in 10 reported being rejected because decision-makers did not consider they were persecuted, or at risk of persecution, in their home country, while more than a third felt interviewers did not listen to their story or ask the right questions.
“These findings of course sit within a broader picture of the ‘hostile environment’ to immigration,” said Moira Dustin,
That’s sorta the point. Asylum and immigration are not the same thing. From some to many places, for some to many would be immigrants, there is no legal manner of immigrating. The would be immigrant isn’t particularly trained, or likely to be high earning, or possess some rare skill in demand etc. They’re – and why shouldn’t they be? – simply someone who wants to move from a shitty place to a better one.
The way the world is currently set up that freedom of movement doesn’t exist.
We also have this other system. As we righteously should have such a system. Those who are going to get topped by whatever evil has overcome their original homeland get to move out of it to somewhere safer. Quite why they might get topped, oppressed, doesn’t matter here. Sexual identity is one good reason, religion another, race, skin colour, political beliefs and so on. That governments can and do go off the rails is clearly true and the people who will be their victims have a right – and it is a right, not a favour – to go somewhere else to be safe.
True, in law this right is to be exercised in the first safe place they come to in the flight, thus no one currently in France should be able to claim asylum in Britain while someone stepping off the plane from Pyongyang into Heathrow might well do so. But that detail doesn’t matter for the base point here.
We now have two different systems, using different criteria, for deciding who may move from one country to another. Who can qualify under the one system will be different from who can under the other – different criteria, see? So, there has to be some sorting through who does qualify under which set of criteria.
For one thing we know about humans is that they’ll, we’ll, shade things in order to get what we want. Say that we qualify for whatever in this sense even if it’s not wholly, entirely and totally true. We only have to look at claimant rates in welfare systems to see this. At which point, well, that someone is denied inclusion in their claimed category, well, that’s rather the point of having the different criteria, isn’t it?
We don’t have free immigration, we do have free movement for asylum seekers in the protected classes. That second is obviously righteous and just – but that does also mean that we need a system of making sure that those claiming it are indeed from the protected classes. And given human nature some are going to claim what isn’t quite true and any system of verification is going to reject some of them.
It’s entirely true that we can’t trust governments to get this right because we can’t ever trust governments to get anything right in detail. But the fact that we have an asylum system at all, one that differs from the regular immigration one, means that some applications are going to get rejected.