THE SCOTTISH media, in general, adopt a radically different approach from national newspapers when it comes to coverage of asylum issues. On the whole, anyone who has entered the country illegally and found not to have been telling the whole truth about their circumstances in their home country is given enthusiastic support by Scottish newspapers.

The latest example is this family from Israel (yes, exactly) who have lived in Glasgow for four years. I guess it wouldn’t have taken very long for their asylum application to have been decided:

“Where did you travel from?”

“Israel.”

“Application denied. Sorry.”

There will no doubt be those who are politically antipathetic to Israel, but the UK doesn’t generally offer asylum to people from western (or westernised) democratic countries. Neither should we.

The central issue in this family’s story is a confusion between asylum and immigration. From reading the story in the Evening Times, it seems this family would be an asset to Glasgow and Scotland. They’re conscientious and responsible, and would be ideal candidates if they were to apply for British citizenship… from Israel.

But they didn’t apply to come to Britain legally. They came as asylum seekers, which means that the only factor that can be considered in their application is whether or not they are at risk of political or religious persecution at home. If the answer is no, then no amount of community work, no arguments about how well the children are doing in school or how many friends they’ve made, can be considered.

That sounds harsh, but consider the consequences of taking those things into account when considering an applicant’s application for refugee status. Why on earth would anyone ever apply again through the formal immigration process, a process that costs a lot of time and money? Simply come to Britain on a visitor’s visa then apply for asylum. Get involved in a local church, do lots of community work, make sure your kids do well at school and hey presto! A UK passport.

Asylum and immigration must be treated completely separately. The Times story concludes with the words:

A recent report by the Scottish Refugee Council claimed new research confirmed that by denying asylum seekers the chance to stay and work here, skills such as those of IT specialists, teachers, town planners and surveyors are lost to the UK.

Probably true in some cases, but certainly not in all. And I wonder how the Refugee Council would feel if we repatriated only those unskilled asylum seekers? Would they support that policy?

If people feel they have skills to offer, they can apply for an immigration visa from outside te UK. If they arrive in the UK claiming asylum, then only their claim to be at risk from personal danger in their home country can and should be taken into account.

When I meet asylum seekers in my own constituency, I tell them that when they applied for asylum, they entered a two-way agreement with the UK: the government would agree to house and support the applicants until their application was considered, after which they would expect the applicant to respect whatever decision is made. It’s at this point that most applicants demur. But how else can the system work? No asylum seeker has the right to apply for asylum but refuse to accept any decision other than a positive one.