A typical Mail asylum story, using the Report: Trends in International Migration 2004 to reprise its 2003 stories in its usual one-sided way

Daily Mail 22.01.04 Page 1 splash (continued on page 8) Headline (page 1) ASYLUM UK Official OECD report: Britain takes 1 in 5 of Western worlds asylum seekers more than any other country, including the US

Intro: Britain took almost one in five of the Western worlds asylum seekers in 2002, it was revealed yesterday

This country topped the league table of target destinations for asylum seekers

Britain accepted 110,700, one in three of all those coming to Europe and almost as many as Germany and France put together.

The startling figures come from analysts with the highly respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The story continues that OECD branded British efforts to deter asylum seekers as a failure and pointed to Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Australia as countries which sent strong messages to asylum seekers in 2001 and 2002 by reinforcing their control and detention measures or by speeding up decision making The Mail claims OECD said the 110,700 figure was 20% up on 2001, and we even overtook the US the traditional home of immigrants, Claims Home Office claim only 103,080 arrived which would still be a record and that under the Nationality and Immigration Act 2002 asylum numbers have since fallen.

Headline page 8: How we failed to turn asylum tide.

The paper claims that the increase in asylum seekers and immigrants in the past five years changed UK composition with 2.6 million being citizens of foreign countries or born abroad. According to OECD 1 in 20 is a foreigner, up 6% a year for the past five years. Claims UK is among countries who despite measures to control flows did not completely succeed in reversing their growth in contrast with those who did by restricting rights to work or to benefits.

Then the Daily Mail compares UK results with the US (81,100) and other EU countries: Germany (71,100) down 20% on 2001 and used to be the top European destination, France (51,100) similar to 2001, Italy figures halved to 7,300, Denmark down by a third to (6,700), Belgium down by a quarter to 18,800, Holland down 40% to18, 700. Then mentions Australias tough policies more than halved numbers to 6,000

Then the Home Office comments that OECD figures are outdated, as asylum figures have halved in past year. A spokesperson claims the new Act cutting benefits to those who did not immediately claim refugee status had deterred applications, and a further new law stopping benefits when an application for asylum failed or threatening to take children of failed applicants into care will cut figures further. Of course Green of MigrationWatch UK insists the drop this year will be more like 40% than 50% and we will still be the highest in Europe.

In this story diversity-onLine is concentrating on partial way the Daily Mail reports the OECD to continue attacking asylum seekers. Our coverage does not mean we in any way approve of Government actions. It is the usual story: the Mail claims the OECD report supports its campaign. The paper does not mention the OECD saying that in 2001 the number of people served with enforcement actions increased by 50% to more than 76 100, with 69 900 illegal entrants being served with papers. Nor does it mention an increase of 5% in the number of people removed in 2001 over 2000.

As the Mail itself later admits The OECD does not actually brand British efforts to deter asylum seekers as a failureIt does say that UK is among countries who despite measures to control flows did not completely succeed in reversing their growthwhich is not at all the same thing. OECD does say that foreign citizens amount to 4.5% of UK population which is somewhat less than the one in twenty figure quoted by the Mail, but the Mail also does not point out that the Irish remain the largest national segment with a slightly reduced 15.3%. Continentally, just under 46% came from Europe, increased by those from Eastern Europe, numbers from Africa fell slightly to 14%, while Asians increased to 21% and Indians amounted to 5.5%

However many of the Mails arguments are really calendar based. Some countries reacted earlier, some a little later as they were faced with different levels of flows of people. Though asylum applications increased greatly in the UK in 2002, in 2001 our figures were 11% lower than 2000, whereas other countries faced increases in 2001 and reacted earlier. Austria, France and Switzerland admitted 15% more immigrants in 2001-2002, while the US admitted one million permanent immigrants in 2001-2002, 25% more than in 2,000 and five times more than we admitted as asylum seekers in 2002.

Not surprisingly, The Mail also fails to report the OECD comments about the UKs robust macroeconomic performance, weathering the 2001 downturn relatively well with a recovery, which should compare favourably with other European countries. These were all factors likely to be attractive to people looking for a new life, which again helps to explain 2002.

Nor are even our 2002 figures so high when compared with the size of our population. As The Scotsman (22.01.04) points out, far from being top, Britain is only eighth in the list of countries getting 1.9 asylum applications for every 1,000 inhabitants, whereas Ireland had 3.1 asylum appplications, Sweden and Switzerland both had 3.7, Norway had 3.9 and Austria managed no less than 4.6 applications per 1,000 inhabitants