David Haigh writes in the Daily Mail that he believes that 80% of those who have come to him as a Human Rights lawyer and asked for help with asylum cases are not genuine. Now, I am not sure neither whether or not his claim is right or even how you would go about proving it one way or the other. What we do know is that “70% of initial decisions made in the year to June 2023 have been grants of protection.” In other words, the vast majority of cases succeed.
It’s important to remember that David’s status as a human rights lawyer does not uniquely qualify him to make that decision as to whether or not the claims are genuine. That responsibility lies initially with the Home Office and then with tribunal judges. His responsibility is to act for his clients. Of course as he decides whether or not to assess people, he will be making a decision on whether or not he thinks they are genuine. In fact, it is crucial if he is representing people through legal aid and not private clients who pay large sums that he has confidence that there is a good chance the claim will succeed, otherwise legal aid will be turned down.
Similarly, as a pastor in an urban context, I have had frequent contact with asylum seekers looking for help. What we did, depended on relationship and might range from giving them access to our emergency food bank, praying with them, giving some pastoral advice on how to live through their situation, advising on where they might find help or walking alongside them through the process and making a bit of use of my legal training. I too would be coming to a conclusion as to whether or not I personally thought the people were genuine. It’s a complex question.
- I may believe that a person is genuine in describing what has happened to them but not believe that this was a right reason for leaving their home country (note that’s my opinion, I can’t avoid it but it isn’t in the end my decision).
- I may believe that a person is genuine in describing what has happened to them but know that this does not qualify as a reason for asylum under UK asylum law.
- I may believe that the person does have a genuine claim, that they have suffered in their home country but not be convinced that they’ve told the whole story or the full truth. There are many reasons as to why this might be which don’t undermine the genuineness of their need.
- In the context of religious persecution, I may believe that the person has professed to be a Christian and identifies as such but I may not believe that they have actually come to faith in Jesus. This will not change the reality that they are in danger of being persecuted, tortured put to death if they return home. Brutal regimes don’t tend to make the distinctions that evangelical Christians do.
When we did take the extra step of walking with asylum seekers through the process, it was eye opening and here I come to the crucial point. Sometimes you would walk into a solicitor’s office and the person would barely make eye contact, their eyes were focused on the laptops tapping away. Eventually they would look up and say “Okay I have enough information to complete your paperwork”. And that’s what they would do. They’d file paperwork for the client without any interest beyond that. If the case failed, sometimes they might resubmit the file with additional paper but on other occasions they would lose interest. On one occasion a friend was put in touch with a lawyer who took their case privately, took a lot of money off of them without achieving anything. I also know of one person who was advised to rely on a completely different basis for their case.
However, there were a couple of lawyers, three to be precise who stand out in my memory. When we went to them with our asylum seeking friends, they sat, listened, made eye contact, asked questions and then eventually, looked directly at them and said “I believe you.” Then they would advise them on what the best way forward was. They weren’t just paper pushes. Such lawyers would go out of their way to help. One would even arrange to come and meet their client at our church building as it was easier for the client to get there and also they were more at ease.
Having someone who believes you and believes in you makes all the difference when that person has to represent you whether in an asylum case or any other kind of legal hearing.
Now, when we come to the New Testament, both the Holy Spirit and Jesus are spoken of at different times in ways that draw upon advocate language. They intercede for us, they speak for us in Heaven. Of course, they do not believe in us either in the way that we are required to believe in him or in exactly the same way that those lawyers did for the asylum claimants. They know that we don’t have a case in our own right before the Father, we are guilty as charged.
And yet, there is a similarity in that they are for us. They love us and they know that there is a case that will be successful. It’s not based on our own claims, our own actions, our own righteousness. Rather, it is on the basis of what Christ has done, who he is and therefore, who we are in him.
Faithroots 