What are the strategic opportunities and risks of advocating for ‘alternatives’ to detention? Should we be promoting existing ‘alternatives’ such as bail, or case management programmes involving engagement with migrants?

Immigration detention is wrong, and harmful.  Detention destroys communities, and robs people of their lives, dignity and spirit.

We – those of us opposed to detention – are clear on this.  We are clear it is morally wrong.  We are clear it doesn’t work – it doesn’t act as a ‘deterrent’ to migrants coming to the UK, it doesn’t result in quick, efficient enforced removals of those the government have decided are undesirable.   It costs huge amounts of money – it’s estimated that the UKBA spends some £110 per day or over £40,000 a year, per detainee.

We are clear the government locks migrants up to look ‘tough’ on immigration, to try and institutionalise the myth of difference between migrants and British citizens, to make it easier to hate migrants and to fear them and therefore to blame them for things that are wrong in the country.

We are clear that immigration detention must end, that all detention centres must close.  But we are not clear how to get there.

This is why ‘alternatives’ to detention is such a prickly issue.  If we are a long way from the end of detention altogether, what do we do in the meantime?

The International Detention Coalition, who have undertaken considerable worldwide research on the issue of alternatives to detention, define alternatives as: “any legislation, policy or practice that allows for asylum seekers, refugees and migrants to reside in the community with freedom of movement while their migration status is being resolved or while they await deportation or removal from the country”.

These might be release provisions, community models, or conditional release.  The IDC has found, from surveying models of alternatives in different countries, that the benefits of alternatives can easily be evidenced – benefits for migrants, the government, for society.  There are high rates of compliance (with the immigration system); they are cheaper than detention; human rights are protected; community integration for approved cases is improved.   These ‘benefits’ are problematic for those of us who believe that immigration detention should never be used, however.  Alternatives to detention shouldn’t just be a way of enforcement working better, but a step towards the end of enforcement altogether.

How can we use alternatives to detention strategically?

Alternatives to detention are an opportunity to start a discussion, to prove that detention doesn’t work, and that community engagement, with migrants, is the real alternative.  For example, in the Netherlands, civil society groups came together under the coalition “No child in detention”. On 29 January 2008 the government publicised a new policy regarding the immigration detention of children and their families creating more alternative accommodation for them , and the improvement of detention conditions. After repeated calls by the coalition this was expanded to unaccompanied minors. In 2011, the Minister started investigating alternatives to detention for adults.

I am hesitant to use the ending of child detention as an example, because of the troubled history of that campaign in the UK – where the ‘victory’ of ending child detention has been co-opted by politicians, leading to the fracturing of the movement.   Nevertheless, the Netherlands example still shows that starting on a small scale, with one group, can lead to an examination of how to end detention for everyone.

Decision makers, politicians – despite the tough act – are scared by the issue of immigration and even more so by enforcement.  If they can see that resolving cases in the community works as in the example in the Netherlands, they are emboldened to tackle detention  more broadly.

And it’s not just decision-makers.  Using evidence of successful examples of community case management models as alternatives to detention is an opportunity to have a discussion about what detention is like.  Most people have no idea, and may assume that detention is inevitable or justified.  If you want to convince the public (whose support can provide a climate for politicians to make more positive policy on immigration) that detention isn’t the answer, you need to be able to suggest what the solution could be instead.

And we can never forget, when talking about alternatives to detention, and the detention system, that it’s about detainees, it’s about people.  While we debate the opportunities and risks of detention alternatives – a necessary and vital debate – the daily reality is that alternatives to detention get people out of immigration removal centres, out of the ‘second torture’ of detention.

Risks of advocating for alternatives

With that reality check then, of recognising that for people in detention, alternatives are currently the only way they will be released unless they are granted leave to remain; no-one who cares about the well-being of others would deny the importance of that.  But what are the risks of advocating for alternatives?

Improvements normalise a system we want to bring down – it is reform, not revolution.  This is a tension in anti-enforcement advocacy in general – in the US, there are non-enforcement zones where migrants can’t be picked up and detained, including schools and children’s play-parks.  Should we call for this in the UK, or does the shocking detention of families through dawn-raids and snatching kids from schools reveal how despicable enforcement is? A necessary truth to end enforcement?  The same can be said by improving the behaviour of escort staff on removals – of course we want less terror, less assaults, but making enforcement less brutal is not our ultimate goal and can make the ending of enforcement harder to attain.  These extremes of inhumanity shock us, and without that shock the general public may continue to accept a system of detention and forced removal that is by its very existence, violence against the individual and their freedom.   By removing its excesses, do you provide life-support to the system?

The alternatives themselves leave a lot to be desired.  Tagging and reporting are merely extensions of the deprivation of liberty beyond the walls of the prison.  The very fact that we, almost unquestioningly, use the term ‘bail’ from the criminal justice system for a process that involves many individuals who have committed no crime at all, shows how even if someone is liberated from the physical detention of an immigration removal centre, they are not free from the language of detention and criminality.

Evidence on alternatives shows that there is increased sign-up for voluntary return (or more accurately, as Jerome has pointed out, ‘assisted return’)  for refused cases – this is better than people signing up for ‘voluntary’ return because they cannot bear the mental torture of detention any longer – as we too often hear from detainees – but we must ensure that return is a choice made by an individual who is empowered and free to make a meaningful, safe choice.   The use of the term ‘alternatives’ to describe projects by UKBA to try and encourage more people to return has muddied the waters in the sector.  Like destitution, alternatives could all too easily be used as a coercive strategy to make people despair, to make people leave by any means possible.

But detention is too big a crime to be ignored, and alternatives too important a strategy to shy away from.

Is advocating for alternatives to detention in conflict with principled opposition to border control?  Yes.  But even if you are against immigration control and believe there should be no borders, like NCADC, you can still believe that advocating alternatives to detention is the right thing to do.  It’s the right thing to do because of the opportunities I’ve mentioned, and because it’s essential for detainees.  But we must acknowledge that conflict, that tension, and must not cease our calls for the end of all immigration detention whilst pressing for more, and better, alternatives.

We must make sure the alternatives are better and that they are used: detention has become the default, rather than the presumption of liberty, as is enshrined in law.  Alternatives are a transitional demand, temporary relief for people in detention while we work together to end detention entirely.

Alternatives can distract from the bigger picture – and to us the bigger picture isn’t making sure that the existing system, with its mechanism for release from detention, is operated properly; but bringing that system down.

Advocating for alternatives to detention must not soften our determination to shine a light on the darkest aspects of the immigration system, and our commitment to end the outrage that is immigration detention.

Theresa May has a bad habit of ruining Sundays. 

Sundays are a good day for her populist, racist pandering to the right-wing press to receive a lot of air-time.  Tempting as it is to ignore her attention-seeking power-hungry attempts to fashion her own legacy, her latest intervention in the Article 8-foreign ex-offenders-deportation affair came at the end of a week in which the Home Office surpassed even their own incredible record for making your blood boil.

The Mail on Sunday dutifully parroted, ‘“Innocent people will be subjected to rape and violent attacks by foreign thugs because judges have sabotaged a bid by Parliament to deport them, Theresa May warned … Using highly emotive language, Mrs May claimed there would be more muggings on Britain’s streets because judges let foreign law-breakers stay here.”

May’s opinion piece wasn’t solely emotive, however.  It was couched in the language of a reasoned political discourse, albeit a highly misleading one.  May posits the need to rush through legislation to curb the power of these pesky judges as a need driven by the principles of democracy.  The principle of parliament as the ultimate executive in the UK, being as it is composed of the elected representatives of the people of this country.  That democracy is upheld by a separation of powers, with the judiciary acting as vital check on the power of the executive, is a nuance overlooked by May.  One of those nuances that tend to distinguish dictatorships from democracies.  As the Free Movement blog has pointed out, this is not North Korea.

But why let facts stand in the way of a good scare-mongering?  Theresa May is an ignorant, inept zealot overseeing her private fiefdom of asylum and immigration.    Her ignorance of the law is not a new revelation. Kenneth Clark was forced to intervene when the Home Secretary made it clear, very publicly, how little she actually understood about Article 8 and relevant case law (again, annoying facts rearing their ugly head) during the Catgate controversy.  The reality is that it’s incredibly hard to win a case on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to family and private life) alone, as anyone who has worked with the actual human beings these cases refer to will know.  Article 8, as Theresa May insists on telling us on a regular basis and which is reported as if the Home Secretary herself came up with this idea, is a qualified right.  A balance is struck between the right of a state to operate immigration control and to protect ‘public safety’; and the human rights of the person facing deportation to a family/private life.  The July 2012 changes to the immigration rules did attempt to tip the balance in favour of deportation, but the right to a family and private life is enshrined in European and UK law and the courts cannot ignore the UK’s human rights obligations.  The fact that Article 8 is a qualified right does not detract from the fact that it is a universal right also.  Although May would have us think otherwise, foreign ex-offenders are human beings who have human rights.   Foreign ex-offenders actually have a lower reoffending rate than British offenders, but this is unhelpful to May’s depiction of ‘foreign thugs’ roaming the streets.   For those of us supporting the rights of migrants to stay in the UK, some of whom happen to have criminal sentences, the image of liberal judges continually making decisions to allow foreign ex-offenders to stay is one hard to recognise.   We are a long way from the ‘judges’ revolt’ the Mail on Sunday warns of.  But with increasing incursions on the independence of the judiciary and attempts to politically influence the decisions of the court by Theresa May and her right-wing press lackies (remember the Telegraph’s naming and shaming of ‘lenient judges’?) maybe it’s about time for a judges’ revolt.

So much does the right to family life appear to upset May, she seems intent on destroying the very concept.  The family migration rule changes that imposed a £18,600 minimum yearly salary for those wishing to live with their foreign spouses in the UK were a clear signal of how much the government hates poor people, and how poor foreigners were the worst subcategory imaginable.  This policy is keeping children away from their parents, and separating couples who were foolish enough to think that love was what mattered.  Because the Home Office doesn’t believe in love.  As they proved with the great pleasure they took in launching an assault on love this Valentine’s Day.

A few days earlier, a BBC Freedom of Information request had revealed an increase in wedding day arrests.  Smarting at the finding that Certificates of Approval (when migrants had to ask the Home Office’s permission to marry) were unlawful, UKBA has decided to target registrars instead.  Registrars have been passing information to UKBA about what they view as suspicious weddings between a British national and a non-British national, and UKBA enforcement officers are increasingly swooping in on the day of the wedding and detaining people, sometimes with the other partner unaware of what has happened and why their partner is not there.

The Home Office decided to celebrate this ruining of people’s lives by posting sickening, flippant attempts at witticisms on Twitter with the hashtag #HappyValentinesDay.  The Home Office’s Twitter profile says ‘The Home Office is the UK government’s department for policing, crime, counter-terrorism and immigration.’  Pretty serious issues, then.  You’d probably expect some pretty serious tweets.  Some of them are.  Like the millions of people across the globe who took the opportunity of Valentine’s Day to “Strike.  Dance. Rise” in the One Billion Rising events, the Home Office felt that this special day was a time to call for an end to violence against women and girls.

It then decided that this special day was also a time to combine archived photos of distressed migrants being dragged away on their wedding day, accompanied by messages such as “Do you take this woman to be your sham bride? #HappyValentinesDay” and “#rosesareredvioletsareblue if your marriage is sham we’ll be on to you”.  There are so many objectionable aspects to this social media experiment that it’s hard to know where to start.

That the concept of a ‘sham marriage’ is entirely subjective, but a concept that is only used in reference to migrants?  Perhaps with the fact that the photos are several years old, suggesting some time and thought has gone into this despicable exercise?  Or that the woman being dragged away, crying, handcuffed in one of the images is clearly identifiable?  Or the glorying in other people’s misery (experienced before with the Home Office on Twitter, during the Operation Mayapple outrage).  Perhaps the most disgusting element of the whole affair was the jokey tone of the messages, revealing an almost unbearable cynicism and disrespect for people’s lives.

An American friend commented that if this had happened in the United States, there would be a media outcry and people would lose their jobs.  Here, apart from a storm of angry responses within the refugee/migration sector, it passed unnoticed.  The storm was important, however.   When you encounter, day in day out, UKBA’s unique combination of malevolence, inhumanity, and ineptitude you think you can’t be shocked any more.  But the Valentine’s Day affair was shocking, and more people should be shocked and angry.

The Secretary of State is peddling misinformation and obfuscating propaganda.   Her department are utilising social media to parade their hatred of migrants.  They are attempting to assert their legitimacy by appealing to the very worst aspects of humanity,  delighting in the pain of others, and encouraging hysteria about ‘foreign criminals’.    They are taking the purest, most precious aspects of humanity – human rights and freedom, families and love – and sullying them with their inhuman bitterness.

So it was another angry week for NCADC.  How do we rebalance our humours?  By remembering why we fight the good fight, and restoring our souls with love stories like Fozia and Nawaz’s and sharing with Marie Therese the uplifting messages of solidarity from our wonderful, dedicated supporters.

—-

JANUARY

The year commenced with an important legal victory for human rights, as explained by Rosalind English on theUK Human Rights Blog:

Detention featured heavily in February, with a particular focus on the outrage that is the detained fast-track system (DFT).The independent Chief Inspector issued his report on the DFT,  and NCADC agreed with Detention Action that is was a somewhat muted affair:

“John Vine, fails to draw the conclusion that fundamental reform is needed. In contrast to today’s ringing condemnation from the UN High Commission for Refugees, John Vine’s report is curiously muted.

The main reason for this is his remit. A key question for the Chief Inspector is whether the Detained Fast Track removes people quickly. There is no question that it does: hence its popularity with Ministers and the UK Border Agency. But how does it achieve these quick removals?

John Vine appears to give the quality of decision-making in the process a clean bill of health. The reason for this is his focus on appeals upheld as a marker of quality. 93% of refusals are upheld by the courts, he reasons, so the quality of initial decisions must be high. Yet this misses the point about how the Detained Fast Track denies access to justice: detained asylum-seekers find it just as difficult to present their cases effectively in the courts as they do to the UKBA. It is necessary to consider the quality of the whole process, not of the initial decision in isolation.”

The UNHCR’s representative in London, Roland Schilling, on the other hand, lambasted the UK’s detention of torture victims as ‘inhumane‘.

—-

MARCH

The end of March and the beginning of April saw a fortnight of events to celebrate Young People Seeking Safetyweek, the second national, annual celebration.Events took place in Leicester, Cardiff, Norwich, Glasgow, London, Manchester and Sheffield.  There were graffiti workshops, poetry writing and reading, art exhibitions, parties, conferences and more.

YPSS is a network of young people, groups and individuals who support young people seeking safety in our local communities.

YPSS provides a formal platform for local and national groups across the UK to communicate, meet and work towards ensuring the care and human rights of young asylum seekers in the UK

YPSS fortnight 2013 will take place from March 22 – 5 April.  Contact lisa@ncadc.org.uk if your local group would like to take part!

—

APRIL

In April a new blog was launched, written by ‘T’, a young Afghan who had been refused sanctuary in the UK.

“Whilst being in detention, T has had his ticket to return to Afghanistan cancelled 6 times by UKBA. That means that six times he has been moved to the removal wing of the detention centre, and had to face the thought of returning the next day. Then usually at the last minute, the ticket is cancelled and they are not told why.

What’s it like and how does it feel when they keep changing and cancelling your tickets? 

This is ridiculous, they always give me a ticket but they change it again and again for no reason. Also we don’t know if the tickets are real or not, because people going to the same place have different tickets for different days and I believe most of them are fake and they are just playing with us! It’s really bad and intolerable to wait for another ticket 2 or 3 weeks later. Some of us have contact with solicitors but some have no one to help them. When they change our tickets they just keep us here for no reason.

__

It’s a strange situation to be in, because although T doesn’t want to go back to Afghanistan, the constant uncertainty in the detention centre is incredibly unsettling, and he never knows whether this time the removal will really happen or not.”T has now been released from detention, and his blog is so popular that it’s moved to a new site: Lifeafterdeportation.com

—–

MAY

In May, charter flights were once again the issue of the month:”The enforced removal of foreign nationals on charter flights operated by private airlines and enforced by private security companies to countries such as Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Sri Lanka continue. These flights leave unseen and the exact information as to where they leave from and what airline carrier is taking them is unknown. NCADC calls on the UKBA to end this awful practice–one in which entire planes are filled with those often terrified to be left at its final destination. With no supervision of the practices of these private companies, just what exactly occurs on these secretive flights is unknown and the dangers the individuals who are on them are left to face are not accounted for.”

The concern about deportations by charter flight to Sri Lanka – where there is credible evidence of torture of refused asylum seekers on return – was widespread and on 29 May, Human Rights Watch called for an end to deportations to Sri Lanka:

“The United Kingdom should immediately suspend deportations of ethnic Tamil asylum seekers to Sri Lanka and review its policies in assessing these claims …

Investigations by Human Rights Watch have found that some failed Tamil asylum seekers from the United Kingdom and other countries have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and torture upon their return to Sri Lanka. In addition to eight cases in which deportees faced torture on return reported in February, Human Rights Watch has since documented a further five cases in which Tamil failed asylum seekers were subjected to torture by government security forces on return from various countries, most recently in February 2012.

“The British government’s asylum procedure is failing to identify Tamils at risk of torture upon return to Sri Lanka despite growing evidence that torture of Tamil activists deported from abroad occurs,” said David Mepham, UK director at Human Rights Watch. “Until the government can fairly and thoroughly assess asylum claims based on up-to-date human rights information on Sri Lanka, it should suspend returns.”

Also in May, Medical Justice released their report The Second Torture, revealing that victims of torture are routinely being held in immigration detention centres in breach of the government’s own rules, a new investigation has revealed.

The report found that Rule 35, which should prevent torture victims being locked up in all but exceptional cases, is routinely flouted. This report s uncovered systemic failures on the part of UKBA and its contractors to follow statutory law and provisions.

—

JUNE

• In June, we launched a new national campaign: Stop Deportations to Afghanistan! NCADC hosted a large and lively public meeting in London to gather together all those concerned about mass deportations to Afghanistan.
• The week before, over 1,000 people had marched in Glasgow to demonstrate for refugee rights.
• Also in June, the country guidance case on Zimbabwe (EM and Others) was quashed, meaning that  the most definitive treatment of risk on return to Zimbabwe is the previous Country Guidance case of RN (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2008] UKAIT 0008.

The story that was to dominate immigration news for the rest of the year broke in June – the changes to the immigration rules, particularly those affecting family migration and Article 8.

Stark choice under new immigration rules: exile or family breakup
Alan Travis, The Guardian, 8 June 2012

British citizens with foreign-born partners are to be given the choice of indefinite “exile” in countries including Yemen and Syria or face the breakup of their families if they want to remain in the UK, under radical immigration changes to be announced next week, MPs have been told.

The home secretary, Theresa May, is expected to confirm that she will introduce a new minimum income requirement for a British “sponsor” without children of up to £25,700 a year, and a stringent English speaking test for foreign-born husbands, wives or partners of UK citizens applying to come to live in Britain on a family visa.

Immigration welfare campaigners say that the move will exclude two-thirds of British people – those who have a minimum gross income of under £25,700 a year – from living in the UK as a couple if they marry a non-EU national. They estimate that between 45% and 60% of the 53,000 family visas currently issued each year could fall foul of the new rules.

Ministers have also been considering extending the probationary period for overseas spouses and partners of British citizens from two to five years and introducing an “attachment test” to show that the “combined attachment” of the couple is greater to Britain than any other country.

—-

JULY

Iraqi parliament refuses to accept nationals deported from Europe

Owen Bowcott, The Guardian, 2 July 2012

The Iraqi parliament has banned the forced return from Europe of tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers and threatened to fine airlines that take part in deportation programmes.  The unilateral declaration has already resulted in deportees being turned back at the border, according to the London-based refugee support organisation that has lobbied for the policy change.  

Despite this ruling, many Iraqi detainees in the UK still fear deportation to Iraq where their lives are at risk.  Hindi Abed told her husband’s story in a further Guardian piece (“If he is sent back to Iraq, he will be killed”):

A few days later, we heard how Home Office officials planned to worsen the health of an Iraqi asylum seeker who had a mental illness in the hope of putting pressure on him to leave the UK” (Diane Taylor, Guardian, 5 July).

On a more positive note, NCADC held a double documentary screening:Denied, Detained, Deported.  We screened the films - How Long is Indefinite? and Hamedullah: The Road Home at 93 Feet East in London where we were joined by a packed audience and the films’ directors.

It was also a big month for crucial legal judgements:

• in RT (Zimbabwe), the Supreme Court held that asylum seekers cannot be expected to lie or dissemble in order to achieve safety in their own country.
• and KA (Afghanistan) was a ‘significant step forward for young asylum seekers’ which could be relevant to the cases of many asylum seekers who claimed asylum under the age of 18 (not just Afghans).

—

AUGUST

Unsurprisingly, the Olympics dominated the headlines in August.  As well as garnering some pro-immigration coverage, some high-profile asylum claims received attention.

The first news reports were of ’an East African athlete’ entering a police station in Leeds to claim asylum, and suggestions that three Sudanese athletes who had gone missing will be seeking asylum in the UK.

Cameroon was next though The Guardian coverage of the story failed to emphasise thehuman rights abuses in Cameroon that lead people to seek safety in the UK:

Seven Olympic athletes have disappeared amid fears they have fled the London 2012 Games to claim asylum, according to team officials.  Five boxers, a swimmer and a footballer from Cameroon were reported missing earlier this week leading team officials to suggest they had “defected.”

Then Weynay Ghebresilasie, Eritrea’s flag-carrying runner  and three other Eritrean athlestes, sought asylum in UK to flee Eritrea’s “repressive regime”.

—

SEPTEMBER

In September, NCADC held our annual conference and general meeting, which included the official launch of our campaigning toolkit.

The Campaigning Toolkit is a comprehensive printed and online resource for people at risk of removal, and the groups working to support them.

The Toolkit aims help migrants understand the asylum and immigration systems, to know their rights, and to be as well-equipped as possible to make a successful application. In the case of a refusal, we hope the Toolkit enables migrants to know what a campaign is, whether it’s right for them, and to be at the centre of the campaign and of all of the decisions made.

—

OCTOBER

In October, the story of refused asylum seekers facing eviction in Glasgow continued to develop:

The private company Serco assumed responsibility for housing asylum seekers in Scotland and Northern Ireland last month, having previously won a lucrative contract from the UK Border Agency (UKBA) worth some £175 million. In Glasgow, the consequences could well be enforced homelessness and destitution.

Since 2000, housing in the city has mainly been provided by the charity Ypeople (formerly YMCA Glasgow) and, previously, the organisation frequently operated a practice of delaying the evictions of its tenants. Speaking to IRR News, Jock Morris, of the Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees (GCtWR), said: ‘They went back on this when they lost the contract to Serco and made arrangements to hand the properties over to them. All of their properties have now been handed over except for those with people in them, and it’s these who are facing eviction.’

Leading up to the contract handover, Ypeople’s solicitors issued thirty-two ‘Notices to Quit’ to asylum seekers living in its properties, of whom several have since been issued with legal papers for ‘action of recovery possession’. It is these people who were required to attend a summary hearing on 17 October, with campaigners in tow offering solidarity and support. If the tenants are to be made homeless, the impact would be ‘appalling’, Jock says. ‘They have no right to work, no income whatsoever, and will have no shelter. They will be utterly destitute; their health may well suffer and they will be vulnerable to attacks from people in the street.’At the time of writing, while some evictions have taken place, a court in Glasgow has halted a large number of evictions while the case continues.

–

At the end of October, there was the sad news of another death in immigration detention. Prince Ofosu, a 31 year old Ghanaian man. According to a member of the detention centre staff, Prince was ‘stripped naked at the block [rule 40] and the heating system was turned off. He was left in the cold without even a duvet till his death 24 hours’ later.’

—

NOVEMBER

November saw the full failings of UKBA brought under the spotlight.

On 8 November, the UK parliament’sHome Affairs Committee published a report of its latest Inquiry into the work of the UK Border Agency. The Committee has now published their report online with the headline “Border Agency’s backlog spiralling out of control”, and that was the angle taken up by the media – that and the terrible spectre of an amnesty for “illegal immigrants”.

Less widely reported were other serious issues of concern at the Border Agency: the poor quality of decision making, the increasing detention of children and use of force against them, detainees “falsely imprisoned and subject to inhuman and degrading treatment … despite a clear and documented history of mental illness and against the advice of mental health professionals”, and so on.

Although it highlights some issues of real, pressing concern, this report in fact hardly touches on the human misery perpetuated by a Border Agency more concerned with targets than human rights, legal process or even it’s own rules. The focus, as always, is on bureaucratic ineptness, the scandal of missed targets.

Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Committee, said “entering the world of the UKBA is like falling through the looking glass. The closer we look the more backlogs we find, their existence obscured by opaque names… They need to get a grip.”

Contrariwise, just imagine how it must feel for those who live their lives on the wrong side of the looking glass.

–

Also in November, a new report - A Prison in the Mind -  from Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group highlighted the mental health implications of  immigration detention.

—

DECEMBER

In December, the true face of G4S as asylum accommodation landlords was exposed, leaving asylum seekers living in ‘squalor’, and in one case a cockroach found in a baby’s milk bottle.  The Independent also reported on a heavily pregnant asylum seeker removed from her house by a company working for security company G4S despite them knowing that she was being induced to give birth on the same day.  G4S’ response to having left mothers and their babies suffering in cramped, stuffy, indecent conditions? ‘We were just following orders‘.As the year drew to a close, campaigning against immigration detention went up a gear.

Detention Action’s campaign to end indefinite detention hit the headlines, and the Detention Forum of which NCADC is part, published its strategy document ’Roadmap for change – how we will challenge immigration detention’.

Plus, Santa paid a visit to the UKBA Brand Street office in Glasgow to protest against dawn raids and child detention.

“entering the world of the UKBA is like falling through the looking glass” Keith Vaz, Chair of Committee

Last week (8 Nov), the UK parliament’s Home Affairs Committee published a report of its latest Inquiry into the work of the UK Border Agency. The Committee has now published their report online with the headline “Border Agency’s backlog spiralling out of control”, and that was the angle taken up by the media – that and the terrible spectre of an amnesty for “illegal immigrants”.

Less widely reported were other serious issues of concern at the Border Agency: the poor quality of decision making, the increasing detention of children and use of force against them, the unlawful imprisonment of torture victims, the mental health needs of detainees being ignored.

People behind the headlines

That the Border Agency does not know how many cases in their massive backlog are actual, existing people in the UK is of concern, but it is how they deal with applications, with people, that is the real worry.

As the Refugee Council’s Lisa Doyle points out, behind the figures in that backlog are real people, desperate to have their applications resolved, many having waited for years, unable to put down any proper roots and rebuild their lives, let alone access the services or support they need.

There is a real danger that in a rush to hit targets, people’s lives are put in danger, and this is highlighted in the report. The “culture of disbelief” in asylum determinations is well-documented (try googling the phrase). The curtailment of access to legal representation, and the concentration on hitting targets, will lead to even more people being incorrectly refused asylum and being sent back to persecution, torture, or even death. But it will also lead to more people fighting appeals, lodging judicial reviews, leading to more court time and costs. And more backlogs.

Dangerous targets

“The Committee is particularly worried about the plight of Tamils being returned to Sri Lanka and calls on the Agency to push for a re-evaluation of the risks posed to Tamil asylum seekers on return.”

The Committee’s report itself states that 13 people who were removed from the UK this year have since been granted asylum on appeal. They had been sent back to countries where their lives were at risk, including to Sri Lanka, despite the evidence of returnees being tortured. Last year, MP Siobhain McDonagh accused the UK government of “painting targets on the backs”  of Sri Lankan returnees. The Committee reports that it is “particularly worried about the plight of Tamils being returned to Sri Lanka and calls on the Agency to push for a re-evaluation of the risks posed to Tamil asylum seekers on return.” But will UKBA listen, or keep pushing for those targets?

Immigration Detention – a second torture

The Committee is concerned about a number of issues coming to light in regards to immigration detention — in particular the treatment of detainees suffering from mental illness at Harmondsworth the UK’s largest detention centre, where a Ghanian man died earlier this month.

“falsely imprisoned and subject to inhuman and degrading treatment” … “despite a clear and documented history of mental illness and against the advice of mental health professionals”

That people have been “falsely imprisoned and subject to inhuman and degrading treatment” “despite a clear and documented history of mental illness and against the advice of mental health professionals” is shocking, but should come as no surprise, really. Medical Justice reported on this in May this year, in their report “Second Torture”. Why is no one paying attention to what their medical professionals are saying?

The Committee is “concerned that the cases outlined may not be isolated incidents but may reflect more systemic failures in relation to the treatment of mentally ill immigration detainees”, and this concern is backed up by evidence from inspections of the Independent Monitoring Board.  Medical Justice and others have been saying this for years, and yet it continues, in contravention not only of the law and human rights conventions, but the Border Agency’s own rules. For how long are they going to get away with this? How many people have to suffer, to self harm or commit suicide?

Detention of children and families

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has recently been making triumphant claims about having ended child detention, but this report is “concerned that the numbers held are starting to increase again“.  Yes, it is still on a much smaller scale than under Labour, but the Committee also highlights concerns about the use of force, including unapproved techniques used on a pregnant woman, posing a risk to her unborn child. The Committee reiterates the conclusion of HM Inspector of Prisons report on the Cedars family detention centre that “force should never be used to effect the removal of pregnant women or children”. The use of force at the Cedars facility has been criticised by the Inspector and now by this Committee. What will it take before Barnardo’s, which helps run the detention centre, decides one their ‘red lines’ has been crossed?

Through the looking glass

Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Committee, said “entering the world of the UKBA is like falling through the looking glass. The closer we look the more backlogs we find, their existence obscured by opaque names… They need to get a grip.”

Contrariwise, just imagine how it must feel for those who live their lives on the wrong side of the looking glass.

The Sri Lankans wrongly refused asylum, facing deportation to imprisonment, torture or death. The Afghan child unlawfully age-assessed, taken out of care to be imprisoned then sent to the hellish refugee camps around Kabul. The student whose education is ruined, savings lost, facing deportation through no fault of her own. The women in the Detained Fast Track system, traumatised by rape, terrified of being returned, no time to put their case. The family waiting years for sanctuary, under constant threat of detention and deportation. The thousands denied proper legal representation, dismissed as ‘not credible’, demonised by the media and treated by the Border Agency as just one more inconvenient statistic to be dealt with.

Although it highlights some issues of real, pressing concern, this report in fact hardly touches on the human misery perpetuated by a Border Agency more concerned with targets than human rights, legal process or even it’s own rules. The focus, as always, is on bureaucratic ineptness, the scandal of missed targets.

That the agency is allowed to just carry on like this, year after year, inquiry after inquiry, causing so much suffering and never really held to account – that is the real scandal.

The ‘farcical handling’ of an Afghan asylum seeker’s case?  How many times have we heard that before?

The difference this time is that the Afghan asylum seeker was an interpreter who had worked for British forces – and had been injured in a Taliban bomb blast in Afghanistan – and there was clear documentary evidence to prove this.  And the condemnation of the ‘farcical handling’ comes from the Daily Mail.

None of us are under any illusions about why this story – among the thousands of people’s lives ruined and put at risk by UKBA – was featured as a positive piece on asylum in the Daily Mail.  The ‘betrayal‘ theme is prevalent in all the media coverage of the story, and the fact that the story was broken by BBC/newspaper defence correspondents underlines that Mr Hottak’s position as an interpreter for ‘our troops’ is what has made this story stand out.

An asylum seeker whose life is at risk because he helped the British army, with indisputable documents to prove who he is and that he’s at risk.  This doesn’t reflect the majority of Afghans who flee their country (mostly to countries such as Pakistan and Iran but some do survive the hazardous journey to the UK).  But Mr Hottak’s story is important, because it shows that if even he if disbelieved by UKBA, the asylum system isn’t working.  And it’s not just NCADC and its supporters – who are in no doubt this is the case – saying it.  Spreading the message that the asylum system does not protect those it needs to, and lives are therefore put at risk, is crucial.

Mr Hottak’s story may not be representative, but it’s an opportunity to start a discussion.  If the cynical disbelief and endemic incompetence at UKBA blinds the department to overwhelming proof of risk, what hope do the many young boys who are sent by their families out of Afghanistan for their own safety have?  Often these boys do not know why they have been sent.  Usually (though not always) it’s before anything has happened to them personally – but their families are already scarred by attacks, kidnappings and killings and they fear their sons will be next.

Proving this risk is very difficult.  As Asef, the young Afghan in the play Mazloom , based on the experiences of young Afghan asylum seekers who attend MAWAW in London, says: ‘This is Afghanistan.  You can’t just put my name into a computer and my life comes out. Even Karzai, the president, doesn’t have that’.

Trying to get evidence of individual risk can put the young person’s family in danger.  Many young Afghans have lost all contact with their families after fleeing at a very young age and simply cannot remember or cannot access the evidence.

And whilst the asylum system (and the Refugee Convention) is based on protecting those who are risk as individuals because of who they are, the situation in Afghanistan is not that straightforward.  There are weekly reports of terrible bomb attacks killing civilians (see our country of origin information blog for more information on this).  Incomprehensible numbers of Afghans are internally displaced and many die during the harsh winters, or live in terrible conditions in the slums in Kabul and other cities.

Children and young people are particularly at risk and while recent caselaw in the UK helps establish this (notably AA Afghanistan and KA and Others), too many young people are unrepresented or poorly represented, and confused about what they are supposed to be doing and what is happening with their case.

Foreign Office map showing that no part of Afghanistan is safe for British citizens

In the light of this, it is unacceptable that anyone is being deported to Afghanistan.  And we are not talking about one or two people.  Dozens of young Afghans are removed against their will on ghost charter flights almost every fortnight, flights that leave in the middle of the night from unspecifed airports and operated by un-named companies.

If the UK government does not believe it’s doing anything wrong in deporting young people to a warzone, when their lives and their futures are here in the UK, why does it do it in the dead of night in shady operations that have no public scrutiny?

People are angry, people are ashamed the UK is doing this, people are scared about the young people they know and love.  The movement is growing and we want you to come on board!

ACT NOW

Join the conversation

There is a Facebook group and for those that dislike Facebook, an email group.  To join the Facebook group, click here .  To join the email group, email lisa@ncadc.org.uk

Find out more

News stories and human rights reports on Afghanistan can be found on the NCADC country of origin blog and at other useful websites.

You can get involved with local groups working with young asylum seekers, many of whom are from Afghanistan, through the Young People Seeking Safety network .

Read about individual campaigns NCADC is supporting here.

Spread the word

Explain to your MP this is their responsibility and that they should take a stand against deportations to Afghanistan

It’s a full day programme as there is so much to discuss!  We will be launching our brand new campaigning toolkit with online and hardcopy versions. We will be hearing from people who have experienced the injustices of the asylum and immgration systems first-hand.  We are holding legal and campaigning workshops on the changes to the immigration rules and what this means for Article 8 and family migration cases; and stopping deportation flights.  And to top it all off, we will be premiering the exciting updated Mazloom theatre performance, which is a short piece devised from the experiences of young Afghan asylum seekers in the UK.Come for the full day, come for part of the day … just let us know!  With crucial issues being discussed in the workshops, and a great opportunity to see powerful, relevant theatre for FREE, we expect places to be booked up fast so please book your place as soon as you can.

What’s in store

10:30 – 11
Welcome and registration

11 – 11:20
Introduction from the Chair, launch of the NCADC campaigning toolkit

11: 20 – 12:20
Workshop on family migration, Article 8 & changes to the immigration rules

12:20 – 1:20
AGM

1:20 – 2:00
Lunch

2:00 – 2:30
Ex-detainees’ experiences

2:30 – 3:30
Workshop on deportation flights

3: 45 – 5
Introduction to arts campaigning and the premiere of the new updated Mazloom performances, devised from the experiences of young Afghan asylum seekers in London

5 – 6
Refreshments and a chance to chat



Booking

Please book your place as soon as possible using this booking form (pdf version, word version), and return completed forms to NCADC (email: ncadc@ncadc.org.uk  fax: 08450529346  post: NCADC South, Praxis Community Projects, Pott Street, London, E2 0EF)

Childcare

There will be free, qualified, CRB checked childcare available on the day, please let us know on the booking form if you wish to use this service.  The childcare service does not include toys, so please bring your child/children’s favourite toys with them!

Help with transport costs

If you are without an income and you are a member of the NCADC you can reclaim your travel costs (we can only refund travel by the cheapest route/means of transport).

NCADC Membership 

Become a member of NCADC here: membership is free and you can also vote at the AGM! Please keep your proof of travel costs to show us.

If you have any questions about the annual conference, please contact an NCADC campaigns co-ordinator.

Directions to the venue

Praxis Community Projects
Pott Street, London E2 0EF

Buses: 8, 106, 254 and 388
Underground: Bethnal Green Station
(Central Line)

Easy access and toilet
facilities for wheelchair
users and pushchairs

The three posts examine the issues of (1) The Criminalization of asylum seekers, (2) A Tradition of Deterrence and (3) Why Criminalize the Asylum Seeker?

Read Molly’s previous two posts, on the criminalisation of asylum seekers; and a tradition of deterrence.  Today’s post – the final post from Molly in this series – asks why the state criminalises the asylum seeker.

Why criminalise the asylum seeker?

While the contemporary ease with which goods, individuals, and ideas may traverse the globe has greatly augmented international interdependencies through both social and economic exchange, this seemingly shrinking planet has simultaneously posed a threat to the sovereignty of nation states.

The state mechanisms and social processes that have contributed to what David Garland deems a “culture of control” within the UK and the US have been influenced in no small part by the challenges presented to state governments in an increasingly globalized world. He argues, “The risky, insecure character of today’s social and economic relations is the social surface that gives rise to our newly emphatic, overreaching concern with control and to the urgency with which we segregate, fortify, and exclude” (Garland 2001: 194).

With the fate of the free market dictated by “free-floating global economic forces,” state governments have essentially been made, in the words of Zygmunt Bauman, a “collateral casualty of economic progress” (Bauman 2004: 90). Incapable of shielding nations from the insecurities and consequences resulting from unregulated neo-liberal capitalism, the purpose and legitimacy of state governments have been called into question. The urgent need of governments to assert the legitimacy of nation states has been fundamental in the criminalization of migrants and the security context within which they have come to be framed. In the words of James Banks, “The ability to dictate population movement across its borders may be considered one of the few elements of sovereignty that Britain maintains…asylum and immigration policies may be seen as a renationalizing antidote to the denationalizing effects of globalization” (Banks 2008: 46).

Foucault states in Discipline and Punish that, “harsh punishments have been used as public displays of a ruler’s power, designed to reaffirm the force of law and reactivate the myth of sovereignty” (Foucault 1977 cited in Banks 2008: 48). Just as British state sovereignty was established by way of severe sentencing in the past, this dissertation maintains that exclusion on the premise of security serves a similar function for modern day Great Britain. This exclusion is made easier by the criminalization of the asylum seeker and of the foreigner in general.

The use of exclusion naturally implies a hierarchy of individuals—those awarded full rights within the polity, those who have only certain restricted entitlements and, finally, those who are denied inclusion altogether. It is in the creation of this hierarchy that the UK is able, like other developed nation states, to assert its alleged primacy in the eyes of its citizens. The criminalization of the asylum seeker, in addition to the security framework within which the migrant is framed, act as one of the means by which these gradations of worth are created.

The direct exclusion of the asylum seeker by way of containment strategies, confinement in detention centres, and policies that provide little alternative to destitution, as well as the public’s perceived criminalization through the media’s depiction of the asylum seeker as deviant, contribute to the idea that certain individuals have a deserved entitlement to specific rights while others simply do not. This feeds the idea that the British government has a responsibility to allocate these rights appropriately and fuels the demand by UK citizens for the state to do just this.

Matthew Gibney (2001: 10)  aptly explains this hierarchical function:

In order to win the support of those that they have striven to rule, elites have looked for ways of convincing reluctant, divided and diverse peoples that they have an interest in consenting to their rule…State leaders often do not have the interests and needs of their citizens at heart. And even when they do, there will always be neglected and disenchanted sections of their populations who, quite justifiably, feel that their interests do not receive the attention they deserve. How, then, can a state make this claim credible? At a very minimum, any state must convince a substantial section of its citizenry that even if their interests are not particularly high in the state’s calculations, they are at least more important than those of foreigners.

In this way, the exclusion of the asylum seeker (and the lot of deterrence policies used against him or her) finds justification in the eyes of the people. With the great help of political rhetoric and the tabloid press, citizens have come to view asylum seekers as a competitive threat to the economic, social, and political goods that they enjoy or to which they aspire (Gibney 2001). Citizens come to believe that they will unfairly “miss out” if asylum seekers are granted protection by a “soft touch” Britain. The criminalization process, therefore, aids the UK government in its assertion of state legitimacy.

The moral panic that surrounded asylum seekers in the run up to the 2001 general election made a group of individuals who had previously received minor attention a glaringly important issue in need of urgent attention—the remnants of which can still be found in the surveys and polls of present day. Despite an emphasis on behalf of the public for increased control of illegal migration, the inherent difficulties in calculating the number of individuals residing in the UK without permission make demonstrating the state’s effectiveness at solving the problem extremely difficult. Asylum statistics, on the other hand, are more readily available and the number of refugee claimants detained, denied protection, and removed to their countries may be more easily calculated and demonstrated in monthly figures. The British government, therefore, can publicly use these statistics as a means of showing their effectiveness in addressing the issue, as well as support for continued use of exclusionary deterrence policies in asserting state legitimacy. “Ironically, then, the institution of asylum, while established to serve humanitarian goals, has become, in early twenty-first-century Britain, a justification for boosting the coercive powers of the state” (Gibney 2008: 167).

Apart from the serious violation of human rights through the use of deterrence policies, perhaps even more disconcerting is the fact that—in the face of international legal obligations to the asylum seeker—the UK government has chosen to illegally deny desperately needed protection in the name of meeting citizen’s demands. The amount of money poured into the UK’s extensive detention estate attests to the preference given meeting often hysterical public demands over the legitimate requirements of human rights obligations enshrined in international conventions to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

Despite the millions of pounds in taxpayer money wasted as a result of unnecessary incarceration and unlawful-detention lawsuit payouts, the UK continues to generously exercise its use of detention. In this way, the asylum seeker becomes the immigration victim of a state grappling for control. Much like Tony Blair’s reaction to public pressure prior to his re-election in 2001, in the pursuit of political power, politicians continually put the rights of excluded individuals second to the their political aspirations. “One is tempted to say that were there no immigrants knocking at the doors, they would have to be invented…Indeed, they provide governments with an ideal ‘deviant other’, a most welcome target for the ‘carefully selected campaign issues’” (Bauman 2004: 56). Rather than fulfilling the UK’s legal and moral obligation to refugees, the criminalization of the asylum seeker and the pursuit of deterrence policies take precedence over the potentially detrimental impact on one’s political reputation in doing the right thing. “The principle of electoral democracy is thus deeply implicated in the rise and maintenance of restrictive asylum policies” (Gibney 2001: 17).

The social distance between the asylum seeker and the public naturally makes alternatives to the overpowering voices of politicians and the popular press difficult to counter, however, it is common experience that the appearance of things tends to be very different from their reality. The late Cardinal Basil Hume, former Archbishop of Westminster and President of the organization Shelter, once said: “It seems to me that the reception given to those applying for asylum is an illuminating indicator of the state of a society’s moral health” (Shelter 2001: 3).

The deterrence policies enacted and continually expanded by the United Kingdom find their support in its people. To redress this serious problem, a closer look at the situation of those arriving at British shores is desperately needed. If the issue were to be examined objectively, one would find—as this research has—that the vast majority of asylum seekers are not advantageous cheats seeking to steal jobs, benefits, or housing, or dangerous criminals who deserve to be locked up but, rather, individuals who are quite unfairly punished for their own persecution.

The three posts examine the issues of (1) The Criminalization of asylum seekers, (2) A Tradition of Deterrence and (3) Why Criminalize the Asylum Seeker?

You can read Molly’s first post on the criminalisation of asylum seekers here.  Today’s post considers the UK’s tradition of deterrence in asylum policy.

A tradition of deterrence 

On the 10th of October 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech on immigration, proposing systemic reforms so as to reduce net migration to “the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we’ve seen over the last decade” (Cameron 2011).

This suggested blanket on the total number of individuals allowed entry into the UK implies an urgent need on behalf of the Prime Minister to address migration anxieties, as well as a treatment of migrants that inherently favors a general reduction in the number of people coming to the UK. “Yet what is all too easily forgotten in such rhetorical gestures is the fact that lives are at stake in such decisions; the meeting of targets is crucially also the casting of lives as either legitimate or illegal” (Darling 2009: 650).

The government has recently announced significant rule changes on family migration to the UK from outside the EU (see below for details). People seeking to bring their spouse or partner, children and other close dependants to join them to the UK will face new barriers to family life here.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and Migrants’ Rights Network have published briefings on the changes and launched a campaign to oppose them.

Find out how you can get involved – by lobbying your MP, joining a demonstration at the Home Office, and taking part in a parliamentary meeting

“Keeping families apart”
Join the national campaign to oppose these changes!

Migrants’ Rights Network briefing

Summary: MRN is concerned that the new rules will prevent many thousands of people from exercising their right to a family life in the UK. They will introduce additional hurdles and costs for people, particularly lower earners, who are either British or who are settled here and wish close family members to join them in the UK. As a result, the rules are likely to further undermine the integration of some migrant communities, and to be viewed more widely as unfair as their impacts on both migrants and British people are realised. Download the MRN briefing (pdf)

JCWI Campaign: United by love – divided by Theresa May

Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) has launched a campaign to oppose the new rules. They have been covering the issues for sometime on their blog, check out the details: Letter to the Times and Why pushing up maintenance requirements would be a bad idea and Worrying times ahead for family members.

They have also issued a response to the Government’s initial consultation on this issue, and produced a dossier of case-studies which demonstrates how people will be adversely affected by these new Rule changes.

What you can do

From JCWI: The Government has not yet introduced Rules reflecting the above, but it’s likely to. We’d usually ask you to write to your MP at this point. A handful of you would, and a smattering of MPs would receive a letter, a couple may get two, they’d reply and nothing else would happen. So we’d like you instead, to contact Chris Bryant, Labour’s shadow immigration minister. We want him to oppose these policy proposals and any corresponding Rule changes. We want him to stand up and say publicly that immigration for the rich only is not on. He is in a position to give these Rule changes some serious opposition. Go on, drop him a line, you can contact him at bryantc@parliament.uk. He’d love to hear from you.

Demonstration and Parliament meeting
9th July 2012

MRN and JCWI will be holding a meeting entitled ‘The new family migration rules:  dividing families, disrupting integration’ in the Houses of Parliament at 6.30pm on 9th July 2012.

“…this is no ordinary meeting, it’s a chance to effect change. We want you to come along to Parliament early, arrange to see your MP, tell them your story or your concerns, invite them to the meeting. This is your chance to show your representatives where they are going wrong.”

The meeting will be preceded by a public demonstration outside the Home Office, which will begin at 4.30pm.

Tentative running order of things for the day is:

4.30pm – 5pm Demo at Home Office, (2 Marsham Street, SW1P 4DF)
5.30pm – 6.15pm Chance for individuals to arrange a one-to-one meeting with their MPs in the The Central Lobby of Parliament
6.30pm Main Meeting in Committee Room 1 (House of Lords)

More details here

Hamedullah: The Road Home (Sue Clayton, UK, 23 min) and panel discussion on the policy of returning young people to Afghanistan

Hamedullah: The Road Home is the film story of a young teen who came to the UK alone seeking asylum, and was then deported back to Afghanistan with no means of support. This event will feature the film, and a panel discussion with Sue Clayton the director, Lisa Matthews, co-ordinator of NCADC South; and a spokesperson from the Refugee Council, whose bombshell report this week on how the UKBA detains and imprisons children in the UK, made headline news when released on 20 May 2012.

All welcome. Tickets available on the door or online.

NCADC calls for immediate end to deportations to Afghanistan

NCADC has learned that yet another mass deportation flight to Kabul is scheduled for Tuesday 29 May, just minutes after midnight. Kabul, and the rest of Afghanistan, is simply not safe. As a recent Reuters report highlights, the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating and will continue to do when foreign troops leave. As a woman who had been internally displaced with her family said, “Security in the country is terrible. Day by day there are more [refugees]”.

The report tells of “intensifying violence as NATO combat troops prepare to leave by end-2014 and a poor economic outlook in the face of shrinking aid could spell a humanitarian disaster for Afghanistan, where a third already live beneath the poverty line”. Amnesty International’s report, Fleeing War, Finding Misery: the plight of the internally displaced in Afghanistan, highlights how an escalation in fighting has left half a million Afghans internally displaced with around 400 more joining their ranks every single day. The internally displaced are increasingly being forced to live in terrible conditions in slums, struggling to survive without food and without government assistance.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s 2011 Human Rights and Democracy report attests to the upsurge in violence. The FCO is very clear about whether Afghanistan is safe … for British citizens:

The FCO’s travel advice states that:

“Afghanistan has a high threat of terrorism and specific methods of attack are evolving and increasing in sophistication. No part of Afghanistan should be considered immune from violence and the potential exists throughout the country for hostile acts … You should be aware of the continuing high threat from terrorism within Afghanistan. Threats, specific or otherwise, are reported on an almost daily basis. Terrorists and insurgents conduct frequent and widespread lethal attacks against British and Coalition armed forces, political and civilian targets.”

The worsening security situation in Afghanistan, which recently resulted in Kabul airport being closed for several week, undoubtedly demonstrates that Article 15c protection is needed. This is when there is a “serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict.” Article 15c refers to the Qualification Directive – the implementation of the Refugee Convention into European (and thus British domestic asylum) law, and allows for protection outside of the narrow definitions of the Refugee Convention.

While the UK government is categorical in its view of Afghanistan as unsafe for British tourists, it has no qualms about forcibly removing dozens of young men to a war-zone on mass deportation flights that depart in the early hours of the morning from unknown airports, operated by undisclosed companies. We call on the British government to cease this shameful hypocrisy immediately, and halt all forced removals to Afghanistan.