We agree with its recommendations of better recording of medical conditions, an independent monitoring procedure, the need for urgent guidance to be issued to escort staff about restraint methods and research into appropriate restrain on aircraft, and the need to abolish the ‘reserve’ system during removals.

NCADC believes, however, that this report does not go far enough. We hear on a far too regular basis from individuals who have been verbally and physically abused in immigration detention and during attempted removals. This is simply unacceptable.

Our 2008 co-authored report, Outsourcing Abuse, highlighted this appalling and hidden aspect of our immigration system. Abuses have continued to occur, including the dangerous restraint of a Congolese asylum seeker and the tragic death of Jimmy Mubenga. Jimmy’s widow is still waiting for justice, and the investigation into his death – nearly a year and a half on – has still not been concluded.

Despite this body of evidence and constant criticism of the contracting of UKBA’s dirty work out to private companies, UKBA has failed to act on this gravely serious issue, and claims ‘not to have received any evidence’ that dangerous restraint techniques have been used. The report deals very well with the myriad reasons why an individual facing removal (or who has been removed) may not have confidence or feel safe using the complaints procedure. Time and again, the dangerous and offensive behaviour of staff acting on UKBA’s orders has been brought to their attention, and they have failed to act.

We hope that this measured and important report from the cross-party Home Affairs Select Committee will at last compel UKBA to take this issue seriously, as lives are at stake. People in need of protection or with the right to live in the UK are being failed by a dysfunctional asylum and immigration system, poor quality decision making by UKBA, often no or poor quality legal advice, and dangerous enforcement procedures.

With clear evidence of dangerous techniques being employed during enforcement operations, and with the investigation into the death of Jimmy Mubenga still ongoing, we call on the Home Office to cease forced removals.

———-

Hear NCADC interviewed on the BBC about these issues (programmes broadcast on 26 January 2012, available on iplayer for 7 days):

BBC Scotland (at 1:19)

Bristol (at 43 mins)

Hereford and Worcester (at 1:30:30)

Kent (at 2:11:50)

Shropshire (at 2:42:30)

Nottingham (at 1:55:40)

Hear Medical Justice’s Emma Ginn interviewed on BBC Radio 4.

Subscribe to NCADC news by email here

Focusing on the global south, it provides a unique range of news stories, organisation profiles, and legal explanations to assist those providing free legal advice on asylum, refugee and human rights cases across the world.

Joe Bryce, an immigration solicitor based in Scotland, described the newsletter as “Extraordinarily valuable and interesting, a real Aladdin’s Cave”.

The newsletter follows recent developments in the interpretation of refugee law; case law precedents from different constituencies; reports and helpful resources for refugee legal aid NGOs; and stories of struggle and success in refugee legal aid work.  The newsletter reaches an estimated readership of over 500,000 people, and is distributed through Pambazuka News, the Forced Migration Discussion List, and the Fahamu Refugee Programme Website.

The newsletter also has a Facebook page and past issues can be found on the FRLAN blog.

The January 2012 issue of the newsletter features Mike Kaye of Still Human Still Here explaining its initiative of providing formal commentaries on UKBA’s operational guidance notes, and an  organisational profile of none other than NCADC!

Organisational profile: NCADC makes the case against deportation from the UK

Contributed by Lisa Matthews, an asylum and human rights campaigner working in London, UK.

At the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (NCADC), we are faced with the hard sell. Our campaigns highlight the plight of individuals at risk of administrative removal or deportation from the UK, and attempt to stop those individuals being removed.

Garnering widespread support for immigrants’ rights is always challenging, but the climate in the UK is becoming increasingly entrenched. The Conservative–Liberal Democratic coalition government has opted out of the revamped Qualification Directive (the implementation of the Refugee Convention in European law), and is encouraging hostility to the concept of human rights by aligning it with the idea of an overly meddlesome European Union. This is combined with — or is in response to — the poor economic conditions that traditionally foster xenophobic and racist anti-immigration views, and widespread cuts to organisations supporting migrants in the UK.

Working with people at the end of the line in terms of legal processes has additional considerations. The public and the press do have some time for the concept of asylum, when it is presented in its simplest form of people fleeing war, genocide or persecution needing sanctuary. So how do you convince people that a campaign for somebody who has lost their asylum claim is valid? Those of us who work in the refugee sector in the UK know all too well how flawed the adversarial legal system is in deciding asylum and human rights cases. But the general public doesn’t know this. Many people trust that if there is a legal system assigned to deal with these cases, and someone has been through the system and not been named a ‘refugee’, that person does not need to be here. They believe the asylum system produces justice.

In far too many situations, this is simply not the case. Access to justice is increasingly harder to secure. Legal aid for immigration cases (non-asylum) will be cut under the legal aid reform bill currently going through British parliament. This means that issues such as family reunion (the right to which is incorporated in the refugee convention) and appealing deportation will not be covered by legal aid (in the UK context, deportation usually refers to foreign nationals who have served criminal sentences. In legal terms, those whose asylum claims have been refused are ‘removed’ rather than ‘deported’). The fees legal aid lawyers get paid have already been slashed, and many legal centres are closing down due to lack of funds. The two biggest providers of legal aid for refugees in the UK — Refugee and Migrant Justice and the Immigration Advisory Service — have both gone into administration in the last two years.

More and more people are unrepresented in a system in which the odds are stacked against them. There is a culture of disbelief at the UK Border Agency, and notoriously poor quality of first-instance decision making. NCADC, through supporting individuals, families and communities at risk of removal from the UK, seeks to raise awareness of these obstacles to justice, and explain that many individuals being forcibly removed from the UK are at risk of mistreatment and persecution back home. A refused asylum claim does not mean, in real terms, the absence of risk.

It is an uphill struggle. Despite human rights groups reporting on the torture of returned Tamil asylum seekers in Sri Lanka, the UK government has forcibly returned scores of Tamils since the end of the civil war, using charter flights shrouded in secrecy. A recent Justice First report demonstrated the risk to those removed from the UK to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, yet the UK Border Agency is determined to deport Congolese, even young women with no family or social contacts to protect them in the ‘rape capital of the world’.

As well as working closely with local groups across the UK to support migrants to run campaigns for their rights, anti-deportation campaigners in Britain also need to be part of a global community. Once people are deported, it is hard to keep track of what happens to them. But it is crucial that we know, so that the UK government cannot say it is safe to return people when it is not; to rebut country of origin guidance relied upon in legal cases; and to make a compelling case against deportation.

Uche Nnabuife

Uche is a gay Nigerian man who arrived in the UK in 2005. Released in late 2011 from nearly two years in immigration detention, he is still fighting deportation to Nigeria.   His friend and supporter, Bryony Whitmarsh, and Paul Canning of LGBT Asylum News, tell his story below – a story that reveals just how much the odds are stacked against LGBTI asylum seekers, and why Nigeria is not safe for gay men.

As Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan decides whether to sign a law passed in November by the Nigerian Senate making it a punishable offence (up to 14 years in prison) for anyone to visit a gay bar, be involved with LGBT organizations or be in an openly gay relationship, Uche Nnabuife, a gay Nigerian in London waits for the opportunity to appeal the Home Office’s decision to deport him back to Nigeria.

Uche’s character has been assassinated and his story called into question. Stonewall’s 2010 report No Going Back documents the “almost systemic homophobia in our asylum system resulting in legitimate lesbian, gay and bisexual asylum seekers regularly being refused sanctuary”. As he goes into what may be his last attempt to secure sanctuary in the UK, new evidence finally and definitively demonstrates what he has said all along; he suffered persecution because he was gay and it would be unsafe for him to be returned.

Nigeria is a very unsafe place to be lesbian or gay. Threats of murder regularly appear in the Nigerian press and Uche has been personally threatened with ‘Jungle Justice’ on internet forums. The Nigerian newspaper, National Times reported on his story on 11 April 2011… “Uche Nnabuife, a gay Nigerian has been warned not to come back to Nigeria, or his body would not be found.” This story included a photograph of Uche.

In 2008 Rev. Jide Macauley was forced to flee to the UK after members of the House of Rainbow Metropolitan Community Church, an LGBT- friendly church in Lagos, were stoned and beaten. The attacks occurred after four newspapers published photographs, names, and addresses of church members.

Whilst the Home Office acknowledge the existence of the National Times, in their decision of 2 December 2011 on Uche’s fresh claim for asylum they doubt the credibility of the report, stating that it could have been fabricated or even placed by supporters.

Macauley, who now lives in London, pours cold water on this idea:

“If anything appears about Nigerian gays overseas it will be picked up. Nigeria is big on blogging and the newspapers are interested in what sells – and homosexuality does sell…The last thing people want is to be in the Nigerian papers. Any publicity for [asylum] cases is a LAST resort. The death threat is real, ‘jungle justice’ is real… My home was vandalised whilst I wasn’t there, if I had been I would have been killed.”

The Home Office’s decision on Uche’s case states that if the newspaper is found to be real, he can be deported to anywhere but the northern state of Benue where they say it is published, where he can live discretely. This shocking comment is made even more ludicrous by the horrific homophobic bill, recently passed in Nigeria.

The Home Office do not believe that Uche is gay, because he did not reveal all of the traumatic details of his story straight away and because he has served time for a criminal conviction since being in the UK. He was convicted in 2009 of possession of cannabis with intention to supply and of the possession of cocaine. He has served his time, has put this behind him, and is now using his experience to help others in this position.

In 1990 Uche was discovered with another man and was strung up, badly beaten, burnt and abused leading to several weeks in hospital. After the attack in his village and subsequent hospitalisation, his family disowned him. On the streets and desperate, he was advised to use an agent to leave the country. His then boyfriend introduced him to a man who gave him work, as a male prostitute in order to raise enough money to leave the country. During this time the house that they were living and working in was attacked. Fearing for his life, Uche was smuggled into the UK in a car in 2005.

His fresh claim also includes the evidence of a doctor for the charity Medical Justice showing that Uche’s scars directly match what has been telling the British authorities for three years. The doctor who examined him said that his mental state lent “further weight to the veracity of his claims.”

“Given the ferocity of his assault and the extent of his scars, it is understandable that he fears further persecution in Nigeria,” she wrote.

Even this evidence has not been enough to convince a UK Border Agent to finally grant asylum. The asylum system is designed to find gaps and describe claims as ‘not credible’ and though the Home Office accept the report as evidence of scarring, they disregard the experience and expertise of the doctor stating that as Uche described his story to her, his explanation cannot be believed.

Uche was detained from November 2009 until October 2011. There is a mountain of evidence of the long-term harm done when those who have suffered torture are detained; Uche also experienced harassment by other detainees. The Home Office do not believe his scars to be the result of torture. On what basis could they make this decision? Uche was only granted bail following the intervention of the charity, Bail for Immigration Detainees.

Uche has provided evidence about his sexuality. Six witnesses including his ex-partner have given evidence. More have been added as his case has been appealed. Every single one has discounted simply because his conviction ‘undermined his credibility’, whatever their own nationality or immigration status. Finally released on bail, he has been able to gain the support of the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group.

Detention centre visitor, Bryony Whitmarsh has supported Uche. Without this support he may already be on the streets in Lagos, or worse…

“Until meeting Uche, I knew that claiming asylum is a long and complex process, but had not appreciated how a whole system can be stacked against someone. Just imagine how an individual forced to work as a rent boy feels when told that the court recognises that this “may be embarrassing” – to say the least! That because of a typo in one witness statement none of your other witnesses can be believed, even those who have known you for over 7 years. Because a doctor did not make a detailed record of every one of your scars, this is somehow your fault. That because you were convicted for a drugs offence, nothing you say can ever be believed again and you’re not worthy of defence by your own MP. You’re not allowed the opportunity of bail to fight your case or demonstrate your lifestyle. You’re afraid to discuss your sexuality in detention for fear of reprisal. You don’t have the skills to mount your own case or the money for a solicitor. You can’t even speak to your own caseworker on the phone. Uche has had a variety of legal counsel, as would appear to be common – it is by luck that he now has expert legal representation.

Despite all of this, Uche remains as calm as he can be. He has become a great friend. Above all he has hope – the one thing that can’t be taken away. Hope that one day someone will simply believe him.”

Sexuality-based asylum claims are often complicated. The behaviour of asylum seekers is misread such as to undermine their credibility. But Uche’s actually is not as complex as it might appear. The scars were there when he was first interviewed – they could have been checked then. The witness evidence of his sexuality was there – it could have been tested further. The adversarial nature of the system is not protecting this man but is entirely about finding fault, kicking him out and putting him through hell in the meantime.

Uche’s recent Judicial Review was a farce. The Home Office based their argument on an earlier decision (which differed from their most recent decision), and maintained his claim is without merit and does not warrant an in-country appeal. This was despite the overwhleming evidence served on the court by Uche and his solicitor. The Home Office issued their most recent decision just two days before the Judicial Review hearing date, even though Uche’s evidence had been provided on 19 April 2011. Meanwhile, Uche is still threatened with deportation to a country that is punishing homosexuality, pending the outcome of the case being heard at the High Court.

Until the government is properly reporting on LGBT asylum, Uche’s story can be seen as just an individual case of the barriers to justice in the UK.  Consistent research and reporting is desperately needed to prove  the systematic failure of the UK asylum system to provide protection to LGBT individuals at risk.

Graham Smith, The Daily Mail

29 December 2011

The Government has spent £42million on secretive flights to send failed asylum seekers back home, it was revealed today.

British taxpayers are forking out a staggering £500,000 each month to fund expensive air travel arrangements for foreign nationals who have lost bids to stay in the country.

Entire aircraft are rented by UK Borders Agency staff to send up to 100 immigrants back home at a time to prevent passengers on scheduled services witnessing ‘distressing’ removals.
Deporting: British taxpayers are paying £500,000 each month to fund air travel arrangements for foreign nationals who have lost bids to stay in the country

Deporting: British taxpayers are paying £500,000 each month to fund air travel arrangements for foreign nationals who have lost bids to stay in the country

The average cost of enforcing the removal of a failed asylum seeker was £11,000 in 2005, but this figure had risen to up to £17,000 by 2009.

Including accommodation and support costs, some cases that year cost as much as £25,60.

Figures obtained under Freedom Of Information laws show the shadowy flights – which do not show on airport departure screens – have quadrupled in the last seven years.

In 2004, the data shows £1.73million was spent on sending back those who had failed in bids to stay in the UK.

That soared to £10.4million in 2009/10 and £8.5million in the past year. Over the seven year period the total is estimated to be £42million.

Figures show a record number of foreign nationals, 42,552, were either forcibly removed or went home voluntarily last year. Those journeys were undertaken on either charter or scheduled flights, mostly from UK airports.

A total of 306,535 had been repatriated in the seven years up to September, the data shows.

In 2005/06 the amount spent on charter flights rose to £4.3million and has continued to rise.

THE COST OF DEPORTING A FAILED ASYLUM SEEKER

In 2005, the average cost of enforcing the removal of a failed asylum seeker was £11,000.

By 2009, the process for removing an adult who had exhausted his/her appeal rights cost between £7,900 and £17,000.

However, that estimate excluded accommodation and support costs.

Including these expenses, the process cost between £12,000 and £25,600 per person.

Figures for 2009/10 show a staggering £10.4million – the highest figure to date – was spent and a further £8.5million last year.

According to government data the charter flight programme ‘initially’ operated to Kosovo and Albania only.

Now the scheme focuses ‘almost exclusively’ on long-haul destinations and regular flights are carried out to Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Jamaica.

But foreign governments have turned back some flights because of ‘paperwork’ problems. In one case an entire plane-load of Iraqis were refused re-entry to capital Baghdad because they no longer had documents to prove their nationality.

Planes are provided by commercial airlines for removals to countries including war-torn Congo and Afghanistan as well as Nigeria and Sri Lanka.

It is thought a number of individuals were removed to Sri Lanka just two weeks ago by a European holiday airline.

A full list of airlines involved in the scheme is not publicly available.

However, a series of ‘regular flights’ take off from major airports including Heathrow and Gatwick and are jointly co-ordinated by EU border agency Frontex.

Home Office officials have insisted the increase in expenditure is due to the expansion of the original scheme’s destination list.

The National Coalition Of Anti-Deportation campaigns today accused the government of ‘hiding’ the flights from the public.

Spokesperson Lisa Matthews said: ‘We are extremely concerned about the increase in the use of charter flights to remove individuals from the UK.

‘Charter flights are shrouded in secrecy, and if the UKBA believes it operates a robust asylum system that is fit-for-purpose, there is no need to operate in this deceptive way.’
‘Without access to justice, and without an asylum system that gets decisions right first time, the UK will continue to waste huge sums of money, huge sums it simply cannot afford’

Ms Matthews also expressed concern that private hire security firms are using ‘dangerous force’ to restrain foreign nationals after Angolan refugee Jimmy Mubenga died on a flight before it took off from Heathrow Airport last year.

She added: ‘There is clear evidence of dangerous use of force being employed by the escort companies enforcing removals, leading to speculation that charter flights are being used to hide these activities from the public, particularly following the widespread outcry at the killing of Jimmy Mubenga.’

And she criticised the government after 713 ‘disruptive removals’ led to aborted attempts to send foreign nationals home from January to August this year.

Ms Matthews added: ‘These removals are disruptive because UKBA are trying to send back so many individuals to persecution, mistreatment and torture in their home countries and the individuals are therefore extremely distressed and fearing for their lives.

‘Without access to justice, and without an asylum system that gets decisions right first time, the UK will continue to waste huge sums of money, huge sums it simply cannot afford.’

The UK Border Agency defended the removals insisting it was appropriate that those with no right to be in the country should be sent home.

An agency spokesperson said: ‘It is right that those with no right to be here should go home and flights of this type still represents the most cost effective way of removing people.

‘The increased expenditure on charter flights from the UK reflects the general rise in the cost of air travel since 2004 and a greater number of flights to countries outside Europe.’

January

The year began with cracks appearing in the government’s plan to dramatically reduce immigration by 2015 and reports of violence towards detainees by UKBA.

Evidence mounts against aim to slash immigration by 2015
Migrants’ Rights Network, 26 January 2011

This week, government ministers seemed to shy away from supporting its increasingly doomed objective of reducing immigration to the ‘tens of thousands’ by 2015. Meanwhile, a new Centre Forum report into the points based system could offer useful material towards an alternative approach.

—–

Deportee claims security staff held him down until he ‘could not breathe’
Guardian, Diane Taylor and Owen Bowcott, 23 January 2011

A Congolese asylum seeker claims he struggled to breathe when security staff restrained him at a Heathrow boarding gate, and feared he was “going to die”. Bienvenue Mbombo, 38, alleged that UK Border Agency escorts put a knee on his chest and sat on him as he resisted efforts to deport him on a Kenya Airways flight to Nairobi this month. The UKBA claimed Mbombo had become violent.

February

February saw more stories of lethal deportation conditions getting media coverage, alongside survey results showing that migrants are required as public sector workers if the jobs are to be filled.

Cap on skilled non-EU migrants ‘will leave holes in public sector’
Nigel Morris, the Independent, 25 February

Net migration has increased, mainly because the number of Britons moving abroad has fallen while immigration levels have stayed broadly constant over the last three years. Ministers said the continuing pressure on borders underlined the need to impose stricter limits on non-European Union citizens applying to live and work in this country. However, a survey found that many employers, including hospital managers, are struggling to fill vacancies because of tough new visa restrictions.

—–

G4S security firm was warned of lethal risk to refused asylum seekers
Guardian, Paul Lewis and Matthew Taylor, 8 February 2011

The multinational security company hired by the government to deport refused asylum seekers was warned repeatedly by its own staff that potentially lethal force was being used against deportees, an investigation by the Guardian has revealed.

March

Some important news stories on immigration detention in March …

Home Office ‘falsely imprisoned’ foreign nationals
Channel 4, 24 March 2011

The Home Office has been found to have operated an unlawful and secret policy of keeping nearly all foreign prisoners locked up beyond their sentence.

The judgement is part of a long running legal battle between the Home Office and human rights lawyers over the treatment of foreign national prisoners

—–

Immigration detainees ‘denied life-saving drugs’
The Independent, Emily Dugan, 20 March 2011

Hundreds of HIV-positive immigrants are routinely denied essential medication in British detention centres, resulting in lives being put at risk, doctors say. They are demanding improved healthcare facilities in immigration detention centres or the release of those suffering from the condition.

April

Refugee Council’s April poll highlighted a large proportion of the population are unsure of what a refugee is; also in April -  new immigration rules resulting in some migrants not receiving legal protection in domestic violence cases.

Britons ‘confused over refugees’
Guardian, Press Association, 18 April 2011

A survey carried out to mark the 60th anniversary of the UN convention on refugees has revealed widespread confusion about what a refugee is. In 2009, 4,175 individuals were granted refugee status in the UK, but 44% of people who responded to the poll believed the figure was 100,000 or more. Many confused them with economic migrants.

More positively the survey by the Refugee Council found 82% of people agreed with the statement: “protecting the most vulnerable is a core British value”, and more than two thirds (67%) were sympathetic to refugees coming to this country.

—–

New immigration rules turn back the clock on domestic violence
Ruth Grove-White, MRN blog, 8 April

This week the government introduced a change to the immigration rules which will make it more difficult for some domestic violence victims to seek protection. So is the UK really more concerned with acting tough on immigration than with protecting victims of violence?

The changes mean that legal protection for migrant victims of domestic violence will no longer apply to applicants who have unspent criminal convictions. This change has been described by campaigners as potentially turning the clock back by ten years in the way that domestic violence victims are treated in the UK.

May

The opening of Morton Hall detention centre in Lincolnshire and the introduction of fees for immigration appeals were key headlines in May.

Morton Hall – Immigration Minister in grand opening of new migrant prison
NCADC, 27 May 2011

A former prison, newly designated as an Immigration Removal Centre, will be officially opened by Immigration Minister Damian Green on 1st June. Media representatives have been invited to the opening. Protesters for liberty and human rights are not invited to the event which starts at 10am, and should not consider trying to voice any dissent when the press meet the Minister at 11:30.

Previously an RAF base, Morton Hall has operated as a prison since 1985. Plans to change it’s purpose seemed dashed last summer, when it was announced that the government could not afford the high costs of locking up yet more refugees and migrants. Sadly however the Coalition has found the money, presumably from savings made by cutting public services.

Detention Action and other organisations have been campaigning against the expansion of detention. In a joint letter to the Immigration Minister last year, 25 organisations criticised the Morton Hall plans in the light of the UKBA’s “inefficient and damaging” use of existing detention centres and called for a moratorium on expansion.

—–

June

June saw the publishing of Lives in the Balance, a report by the Refugee council,  alongside UKBA breaching the confidentiality of Sri Lankan refugees facing deportation.

Sri Lankans put at risk by UKBA breach of confidentiality
Free Movement, 10 June 2011

The immigration Barrister who blogs as Free Movement has revealed a serious breach of confidentiality of Sri Lankan refugees scheduled for deportation.

Ahead of a planned mass expulsion of Sri Lankans from Britain, the UK Border Agency is allowing Sri Lankan officials to interrogate detainees in the UK about their asylum claims, and is passing confidential asylum court documents.

The UK government has scheduled a charter flight for a mass expulsion to Sri Lanka on June 16. Some media are claiming that 250-300 mostly Tamil refugees are due to be deported. Free Movement warns that “the fact that there is a removal en masse arguably itself gives rise to significant concern as to the treatment of the returnees on return, given that the nature of removal will attract attention to them and identify the returnees as failed asylum seekers.”

But it gets worse. The woman in question, known as ‘XT’, was interviewed in detention in the UK by an official from the Sri Lankan High Commission. She was unrepresented when this interview occurred and her representatives had no notification of the interview. During this interview, ostensibly to verify her identity and nationality, it was revealed that the Home Office had passed confidential court documents from XT’s asylum appeal, with reference to her family’s connections with the LTTE Tamil Tigers.

There are growing concerns over the safety of the Sri Lankans rounded up for this mass expulsion. Questions need to be asked: Why does the UKBA allow Sri Lankan government officials to interrogate detainees in the UK? What documents are being passed to them? Can the UK government guarantee the safety of Sri Lankans being deported?

This comes amid ongoing concerns that the Sri Lankan government is trying to cover up war crimes and other atrocities committed during the war.

—–

Lives in the balance
Free Movement, 2 June 2011

The Refugee Council report Lives in the Balance: The quality of immigration legal advice given to separated children seeking asylum, is a short, sharp, very depressing but absolutely essential read for any solicitors, OISC advisers or barristers representing separated children in the asylum process.

July

In July the news that the Immigration Advisory Service had entered administration came as information emerged about the construction of a new “family only” detention center.

Legal aid cuts are leaving migrants lost in a maze

Steve Medley, Comment is Free in The Guardian, 13 July 2011

Earlier this week came the news that the largest specialist immigration advice charity – the Immigration Advisory Service – had entered administration. This comes just one year after the collapse of another specialist immigration and asylum charity, Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ).

The IAS has blamed this decision on cuts that are being made to the legal aid system, cuts designed to save £350m. Its closure could demonstrate the true extent of how some of the most vulnerable members of society will be affected by the loss of legal aid.

Around 10,000 clients are now without a representative to guide them through the maze of complex immigration rules, and the notoriously poor decision-making of the UK Border Agency. Many of these clients have suffered torture, mistreatment and trafficking. Services for these people are being taken away month by month. Recently, the highly respected Poppy Project, a specialist service for victims of trafficking, lost its contract.

Many times I have dealt with people who have been homeless, without support, simply because of an error within the UKBA, or on the basis of an incorrect decision by them. This isn’t a case of just disagreeing with the decision, it is when it is plain and simply wrong. Sometimes the only option is recourse through the courts, and lawyers are needed, as the UKBA persistently refuses to concede cases even when faced with overwhelming evidence.

If the IAS cannot be saved, then information about what will happen next must be made available to its former clients and this must also be available in the client’s language. Lack of information was what hurt clients most during the fallout from RMJ last year. One man killed himself when he was unable to get any information about his case, more than a month after RMJ closed. This must not be allowed to happen again.

—–

Britain is still no refuge for refugees
Natasha Walter, The Guardian, 27 July 2011

When the government announced last year that it would end the detention of children for immigration purposes, it felt as if a ray of sunshine had broken into a debate that had become increasingly dark and cruel. I work alongside women and children who have fled persecution to seek asylum in this country. Too many are disbelieved by decision makers, and refused leave to remain. They can then be forced into destitution, locked up, or dragged to an airport. Yet their experiences are shrouded in a darkness made up of both ignorance and hostility.

So what a relief it was to hear Nick Clegg announce an end to the “state-sponsored cruelty” of detaining children. Did this mean that we were going to have a more honest and transparent debate about what was happening to asylum seekers in the UK?

As the months have rolled on, it has become clear that this hope was misplaced. Detention never quite went away, and is now making a comeback. The proposed new centre at Pease Pottage in Sussex will provide a locked environment for up to nine families at a time. And as Nick Hardwick, the chief inspector of prisons, said this week, the refurbishment and expansion of the children’s unit at Tinsley House removal centre, at Gatwick airport, also “sits uneasily” with a commitment to end the detention of families. If a locked centre is called “pre-departure accommodation”, does it cease to be detention?

While the government brings detention for families back into the asylum process, other aspects of its policies are making it even harder for those seeking asylum to find justice. The reduction of legal aid and the recent collapse of two leading organisations providing legal advice – Refugee and Migrant Justice, and the Immigration Advisory Service – mean that more asylum seekers have to negotiate this crazily complicated system without legal support, making it much harder to get a fair hearing.

Like others in this field I find it painful to listen, week in, week out, to the stories that women tell me not only about the experiences that led them to flee their own country, but about the traumatic experiences they go through here. Recently I spoke to a woman who had been imprisoned and raped in a jail in Ethiopia as punishment for her political journalism. Yet when she came here for asylum she was detained three times in Yarl’s Wood detention centre, and lived destitute on the streets of London for months. “It wasn’t what happened to me in my home country that broke me,” she said, “It was what happened to me here. That was what broke my spirit.” To read more of this article see here

August

Investigations into multiple deaths in detention centres began in August.

Detention centre deaths spark police investigations
Diane Taylor and Matthew Taylor, The Guardian, 5 August 2011

Separate investigations into three deaths in immigration removal centres (IRC) in the past month have been launched by the police, amid growing concern about the treatment of detainees.

The spate of deaths has caused alarm among critics of the government’s detention policy, who warn that the system is at “breaking point” with poor healthcare putting people’s lives at risk.

Two men died from suspected heart attacks at Colnbrook near Heathrow airport and the third killed himself at the Campsfield House detention centre in Oxfordshire on Tuesday.

September

The concerning news that asylum seekers can only lodge claims to remain in the UK if their lawyers threaten legal action emerged in September.

Asylum seekers ‘prevented from lodging cases’
The Guardian, Owen Bowcott, 29 September 2011

Asylum seekers are being prevented from lodging claims for permission to stay in the UK unless their lawyers threaten legal action, according to the Law Society.

In a strongly worded criticism of shortcomings at the Asylum Screening Unit (ASU) in Croydon, south London, the body which represents solicitors complains of “degrading treatment”, telephones constantly engaged or rarely answered and individuals who arrive in person being sent away.

The letter, sent to the head of the ASU and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), highlights concerns voiced by other groups about facilities in Croydon – the only place in the whole of the UK where asylum claims can be made.

October

Human rights was the topic of October with Theresa May’s famous “Cat Story”; her war against Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights; and disparities between the courts and UKBA’s interpretation of human rights.

Cats, lies, and family ties: human rights and wrongs at Tory Party conference
NCADC, 4 October 2011

An an ongoing crusade to remove the “universal” bit from the concept of human rights, the Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May has announced plans to deport more migrants who have completed prison sentences, even if it means breaking up families.

But first, a suspect cat incident. In her speech at the Tory Party conference today, Ms May illustrated the injustice of the Human Rights Act with the story of “the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had pet a cat.” Well, Theresa may not have made it up, but someone did. Even Ken Clarke knows it’s not true, challenging her to a bet that no one has been stopped from being deported from owning a cat.

—–

Foreign National Prisoners: an easy media target
NCADC, 31 October 2011

Last week saw the publication of John Vine’s report on how the UK Border Agency ‘manage’ foreign national prisoners. The UKBA’s Independent Chief Inspector commented on the improvement in UKBA’s monitoring of foreign national prisoners (following the 2006 ‘foreign prisoners fiasco‘), but has some clear criticisms of UKBA’s decision making, particularly in the “disparity” between the courts’ and UKBA’s “interpretation of human rights”.

November

Grabbing the headlines in November was the discovery that UKBA relaxed passport checks, a dispute followed about whose fault it was, and the resulting was  resignation of Brody Clark – head of the UK Border Force.

UK border checks were relaxed at 28 ports and airports
BBC News, 15 November 2011

A pilot scheme to reduce passport checks on some citizens of EU countries was used at 28 ports and airports, Home Secretary Theresa May has revealed.

In response to written questions, Mrs May also disclosed that more than 10 million people entered the UK in August when the pilot scheme was operating.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said there was a “borders fiasco”.

Former UK Border Force chief Brodie Clark, who resigned last week, will be questioned by MPs this morning.

His appearance before the home affairs select committee will be followed by that of his then boss, UK Border Agency (UKBA) chief executive Rob Whiteman.

The 28 ports and airports at which the authorised pilot was used included Heathrow, Gatwick, Calais, Coquelles, Glasgow, Harwich, Manchester Airport, Aberdeen and Cardiff.

December

December has seen a considerable amount of resistance to charter flights deporting people to Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Nigeria as well as information released from the UKBA regarding ‘preferred bidders’ who will be providing UK wide accommodation for asylum seekers.

New asylum housing contracts: Serco, G4S, Reliance
NCADC, 12 December 2011

The UK Border Agency has announced the ‘preferred bidders’ to provide accommodation for asylum seekers across the UK for the next 5 years.

Public and voluntary sector providers have been completely replaced by the three big multinational companies, all active in the detention and deportation business.

—–

Resistance to charter flights
Stop Deportations, 21 December 2011

Throughout December there has been a building resistance to charter flights with protests arising against flights deporting people to Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Nigeria.

These protests have been taking place across the country and have captured the attention of the media in several cases.

No Borders North East organized a demonstration on the 19th of December 2011 at the UK Border Agency (UKBA) Northumbria Building, in North Shields, Tyne & Wear, UK.

They raised awareness towards a Charter flight, which was later due to depart that day. After demonstrating outside, activists then attempted to directly contact UKBA staff that had the authorization to determine the flights departure.

This follows a wave of autonomous action in the UK against charter flights. On Thursday 15th December, activists in West London had organised a protest against a UK charter flight to Sri Lanka and struck at the heart of the Government’s “unjust deportation machine”, when they blocked the road outside Colnbrook and Harmondsworth immigration prisons with ‘lock-on’ devices and a tripod. On Thursday 8th December, protestors ambushed the Nigerian High Commissioner in Central London over his support for a mass deportation to Nigeria scheduled for later that evening.

Charter flights are a numbers driven exercise to remove as many people as possible. They are conducted under a veil of secrecy which denies deportees access to justice. With the secrecy surrounding charter flights it is impossible to know how many other deportees on this, and other flights have been similarly denied access to justice and equality.

The UK asylum determination system is structured towards denying as many applications as possible. Because of this, people who are in need of sanctuary are refused status, made destitute and subjected to violent enforcement procedures. Charter flights such as this one and forced removals in general must be stopped.

—
to subscribe to NCADC newsletters by email, see here
—

Illuminating the UK’s lethal detention and deportation conditions

Inspection Report: too many pregnant women in detention

Urgent Action Needed for Zimbabwean Activist

Image: Pinochio Protocol, by Martin Rowson

This week, OpenDemocracy presents a disturbing new dossier by the award-winning author Clare Sambrook — Official lying and how it harms our democracy.

OpenDemocracy founder Anthony Barnett reflects on the impact of Clare Sambrook’s coverage of child detention, and the citizens’ campaign End Child Detention Now.

“…in the intense, relentless process of exposing the scandal of child detention another perhaps even greater scandal emerges. The British state and its civil service, which presents itself as an honest public service, is suborned. There is a clear pattern of persistent official lying used in defence of the punitive practice of arresting and detaining asylum-seeking families.”

Go to the OurKingdom section of OpenDemocracy to read the full article, download the dossier, and find extracts of some of Clare’s writing on child detention.

Image: with thanks to Martin Rowson, who has donated his Pinocchio Protocol cartoon. The original artwork which will be auctioned on behalf of End Child Detention Now. Details here

There was the inevitable media outrage that so many of these visitors, who obviously include in their number untold illegal immigrants, terrorists etc, did not have to queue for hours at the start of their holidays, business trips, asylum/terror sprees.

Of course, media hostility to migrants is nothing new. Over at the Migrants Rights Network blog this week, John Perry reviews Malcolm Dean’s new book, Democracy Under Attack, which looks at the role of the media in driving social policy. Perry highlights the section on how policy on asylum and migration has been driven by the press.

Phil Woolas heals the nation

In it’s manifesto of 1997, Labour hardly mentioned immigration as an issue. By 2002, as asylum seeking numbers peaked dueto conflict in places like Iraq and Somalia, the press began to refer to people seeking sanctuary as ‘this scum’ ‘asylum cheats’ and ‘illegals’. It was a “hostile…one-sided, often wildly inaccurate…press campaign of vilification”, according to the former editor of the Mirror. The Labour government, with a massive majority, could have resisted, but government policy followed the media line, legitimising further public hostility (perhjaps reaching it’s nadir when Phil Woolas was found guilty of deliberately setting out to stir up and exploit racial hatred in the last election campaign). And so it goes around, the media-policy merry-go-round.

Interestingly, the Theresa May passports affair has resulted in a remarkably sensible blog at the Telegraph, of all places, where Mary Riddle warns that dangerous misinformation and misguided policy statements are fuelling the next stage of a political ‘immigration war‘. It’s an interesting read. Riddel believes that much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric is built on lies, the policies unworkable, and that this will come back to bite both May and prime minister Cameron

It looks as if Theresa May will survive this row and keep her job for a while longer. It appears that she is winning, in this row at least, with the dual-argument of it wasn’t that big a deal, and anyway, it was someone else’s fault. Ironically, an argument she was very much against a few years ago when she demanded a ministerial resignation over a passports row. In 2007 Ms May was “sick and tired of government ministers who simply blame other people when things go wrong”. The Political Scrapbook blog has helpfully dug up the quotes, and remarks that the Minister in question, Beverley Hughes, did indeed resign, 21 days later.

Meanwhile, it’s business as usual for refugees seeking sanctuary who face a culture of disbelief with dwindling access to legal help. No investigations or resignations looming over the sometimes 50% error rate in asylum decisions, or the public money wasted on legal fees righting UKBA wrongs. More families are divided by ever-harsher knee-jerk immigration controls barring entry, and more children are ending up in lone parent families when a parent is deported. Not to mention the proposal to recreate in Britain the notorious migrant worker exploitation of the German Gastarbeiter programme.

In the political war over migration control, the real casualties are not government Ministers or civil servants on £60,000 a year pensions. It is the refugees, the families, the workers who suffer. The racism and xenophobia that is pervading mainstream politics, highlighted last week by John Grayson at IRR,  affects our whole society.

An anti-immigrant war of words affects us all, and we all have a role to play in resisting it. As the saying goes: if you don’t like the news, go out and make your own…

John Vine.

Last week saw the publication of John Vine’s report on how the UK Border Agency ‘manage’ foreign national prisoners.  The UKBA’s Independent Chief Inspector commented on the improvement in UKBA’s monitoring of foreign national prisoners (following the 2006 ‘foreign prisoners fiasco‘), but has some clear criticisms of UKBA’s decision making, particularly in the “disparity” between the courts’ and UKBA’s “interpretation of human rights”.

Entirely unpredictably, this is not quite how the majority of the print media chose to represent the story.

Not much more needs to be said beyond the Daily Mail’s headline: ’4,000 foreign criminals set free to fight deportation including murderers, rapists and child sex offenders’ (I think even the Daily Mail headline generator would have struggled to come up with that).  But this risibly biased portrayal of the story was all too widespread.

The Sun and the Express took the opportunity to throw their weight behind Theresa May’s personal crusade against human rights.  May is quoted as saying that  the “right to a family life was not “absolute””.   While this is, legally, completely correct (for once she’s done her homework), it’s very misleading. It suggests that it’s those pesky courts not understanding the law getting in the way of the sterling work done by the brave foot soldiers at UKBA.  The courts, and certainly UKBA, do not treat Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights as absolute.  Each case is looked at in terms of individual merit, and a balance is struck between the individuals right to a family and private life in the UK – and the courts are very tough on this – and the public interest of that individual remaining in the UK.  John Vine makes this very point in the opening line of his report: “Foreign national prisoners are a diverse group of people coming from many different countries, having committed a range of offences and each having their own individual ties to the UK.”

While the Telegraph manages a somewhat more balanced account, it’s left to non-mainstream media and organisations who work with the individuals at the centre of these scare-mongering, vote-pandering stories to create the forum for informed, responsible discussion of the issues.

As our friends at AVID commented, an over-looked aspect of the report is the continued detention of foreign national prisoners after their release.  The report reveals that 97% of the sample of foreign national prisoners covered by the report were still in detention, despite having completed their sentences.  27% of them had been held (under immigration powers, subsequent to completion of sentence) for over 12 months.  This, despite the presumption to release in both UKBA policy and immigration law.

The report is yet another indictment of poor-decision making by UKBA.   In the year leading up to February 2011, a third of appeals by foreign national prisoners against the intention to deport were successful, at a cost of  £480,000.  Instead of trying to divert attention by feeding an anxious public and hysteria-fuelled newspapers hate-speak about immigration, the government should address the failings within the lumbering leviathan of the Home Office, and the massive costs that bad decisions and prolonged detention incur.