Category: refugees

  • The independent Casey report calls for an end to arbitrary detention, and proper resettlement resources to treat asylum seekers as equal to quota refugees

    The plight of asylum seekers is in sharp focus with heart-wrenching images of exhausted and terrified Ukrainian families forced into displacement. And while arriving at borders and seeking refuge is not new, the treatment of those forced to cross borders for asylum has rarely been so compassionate.

    Even in a nation that prides itself on compassionate governance, an independent report into the detention of asylum seekers in New Zealand has found the worst of systemic abuse.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • We cannot know how Ukraine will develop after the war. But we know there will be horrible consequences if Russia wins.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • I am a Senior Counsel (SC) barrister and spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance. It is my view that the UK government’s offshore detention deal is simply, despite what home secretary Priti Patel says, a carbon copy of the notorious Australian arrangement first devised in 2001.

    This arrangement saw asylum seekers who arrived by boat to Australia sent to the impoverished Pacific island nation of Nauru, and Manus Island in the equally impoverished Papua New Guinea.

    Australia: a human rights pariah

    It is no coincidence that the UK government’s plan has emerged after its appointment of one of the key architects of the so called “Pacific Island solution”, former foreign minister Alexander Downer. It’s also telling that Patel met in 2021 with former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott, who campaigned successfully on “Stopping the Boats”.

    What’s missing from the discussion about the controversial plan to use Rwanda, a nation with a brutal human rights abuse record, is that the Australian approach to asylum seekers has made the nation a human rights pariah internationally. It’s also cost taxpayers billions of dollars. The long term physical and mental harm to those who have been subjected to detention on Manus and Nauru is both horrific and well-documented by leading medical groups.

    What lies behind both the UK and Australian approach to offshore asylum processing is toxic neo-colonialism. This involves, in each case, a wealthy country seducing poorer nations with the promise of aid and money if they play ball. It’s a contract where there is clearly gross inequality in the bargaining power of one party.

    A lucrative business

    A previous Australian Labor government, under electoral pressure, put in place the current arrangements with Nauru and Papua New Guinea in 2013. What Downer and Abbott may not have told the Johnson government is that offshore processing has cost Australian taxpayers an average of over AUD 1bn a year since then. This is not counting the cost of successful claims made for compensation by asylum seekers. One case, a class action brought by detainees on Manus Island in 2017, cost the government over AUD 100m in damages and legal costs.

    However, while long-suffering taxpayers foot the bill for the Pacific solution, contractors have found a gold mine. According to the Refugee Council of Australia, an NGO, service providers billed billions of dollars to the Australian government between 2013 and 2021. One company – Broadspectrum – made AUD 2.5bn. Another, International Health and Medical Services, made AUD 446m over the same period.

    International condemnation

    Moreover, international condemnation of Australia’s policies towards asylum seekers has been constant and consistent. In February 2020, independent Australian MP Andrew Wilkie was told in a letter from the International Criminal Court that conditions in the Australian-run camps on Nauru and Manus Island were dangerous and harsh. Alarmingly, the letter describes an:

    environment rife with sporadic acts of physical and sexual violence committed by staff at the facilities.

    In 2018, a spokesperson for the UNHCR said that Australia’s policy has [0:12]:

    failed on a number of measures. It’s failed to protect refugees, it’s failed to provide even for their most basic needs throughout a period that now exceeds five years. And it’s failed to provide solutions for a substantial number that is still waiting and can clearly no longer afford to wait.

    Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have also regularly condemned the policy.

    The permanent harm inflicted on asylum seekers from offshore detention has been noted by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP). In September 2017, it said:

    Prolonged or indefinite detention itself is known to contribute to adverse mental health outcomes as a result of prolonged exposure to factors including uncertainty, lack of autonomy, deprivation of liberty, dehumanisation, isolation and lack of social support.

    It cited UN, Australian Human Rights Commission and Amnesty reports that have found:

    Self-harm and suicidal behaviour have become endemic in detention facilities amid well-documented allegations of the exposure of asylum seekers and refugees in detention to sexual and physical assault and abuse, and conditions which are tantamount to cruel and degrading treatment.

    If the UK proceeds with its plans, what happens when Rwanda’s medical system cannot treat seriously ill asylum seekers? Patel will likely follow the Australian stance, which has been to oppose every transfer from Manus Island or Nauru to Australia for healthcare.

    The result has been death, and a rapid decline in the health of vulnerable individuals. The Australian government has blood on its hands, and the UK government seems determined to follow in its footsteps.

    Featured image via Flickr/Love Makes a Way – cropped to 770×403, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Greg Barns

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • More than 88,000 Hongkongers have come to the UK under a new visa scheme after a harsh crackdown on civil liberties in the city. How are they coping? What are they doing? And do they think they will return?

    Thousands of Hongkongers escaping from China’s increasingly authoritarian grip on the city have settled in Britain over the past year in search of a new life. This fresh start comes via the British national (overseas) visa scheme.

    More than 88,000 Hongkongers applied for the BNO visa, launched last January, in its first eight months, according to Home Office figures. It allows them to live, study and work in Britain for five years. Once that time is up, BNO holders can apply to stay permanently. The government is expecting about 300,000 people to use this new route to citizenship in the next five years.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Home secretary Priti Patel wants to transport refugees arriving in the UK to Rwanda. But there’s plentiful evidence that these plans are both immoral and illegal. The UK government’s own assessment of human rights in Rwanda is nothing short of withering.

    Patel’s plan is also discriminatory and flouts several international laws. So either Patel hasn’t done her homework, or she simply doesn’t care about the limits of international law in pursuit of her xenophobic agenda.

    UK condemnation

    The UK’s own assessment of Rwanda’s human rights record is damning. The following is an extract from a July 2021 speech by Rita French, the UK’s International Ambassador for Human Rights:

    We regret that Rwanda did not support our recommendation, which was also made by other States, to conduct transparent, credible and independent investigations into allegations of human rights violations including deaths in custody and torture.

    We welcome that Rwanda accepted recommendations from other countries on combatting human trafficking, but we were disappointed that Rwanda did not support the UK recommendation to screen, identify and provide support to trafficking victims, including those held in Government transit centres.

    HRW condemns Rwanda

    Human Rights Watch (HRW) has commented that Rwanda:

    has a known track record of extrajudicial killings, suspicious deaths in custody, unlawful or arbitrary detention, torture, and abusive prosecutions, particularly targeting critics and dissidents.

    This is the country where Patel wants to send refugees “to build a new life”.

    A 2020 HRW report on Rwanda stated that:

    Arbitrary detention, ill-treatment, and torture in official and unofficial detention facilities continued, according to credible sources.

    The report named several senior opposition figures who were murdered or went missing. It also referred to a February 2018 protest by Democratic Republic of Congo refugees, where at least 12 of those who participated in a protest were killed by Rwandan police. Between February and May 2018, more than 60 refugees were charged with taking part in demonstrations and other activities deemed illegal by Rwanda authorities.

    More recently, in September 2021, HRW reported that Rwandan “authorities rounded up and arbitrarily detained over a dozen gay and transgender people, sex workers, street children, and others”. Patel doesn’t seem to be concerned about how her plan might affect LGBTQI+ refugees and asylum seekers who fled from persecution because of their sexuality.

    In March 2022, HRW further reported that violations of human rights in Rwanda have continued, including the repression of government critics, journalists, and opposition members.

    Patel’s plan is discriminatory

    Following Patel’s announcement to proceed with the Rwanda plan, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) expressed concerns. Assistant high commissioner for protection Gillian Triggs said that:

    People fleeing war, conflict and persecution deserve compassion and empathy. They should not be traded like commodities and transferred abroad

    The UNHCR further clarified that asylum-seekers and refugees who are smuggled should not be deprived of any rights regarding access to protection and assistance.

    A UNHCR document further clarifies:

    Every person has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, serious human rights violations and other serious harm. Seeking asylum is not, therefore, an unlawful act. Furthermore, the 1951 Convention provides that asylum-seekers shall not be penalised for their illegal entry or stay, provided they present themselves to the authorities without delay and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

    The UNHCR adds:

    Article 31 of the 1951 Convention specifically provides for the non-penalisation of refugees (and asylum-seekers) having entered or stayed irregularly if they present themselves without delay and show good cause for their illegal entry or stay.

    The UNHCR also points out that detention of refugees should be non-discriminatory:

    International law prohibits detention or restrictions on the movement of a person on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, such as asylum-seeker or refugee status.

    Patel’s plan falls foul of this requirement, as it will initially focus on transporting “single men arriving in the UK on small boats or lorries”.

    The UNHCR also specifies the right of refugees to legal counsel and the right to be “brought promptly before a judicial or other independent authority to have the detention decision reviewed”. If Patel’s plan does not make these provisions, that would be a further violation of refugee rights.

    The UK flouting international law

    Article 31 of the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees bans states from imposing penalties:

    on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization.

    Refugee Council chief executive Enver Solomon is scathing of Patel’s plan, saying:

    The government is choosing control and punishment above compassion despite the fact its own data shows that two-thirds of men, women, and children arriving in small boats come from countries where war and persecution have forced them from their homes.

    The “illegal” Australian model

    The Australian model, to which Patel’s plan is compared, saw Australia imprison refugees and asylum-seekers on offshore islands such as Manus (Papua New Guinea) and Nauru. Many of those incarcerated attempted suicide, and there were numerous deaths and instances of self-harm.

    Leaked ‘Nauru Files’ revealed shocking events on the island state that included “attempts at self-harm, sexual assaults, child abuse, hunger strikes, assaults and injuries”. Altogether, there were more than 2,000 leaked incident reports.

    The Manus island detention centre opened in July 2013. By the end of the year, almost 1,200 asylum seekers had been transported there by the Australian authorities. But in 2016, the Papua New Guinea (PNG) supreme court ruled that the asylum-seekers detention facility there was illegal.

    Further, the court demanded that Australia resettle all those held. It said:

    Both the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments shall forthwith take all steps necessary to cease and prevent the continued unconstitutional and illegal detention of the asylum seekers or transferees at the relocation centre on Manus Island and the continued breach of the asylum seekers or transferees constitutional and human rights

    Doomed “toxic” plan

    Greg Barns SC is an Australian barrister and spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance. He has assisted PNG lawyers acting for the refugees detained on Manus.

    On hearing of Patel’s plan, Barns told The Canary:

    What lies behind both the UK and Australian approach to offshore asylum processing is toxic neo-colonialism.  It is, in each case, a wealthy country seducing poorer nations with the promise of aid and money if they play ball.  A contract where there is clearly gross inequality in the bargaining power of one party.

    Patel’s plan has been criticised by her own government as well as by human rights and refugee NGOs. It flouts international laws and therefore could open the UK to prosecution. In short, it is not only morally wrong but unworkable and illegal.

    However, given this government’s right wing agenda, who’s to say if that’ll be enough to stop these plans from going ahead.

    Featured image via Youtube

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • As reported by The Canary on 14 April, the government has announced plans to process and detain asylum seekers in Rwanda. In spite of questions surrounding the legality of the offshoring plan, prime minister Boris Johnson maintains that the government can implement it using existing legislation.

    This comes as part of the Tories’ Nationality and Borders Bill which – if passed unamended – would empower the Home Office to revoke the British citizenship of anyone who can claim citizenship in another country.

    In spite of widespread resistance to the inhumane plans, MPs voted against a House of Lords amendment that would force the government to pass any offshore detention plans through parliament at a House of Commons debate on 20 April. The bill will return to the House of Lords on 26 April.

    Now is the time to resist this draconian anti-refugee bill.

    A racist and inhumane policy

    In July 2021, the UK’s international ambassador for human rights raised concerns about Rwanda’s failure

    “to conduct transparent, credible and independent investigations into allegations of human rights violations including deaths in custody and torture.

    Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, has questioned whether Patel’s offshore processing and detention plan complies with Britain’s human rights obligations under international law.

    More than 160 charities and campaign groups have signed an open letter urging the government to u-turn on its “shamefully cruel” plan.

    Meanwhile, the Guardian has reported that civil servants working in the Home Office may resist the unconscionable policy on ethical grounds.

    In spite of opposition to the policy, on 20 April MPs voted 303:234 against a proposed amendment that would require MPs and Lords to approve any offshore processing and detention plans. This amendment included requirements for home secretary Priti Patel to present the details and costs of her offshore detention plans before she can enforce them.

    Shocked by the vote’s outcome, Independent home affairs editor Lizzie Dearden tweeted:

     

    The anti-refugee bill will return to the House of Lords on 26 April for the last time before it passes.

    Contact your MP

    We must resist the government’s cruel and inhumane plan to send vulnerable asylum seekers to Rwanda, a much smaller and more densely populated country than the UK. This begins by putting pressure on those in power.

    Refugee rights group Safe Passage has drafted a template letter for people to put pressure on their MPs to oppose the anti-refugee bill. Ahead of the House of Commons debate, the group shared:

    Alongside this, human rights organisation Detention Action shared a link to their petition against the draconian legislation:

    Support groups working on the ground

    Grassroots groups continue to do fantastic work supporting refugees and asylum seekers, and organising against the government’s anti-refugee legislation.

    Detention Action directly supports those in detention, while also campaigning for policy and legislative change:

    Freedom From Torture provides therapy and support for torture and trafficking survivors in the UK:

    And SOAS Detainee Support is a grassroots abolitionist group working in solidarity with detained people in the UK to resist imprisonment and deportation:

    Supporters can donate to sustain their frontline work via PayPal.

    Meanwhile, Brighton-based charity The Hummingbird Project provides trauma-informed support for young refugees:

    Take to the streets

    Highlighting the vital role of protest in undermining such legislation, policy and advocacy manager for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants Zoe Gardner shared:

    Protests against government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda are due to take place on Saturday 23 April.

    Londoners can join Stand Up To Racism in Croydon:

    According to the Bristol Defend Asylum Seekers CampaignBristolians are coming together at midday: 

    People can keep an eye on Collective Action London‘s page for the latest updates on upcoming protests in other locations this weekend.

    Now is the time to resist Britain’s outsourcing of border control, and to demand an end to its anti-refugee policies altogether. We must use our collective power to demand that our government treats refugees and asylum seekers with the dignity and respect that every human being is entitled to.

    Featured image via Philip Robins/Unsplash – resized to 770×403, via Unsplash License

    By Sophia Purdy-Moore

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Tories have nurtured the hostile environment that set the stage for their latest anti-refugee policies. Curtis Daly picks apart the racist rhetoric of this despicable government.

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The BBC is under fire from Boris Johnson over its coverage of the government’s plan to send refugees to Rwanda. The PM accused the state broadcaster of being more critical of the scheme than it is of Vladimir Putin. In reality, the BBC hasn’t been critical enough. It’s just done what it always does: present the government line under the guise of impartiality. Not that that matters when we have a far-right government engaged in class war, whose goal is a corporate fascist state.

    Johnson: the BBC is nicer about Putin

    The Telegraph reported on comments Johnson made in a private meeting of backbench Tory MPs. He allegedly said that the BBC, as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury, were “less vociferous” about Putin than they were about the refugee plan. Johnson also said the BBC has “misconstrued” the government scheme.

    In a later column, the Telegraph called Johnson’s comments a “war of words” between him and the BBC. Of course, the PM gunning for the Beeb is nothing new. As the Guardian reported, just days after the public elected him in December 2019, Johnson’s government was:

    threatening the future of the BBC by insisting it is seriously considering decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee, while boycotting Radio 4’s Today programme over the broadcaster’s supposed anti-Tory bias.

    This has been a running theme ever since. It has culminated in the government saying it plans to scrap the licence fee in 2027. Before then, it’s also freezing the price of the fee.

    The persecution complex

    Of course, in the context of the BBC, Johnson attacking it is a typical Tory and centrist MO: label views you disagree with as somehow being aligned with the country’s perceived enemies. Much like the treatment of Jeremy Corbyn, you then have a public who distrust those who the perpetrator is smearing.  Moreover, as The Canary previously wrote:

    The persecution complex is a right-winger’s bread and butter. Delusions of maltreatment contribute to a grand victim narrative: mundanities become sinister anti-Conservative plots, evidence of a society that is actively hostile to their beliefs, as opposed to one literally governed by the Conservative Party. The objective of this is to garner sympathy, to convince the wider electorate that if their views are controversial enough to be censored by influential, ‘woke’ progressives, then surely they must be worth listening to.

    Johnson’s current “grand victim narrative” is a personal one due to Partygate. But still, it serves the same purpose as The Canary noted above. Never mind the fact that the BBC‘s coverage of the government’s Rwanda plan was fairly dire, anyway.

    BBC coverage of Rwanda: fence-sitting on steroids

    In a drive for ‘balance’, the BBC essentially kept the government’s line with a few opposing comments thrown in. For example, it published one of its earliest articles about the plan on 13 April.  Originally, its headline was:

    UK to sign deal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing

    However, as the BBC edited the article, the content became closer to the government’s populist line. For example, the BBC changed the headline to this on 14 April:

    UK to give asylum seekers one-way ticket to Rwanda

    Before altering it again to this almost right-wing, tabloid-style ‘shout’:

    One-way ticket to Rwanda for some UK asylum seekers

    The final headline absolved anyone of any responsibility for the deal; that is, it didn’t say who was giving refugees a “one-way ticket”. Even so, all the other headlines failed to say it was the government doing this. Instead, they pinned it on the more homogenous “UK”. Moreover, the article itself gave the majority of the commentary to the government. The Canary‘s analysis shows that the BBC gave around 216 words to opposition voices in the 1,062-word article. This was compared to 388 from either government or pro-government voices. That’s 79.6% more words for people in favour of the plan. Plus, the article gave most of it’s conclusion to pushing the government’s other plans for refugees.

    Creeping corporate fascism?

    Ultimately though, Johnson’s attack on the BBC, regardless of whether it’s warranted, is a further step down the UK’s path to corporate fascism. As The Canary wrote, in its broadest sense this is:

    a form of [an] oppressive regime that removes civil liberties while handing corporations huge wealth from the public purse as well as giving them power and control over all of us.

    Control of the media is one aspect of corporate fascism. Johnson’s continued attacks on the BBC coupled with his government’s privatisation of Channel Four, are the epitome of this. Both these actions are not needed: the BBC is heavily biased towards the government, and Channel Four is a profitable venture that doesn’t need to be privatised, as the public doesn’t actually fund it. The government’s destruction of both will cement the already-dire UK media landscape as one controlled entirely by corporations.

    BBC: caught in the crossfire

    When even corporate journalists like ITV political editor Robert Peston call the government an “elected dictatorship“, something is seriously broken. The BBC has never been an outlet working in the public interest. But Johnson and his government aren’t attacking it for that reason. Shoring up their own agenda is the priority – that is, the agenda of a far-right government, meting out a class war in a corporate fascist state. The BBC is just in the firing line.

    Featured image via LBC – YouTube and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • During the first four months of fiscal year 2022 (October 1, 2021, to January 31, 2022), more than 6,000 asylum seekers from Ukraine and Russia were apprehended at U.S. border crossings and deported. Then, in late February, Russia invaded Ukraine and, virtually overnight, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shifted gears to accommodate the influx of Ukrainians who began showing up at the U.S.-Mexico border. In fact, whether arriving on foot and in cars, most were allowed in and given “humanitarian parole.”

    But not all displaced people have entered through Mexico. Many have flown into the U.S. as “tourists” from Europe, landing in places where they have family or friends and hoping to file an asylum application once they regroup.

    Sue Fox is the executive director of the Shorefront YM-YWHA in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, an area populated by thousands of immigrants from countries that once comprised the USSR. Many families from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus are arriving in Brooklyn with their children, she told Truthout and so far, there are scant resources to meet their needs.

    “The biggest issue is housing, putting a roof over their heads, but apartments are very expensive,” Fox said. “These are folks who had a middle or upper-middle-class life in Ukraine and they don’t know what to do now that they’re here. Many have families, but their families don’t always have resources to give them.”

    In response, Fox says that she and her staff have been scrambling to help newcomers access available health care, register kids in school, and connect them with food pantries, mental health resources and legal assistance.

    It’s been difficult, Fox admits, because so much remains unknown.

    “It’s difficult not to be able to provide answers,” Fox said. “But there are no answers yet. We don’t know what the procedures will be for people who want to apply for Temporary Protected Status (TPS)” or other immigration safeguards.

    This, despite the March announcement by the Biden administration that the U.S. will accept 100,000 refugees fleeing Ukraine, donate $1 billion to help European nations accommodate the influx of people displaced by the war, and add Ukraine to the roster of 13 countries whose residents are eligible for TPS. This status is given to individuals forced to emigrate because of ongoing armed conflicts, large-scale environmental disasters, or “extraordinary and temporary conditions” in their home countries. According to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, 75,100 Ukrainians who were in the U.S. on or before March 1, 2022, will be able to apply for TPS. This will permit them to stay in the country and work for up to 18 months. The actual process for applying, however, needs to be outlined in the Federal Register and as of mid-April, this has not yet been done.

    “It’s a confusing mess,” Jodi Ziesemer, director of the NY Legal Assistance Group, a provider of free legal services to low-income people, told Truthout. “There’s been a disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality. On one hand, the U.S. is telling Ukrainians that the country is extending TPS to them so they expect benefits. But these benefits are not actually available to them.”

    This is not the only glitch that troubles Ziesemer. Policies for those coming into the country from the southern border — as well as for those entering the U.S. from Canada — are inconsistent, she says, so different protocols are being applied depending on which government authorities, CBP or ICE agents a person sees. “There is great confusion,” she adds.

    The unofficial policy, she explains, is for Ukrainians to be given humanitarian parole at the border, which enables them to enter the country and work. But parole is not a direct path to a green card or citizenship, and those given this authorization will need to file an asylum application within one year of arriving. This creates barriers, particularly for refugees who don’t know English. While there is no fee to file a claim, the 12-page form — which must be filled out in English — is cumbersome and usually requires the assistance of a trained advocate to complete. Necessary paperwork to substantiate claims may also be required — and be difficult to access for those who fled with little more than the clothes on their backs.

    “It’s frustrating,” Ziesemer said. “People are returning to Europe because it’s easier for them to be in the EU, where they can live and work for up to three years. We’re trying to advise people as best we can, but there’s a lot of misinformation about what the U.S. is doing and offering.”

    Ginger Cline is a staff attorney at the Border Rights Project of Al Otro Lado, and has been working in Tijuana, Mexico, since 2020. People from the Ukrainian and Russian communities in nearby San Diego, California, have helped set up porta-potties, tents and food stations for recent arrivals coming into Tijuana, she told Truthout. “CBP is coordinating with the Mexican police to bring a certain number of Ukrainians to the port of entry every hour,” she said, adding that priority is given to families with young children and those with serious medical needs.

    This is in sharp contrast to the way asylum seekers from other countries are treated, she says. For one, until mid-April, Title 42, a policy enacted by the Trump administration in March 2020, barred all but a handful of asylum seekers from entering the U.S., purportedly as a way to control the spread of COVID. “Title 42 gave CBP discretion, but was used to deny entry to almost everyone wanting to apply for asylum,” Cline said. “This changed when Ukrainians began to arrive and the government announced that Title 42 was being waived for them.”

    Cline describes the special treatment afforded Ukrainians as having a devastating impact on people from other nations. “Of course, Ukrainians should be welcomed into the U.S. and given the opportunity to apply for asylum,” she said. “It’s horrifying to see this war of aggression, but there are non-white people from other countries — including Haiti, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras and Somalia — who have been waiting at the border to apply for asylum for more than two years. They need protection, too.”

    Cline notes other disparities as well. Among them, CBP is allowing entire Ukrainian families to enter the U.S. together, something that is often denied to people from other countries. She describes assisting a man from Haiti who was extremely ill with HIV and had been traveling with his niece and nephew. “When we got him to the port of entry, he was approved for admission but his family members were not,” Cline said. “I’ve seen this brutality repeatedly. We’ve seen kids ripped from a grandmother’s arms, allowed to enter with their mom while grandma and an aunt are denied. It’s heartbreaking. Every member of the household suffered the same trauma that brought them to the border. It’s simply cruel to let some people in and not others.”

    Jessica Bolter, policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, attributes the U.S.’s favoring of Ukrainians to a lingering Cold War residue. “U.S. decisions about who wins asylum cases have been deeply political for decades,” she said. “There are still echoes of Cold War thinking in the asylum system, so people fleeing countries that were once communist still have an increased chance of being admitted. Even before the Russian invasion, the asylum grant rate for Ukrainians was 66 percent. It was 77 percent for Russians. This is much higher than it is for people of other nationalities.”

    Not surprisingly, advocates have recommendations for changing this and improving the treatment of refugees from Ukraine and other countries.

    Naomi Steinberg, vice president of U.S. policy and advocacy at HIAS (formerly the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), argues that family reunification should form the cornerstone of the U.S. response to the refugee crisis. While many Ukrainians will opt to stay in Europe until the crisis ends, she says, “there is a subset for whom staying in Europe is not the best option. People who have family in the U.S. should be allowed to enter through an expanded refugee resettlement program, rather than given humanitarian parole.” This is preferable, she says, because those entering through refugee resettlement, “are automatically eligible for a green card in a year. They are also eligible for resettlement services. Humanitarian parole requires them to apply for asylum, a process that is complicated.”

    Similarly, Steinberg recognizes that while TPS gives people “some breathing room,” like humanitarian parole, it has to be renewed. To be successful, she continues, people usually need legal counsel, which can be expensive.

    Other roadblocks and bureaucratic snafus — a result of the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant policies — are also becoming increasingly apparent. Advocates say that by the time Donald Trump left office, the country’s resettlement programs were in shambles and the Biden administration has still not done what’s needed to get things back up and running.

    Kelly Agnew-Barajas, director of refugee resettlement at Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of New York, describes overwhelmed advocates who are trying to reopen the 320 local refugee resettlement agencies that were shuttered in 2018 following Trump’s slashing of the annual refugee quota from 110,000 in 2017 to 15,000 in 2020.

    This lack of infrastructure, Agnew-Barajas points out, has exacerbated the current crisis. Nonetheless, she is pleased that at least some Ukrainians (and a smaller number of Russians and Belarusians) are being paroled in. Still, she stresses that even before Ukrainians began streaming into the U.S., the country faced a significant processing backlog.

    “The 76,000 Afghan refugees admitted to the country in 2021 have still not been fully resettled,” Agnew-Barajas told Truthout. “There is a lot of nervousness in the advocacy community because 5,000 additional Afghans will be arriving before September. This is on top of the regular flood of immigrants coming from other countries. The process for Afghan arrivals has been very, very difficult. We need to plan for Ukrainian arrivals. We need resources and emergency supplies.”

    Stacy Caplow, professor of law and associate dean of experiential education at Brooklyn Law School, agrees. The fact that people all over the world are languishing in refugee camps waiting to be resettled, she says, underscores the urgency of the situation.

    At the same time, she notes that those admitted into the U.S. on humanitarian parole have a marked advantage. “If you are already in the U.S., you can apply for asylum and go through the adjudication system. You go to court and see a judge who determines if you meet eligibility for admission under the law. It usually takes a long time, but if there is the will, the time can be shortened,” Caplow said. This was done for Afghan evacuees. Others, in refugee camps in places like Kenya, “have been waiting for 10 years to begin the process.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • This month, the government of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson joined an ignominious collective in announcing a refugee deal with Rwanda, seedily entitled the UK-Rwanda Migration Partnership.  The fact that such terms are used – a partnership or deal connotes contract and transaction – suggests how inhumane policies towards those seeking sanctuary and a better life have become.

    In no small measure, the agreement between London and Kigali emulates the “Pacific Solution”, a venal response formulated by the Australian government to deter asylum seekers arriving by boat and create a two-tiered approach to assessing asylum claims.  The centrepiece of the 2001 policy was the transfer of such arrivals to Pacific outposts in Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island and Nauru, where they would have no guarantee of being settled in Australia.  Despite being scrapped by the Labor Rudd government at the end of 2007, the policy was reinstated by a politically panicked Prime Minister Julia Gillard in 2012 under what was billed the Pacific Solution Mark II.

    The victory of the conservative Liberal-National Party coalition in the 2013 elections led to its most cruel manifestation.  Operation Sovereign Borders, as the policy came to be known, cast a shroud of military secrecy over intercepting boats and initiating towaways.  The crude, if simple slogan, popularised by the Abbott government, was “Stop the Boats”.  Such sadistic policies were justified as honourable ones: preventing drownings at sea; disrupting the “people smuggler model”.  In truth, the approach merely redirected the pathways of arrival while doing little by way of discouraging the smugglers.

    More measures followed: the creation of a specifically dedicated border force kitted out for violence; the passage of legislation criminalising whistleblowers for revealing squalid, torturous camp conditions featuring self-harm, suicide and sexual abuse.

    Inspired by such a punitive example despite its gross failings and astronomical cost (the Australian policy saw a single asylum seeker’s detention bill come to $AU3.4 million) , the Johnson government has been parroting the same themes in what the UK Home Office called, misleadingly, a “world first partnership” to combat the “global migration crisis”.  The partnership sought to “address” the “shared international challenge of illegal migration and break the business model of smuggling gangs.”  Not once did it refer to the right to asylum which exists irrespective of the mode of travel or arrival.

    Johnson also reiterated the theme of targeting those “vile people smugglers” who have turned the ocean into a “watery graveyard”, failing to mention that such individuals serve to also advance the right of seeking asylum.  More on point was his remark that compassion might be “infinite but our capacity to help people is not.”

    If one is to believe the Home Office, sending individuals to Rwanda or, as it puts it, “migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys” is a measure of some generosity.  Successful applicants “will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies, recognised globally for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants.”

    Rwanda is certainly going to benefit with a generous bribe of £120 million, slated for “economic development and growth”, while it will also receive funding for “asylum operations, accommodation and integration similar to the costs incurred in the UK for these services.”

    The country will also take some pride in sidestepping its own less than savoury human rights records, which boasts a résumé of extrajudicial killings, torture, unlawful or arbitrary detention, suspicious deaths in custody and an aggressive approach to dissidents.  In 2018, Rwanda security forces were responsible for killing at least 12 refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo.  They had been protesting a cut to their food rations.  Various survivors were then arrested and prosecuted for charges ranging from rebellion to “spreading false information with intent to create a hostile international opinion against the Rwandan state.”

    The UK-Rwandan partnership also perpetuates old libels in discrediting cross-Channel crossers as purely economic migrants who somehow forfeit their right to fair assessment.  Emilie McDonnell of Human Rights Watch UK dispels this myth, noting Home Office data and information gathered via freedom of information laws that 61% of migrants who travel by boat are likely to remain in the UK after claiming asylum.  The Refugee Council, in an analysis of Channel crossings and asylum outcomes between January 2020 and June 2021, noted that 91% of those making the journey came from 10 countries where human rights abuses are acknowledged as extensive.

    Refugees and asylum seekers are the stuff of political value, rising and falling like stocks depending on the government of the day.  For Johnson, the agreement with Rwanda was also a chance to preoccupy the newspaper columns and an irate blogosphere with another talking point.  “Sending refugees to Rwanda,” claimed The Mirror, “is the political equivalent of a distraction burglary, only less subtle and infinitely more criminal.”

    The event in question supposedly warranting that hideous distraction was serious enough.  Johnson, along with his wife Carrie and UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak, were all found to have breached government COVID-19 emergency laws and fined by the police.  In the history books, this is already being written up as the “partygate affair”, which featured a number of socialising events conducted by staff as the rest of the country endured severe lockdown restrictions.  Those same history books will also note that the prime minister and chancellor are both pioneers in facing police-mandated penalties.

    Johnson’s own blotting took place on June 19, 2020, when he held a birthday gathering in the Cabinet Room of 10 Downing Street.  “In all frankness, at that time,” he reasoned, “it did not occur to me that this might have been a breach of the rules”.  With such a perspective on legality and breaches, the Rwanda deal seems a logical fit, heedless of human rights, a violation of dignity, a potential risk to life and a violation of international refugee law.

    The post Obscene Outsourcing: The UK-Rwandan Refugee Deal first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In early March, in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU announced the activation of a never-before-used directive, authorising entry to the EU of an unlimited number of people fleeing disaster. Ukrainian refugees will have the right to reside and work in the EU for one year, extendable to three, a right that refugees fleeing other recent wars, such as those in Syria and Afghanistan, have been denied.

    It is not known how many people from these countries never reached European territory, having died in the attempt, drowned in the Mediterranean. Alarm Phone’s network of volunteers relies on two basic tools in its work to help prevent migrants and refugees from dying at sea.

    The post Alarm Phone, The Hotline For People In Need Of Rescue appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Over 4 million refugees – mostly women, children, and students – have fled Ukraine over the past month. In response, Europe has opened its arms to Ukrainian refugees and the EU has announced that all Ukrainians are eligible for temporary refugee protection for up to three years, with politicians and the public showing their support. This is how the international refugee protection regime should work. According to official Ukrainian government statistics, Ukraine had over 76,000 foreign students in 2020. About 20,000 of these were Indians and over 15,000 originated from Africa, mainly from Nigeria, Morocco and Egypt. In contrast, they have had a very different experience fleeing Ukraine. African and Asian students have described horrid stories of being beaten with sticks by Ukrainian security, pushed off buses and trains, and neglected in favour of Ukrainians. And recent disturbing reports suggest that they are also being unfairly detained at EU borders – being denied access to protection, basic human rights, and dignity, as well as being threatened with deportation.

    The post Ukraine’s Non-White Refugees appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • This live blog has now closed, you can read more on the UK’s new asylum system plans here

    Simon Hart, the Welsh secretary, made a rare appearance on the morning broadcast round earlier today. He said the plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda would mark a “humane step forward”. He told Sky News:

    We have to deal with this problem. We have a very good relationship with Rwanda: it’s an up-and-coming economy, it has got a very good record with migrants in this particular issue.

    And it’s an arrangement which I think suits both countries very well and provides the best opportunities for economic migrants, for those who have been in the forefront of this particular appalling problem for so long now.

    We’ve put forward proposals to make it more difficult for smuggler gangs to advertise online on social media, which is partly how they do it.

    We think there should be safe and legal routes that people need for family reunions and so on, so that they don’t have to arrive through these illegal routes in order to make their asylum claims.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The government has announced plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. Priti Patel is currently in Rwanda to finalise a £120m trial that will see mostly single men who arrive in Britain being flown to Rwanda for processing.

    The BBC reported:

    Under the proposal, Rwanda would take responsibility for them, put them through an asylum process, and at the end of that process, if they are successful, they will have long-term accommodation in Rwanda.

    Campaigners, rights groups, and politicians have called the plans “ill-conceived, inhumane and evil.”

    Borders bill

    This plan is part of a larger series of “barbaric” measures put forward in the Nationality and Borders bill. The bill is currently in its final stages, having passed through the House of Lords. The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) have made it clear that if the bill is passed, it would be catastrophic for refugees:

    UNHCR believes the UK’s Nationality and Borders Bill would penalise most refugees seeking asylum in the country, creating an asylum model that undermines established international refugee protection rules and practices.

    The borders bill makes it even harder for refugees to find safety and asylum within the UK. One of the biggest problems with the borders bill is that it divides refugees up into two groups. The Refugee Council explains:

     Refugees who travel to the UK through third countries via irregular routes (like crossing the Channel in a small boat) will be given a new form of temporary protection with limited rights to welfare benefits and family reunion, and they’ll have their status reassessed after 30 months.

    Those who travel via “irregular” routes are to be considered one group, and those who took a more direct route will be considered another. The Refugee Council’s own research shows that most of the people arriving by boats are refugees. We also know that the refugees who arrive via boat risk severe injury and death in order to arrive in the UK.

    As the Refugee Council say:

    It is impossible to tell how much someone needs our help merely by the way they arrive in the UK. The majority of refugees have no choice but to use irregular routes to enter another country.

    Tiers of refugees

    The bill also makes it clear that the two groups of refugees will have different rights:

    The Secretary of State or an immigration officer may treat Group 1 and Group 2 refugees differently, for example in respect of—

    1. (a)  the length of any period of limited leave to enter or remain which is
      given to the refugee;
    2. (b)  the requirements that the refugee must meet in order to be given indefinite leave to remain;
    3. (c)  whether a condition under section 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Immigration Act1971 (no recourse to public funds) is attached to any period of limited leave to enter or remain that is given to the refugee;
    4. (d) whether leave to enter or remain is given to members of the refugee’s family.

    The plan to remove refugees to Rwanda is a follow through of the legislation outlined in the borders bill. It is also reminiscent of the outsourced detention centres used by the Australian government. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), Australia currently holds the record for detaining people for the longest amount of time. Elaine Pearson, director of HRW, said:

    Detaining people solely due to their immigration status is harmful, expensive and ineffective as a deterrent to migration. The Australian government should stop punishing those who may have fled violence and other injustices and offer rights-respecting alternatives to detention.

    Both the decision to divert refugees to Rwanda and the borders bill itself are not only an attack on refugees. They are also an attack on the basic humanity and morality required to understand that people arriving in the Channel, by regular or “irregular” means, are doing so because their lives are under threat. A government which can look at that and make it harder for refugees to reach safety is an inhumane government.

    What can we do?

    #BlackLivesMatterUK called for people to join protests:

    The Refugee Council have put together a template to assist people in writing to MPs to voice their disagreement with the borders bill.

    We absolutely must stand against anti-refugee and anti-immigrant rhetoric wherever we find it. The borders bill is a horrific piece of legislation, and we must work to make sure that all refugees are welcome here.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Richard Townshend – cropped to 770×403, via Creative Commons 3.0

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Refugees crossing the channel will be sent to Rwanda and held there while they are processed. The plan, due to be announced Thursday, is the latest cruel twist to emerge from the Tory’s racist Nationality and Borders Bill. Home secretary Priti Patel took to Twitter Wednesday 13 April to promote her vision:

    Full details are due to be announced today. However, the BBC reported that an initial £120m deal had been struck with the Rwandan government.

    The BBC said that the scheme would mostly see Rwanda:

    take responsibility for the people who make the more than 4,000 mile journey, put them through an asylum process, and at the end of that process, if they are successful, they will have long-term accommodation in Rwanda.

    The corporation added:

    The BBC has seen accommodation the asylum seekers will be housed in, thought to have enough space for around 100 people at a time and to process up to 500 a year. Nearly 29,000 migrants crossed the Channel in 2021.

    Pushback

    The plan was quickly slammed by refugee organisations, public figures and social media users. Labour MP Diane Abbot said the plan was cruel, bizarre and pandered to racists:

    Meanwhile, one law professor warned the plans were the “stuff of nightmares”:

    Torture

    Another Twitter user pointed out that, only last year, the UK criticized Rwanda’s human rights record:

    While someone else dug up the UK’s comments to the UN on the matter, which detailed concerns about deaths in custody, torture and human trafficking:

    Some think that even for this government, the plan might be a new low:

    Dead cat?

    However, context is also vital. One social media user pointed out that the ongoing row about Boris Johnson’s fine for breaking lockdown rules was probably a factor:

    The fact that parliament is in recess while Johnson’s alleged criminality is making headlines may also have informed this timing of the asylum plan announcement:

    Boris Johnson

    The BBC reported that Johnson plans to argue that the move is needed to stop “vile people smugglers” turning the channel into a “watery graveyard” and that while “our compassion may be infinite” our “capacity to help people is not.”

    But Johnson’s rhetoric certainly hasn’t convinced many. In fact, a demonstration was immediately called to take place on Thursday 14 April from 6pm outside the Home Office:

    The Tories have many motivations, none of them moral. But whatever is driving it, it is clear that Priti Patel plans to have some of world’s most vulnerable people locked up in camps in a human-rights-abusing regime. And we have to resist that every step of the way.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Care 4 Calais, cropped to 770 x 403, licenced under CC BY-SA 2.0.

     

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • In just a few short weeks, Russia’s war on Ukraine has precipitated a massive exodus of refugees. According to the United Nations, more than 4.3 million people have fled the country since February 24, the majority of them – 2.5 million – traveling west to Poland. Media across the world have closely covered the story, and shown a great deal more sympathy for the Ukrainian refugees than for others fleeing from U.S. wars in the Middle East or North Africa.

    The post Michael Tracey On The Refugee Crisis And US Troop Buildup In Poland appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • At the end of 2021, the global refugee population reached an unprecedented 26.6 million, with 68 percent of refugees coming from five countries: Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Now, Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has forced more than 4.3 million people in Ukraine to flee the country within just several weeks, making the exodus the largest movement of people in Europe since World War II.

    Many large nongovernmental organizations are focusing on supporting the millions of refugees who are entering Poland. While the Polish government has been hospitable toward many white Ukrainians, it is holding some refugees of color who are fleeing Ukraine in detention camps. Meanwhile, governments and organizations in Romania and Moldova, both smaller and relatively lower-income countries compared to Poland, are scrambling to accommodate hundreds of thousands of refugees with little outside support.

    “It feels like the eye of the storm right now,” said Walker Frahm, chief operations officer of Lifting Hands International, an aid organization helping refugees achieve stability and self-sufficiency. Frahm, who had spent a week and a half in Moldova and Romania in mid-March, told Truthout that about a quarter of the 400,000 refugees fleeing Ukraine who had entered Moldova remain in the country of just 2.6 million. Since the country is unable to provide shelter space to all but a fraction of refugees, Moldovan families have generously volunteered their private homes to accommodate the vast majority of them. Frahm said he had heard reports of discrimination toward refugees from Ukraine who are of Indian, Roma and African descent in the countries, although he said he didn’t witness discrimination firsthand.

    Frahm said most people fleeing Ukraine did not understand why the Russian government was bombing them, and saw their stay as short-term. “They don’t consider themselves refugees,” he said. “They say, ‘Yes, I’ve been forced from my home because of war, but we’re going to go back as soon as it settles down.’”

    But as Putin’s invasion drags on, grassroots networks are making plans to support people for the long haul.

    There is generally an outpouring of international support when crises emerge, with piles of aid accumulating at border crossings. On-the-ground organizations can quickly become overwhelmed unless they have proper places to store items. To solve this problem, an informal, loosely connected grassroots aid network of about a dozen groups is working on establishing supply chains and long-term warehouse aid hubs in Moldova, Romania and Slovakia, and hope to set up hubs at halfway points in places like the Netherlands and Germany.

    “We could just hop around from crisis to crisis, chasing the news cycle, but from a human perspective, from an impact perspective, we want to make sure that we don’t disappear as soon as the news goes away,” Frahms explained. “We want to be able to continue meeting needs as long as they’re there.”

    Before collecting aid, Lifting Hands International conducted an on-the-ground needs assessment to ensure refugees are receiving items that they actually want and need. Then, they advertised the needs through social media and an app called JustServe. People can purchase requested items and send them directly to Lifting Hands International’s warehouse in Utah or drop them off to about 60 drop-off points throughout the state — a network that Lifting Hands International had established while supporting Afghan, Syrian, and other refugees for years. Lifting Hands International volunteers pick up aid from the drop-off points, which are mostly volunteers’ homes, and bring it to the warehouse.

    Another group called Distribute Aid — a Swedish nonprofit that has specialized in providing logistical support for humanitarian relief in the U.K., France, Lebanon, Greece, the U.S., and elsewhere — coordinates shipments for grassroots organizations, including Lifting Hands International. “We have the time and the resources to actually look at what the import and export requirements are, to make sure that people are ready to get the cheapest shipping possible for them,” Nicole Tingle, Distribute Aid’s regional director for Europe, told Truthout. “And then they can focus on running their collections, doing fundraisers, making sure that they’re building out their programs and projects to the best of their abilities.”

    Lifting Hands International and Distribute Aid will be sending their first joint aid shipment container with hygiene supplies and other nonfood items from Utah to an aid hub that had been a decommissioned event center in Iași, Romania. “Our aid that is going there will support some longer-term shelters where the initial support from community members is starting to peter out and they’re anticipating there will be many unmet needs as the war drags on,” Frahm said. They’ll be sending a container to Moldova soon, where the situation is increasingly desperate.

    To minimize emissions, maximize efficiency and cut shipping delivery times, Distribute Aid is also developing a supply chain visibility tool that will take stock of what items grassroots groups have and need. “With our needs assessment surveys, we ask each group what they have too much of,” said Taylor Fairbank, Distribute Aid’s operations director, “and instead of every group having to contact every other group to figure it out, they just have to fill out our one survey, and then we can do the matching on the back end and suggest trades to them.”

    But they are also connecting disparate groups with each other directly. “We’ve put a lot of groups that are in countries bordering Ukraine in contact with each other in WhatsApp group chats,” said Tingle.

    Some newly formed grassroots groups are stepping up to meet the unique needs of marginalized people fleeing Ukraine.

    Black Women for Black Lives is providing direct financial support to Black people fleeing Ukraine in the face of so-called “Ukrainians First” policies, whereby members of the African diaspora who were living in Ukraine when the war started are now being held hostage in the war-torn country while white Ukrainians are allowed to flee. “In just 5 short weeks, we’ve been able to help evacuate people out of Ukraine, help them pay for food when their city was under siege and even help them afford accommodation, transportation and medical aid,” the organization wrote on its fundraiser page. After raising more than £326,000 across several platforms and helping more than 2,000 people, BW4BL stopped raising funds on April 5.

    Outright International, a global LGBTQ+ human rights organization headquartered in New York City, is accepting donations for local, vetted organizations that are helping LGBTQ+ people who are fleeing Ukraine to find safe shelter.

    And while the refugee solidarity movement has been delighted to see a flood of solidarity for refugees fleeing Ukraine, they note that millions of Black and Brown refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, South Sudan, and elsewhere are still being detained in horrendous conditions across the world. A harrowing new investigative report by ProPublica, for example, revealed that U.S. shelters holding Afghan child refugees have been ill-equipped to provide them with culturally appropriate care. Some children are attempting to commit suicide, starting fights and running away, according to the report.

    “These conditions are a choice that has been made again and again by political actors for their own gain — whether that be in attempting to unite voters against a common ‘enemy’ or using displaced people as bargaining chips in political disputes,” Tingle said.

    In an op-ed for Al Jazeera, South Sudanese refugee, activist and writer Nhial Deng, wrote that he was pleased to see the world unite to support Ukrainians, but questioned where these world leaders, corporations and universities were when armed invaders attacked and burned his village 11 years ago. “Where were the people of goodwill offering for me to stay with them instead of being stuck in a refugee camp for a decade?” he wrote. “People can — when they want — respond to refugees at their countries’ borders with compassion and love, rather than suspicion, fear and indifference.”

    Distribute Aid, Lifting Hands International, and others in the refugee solidarity movement hope that newly galvanized activists will make connections between the plights of Ukrainians and others who are forced to flee their homes.

    While compassionate disaster relief efforts can make refugees’ lives easier, on their own, they ultimately won’t prevent the next mass forced displacement.

    “People are fleeing climate change driven by for-profit companies, or wars driven by interests of imperialist governments,” said Fairbank. “The West is especially complicit in outsourcing the violence that is driving its economic growth on to poor Black and Brown countries and then punishing those who dare flee to safety. So not only do we have to create a welcoming atmosphere to those who make it to our borders, but we have to support grassroots movements in our own countries and around the world that are fighting back against politicians and companies who capitalize off these harmful conditions.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • How is it that some refugees have been detained long enough, while others even more vulnerable remain prisoners offshore?

    The Australian government has been releasing refugees from its onshore detention over the past month, ending several years of detention for many, in a move shrouded in secrecy.

    Undoubtedly, any decision that leads to the release of imprisoned asylum seekers is commendable, but there are things to consider about the government’s actions that I hope will be taken into account.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • RNZ News

    A New Zealand aid worker in Kyiv says the ReliefAid group he leads was one of the first to provide food in the suburb of Bucha — northwest of Kyiv — where Russian troops are alleged to have executed 150 civilians.

    New Zealand donations in the Ukraine War have so far helped the aid group deliver more than six tonnes of food to survivors, and take medical supplies to hospitals around Kyiv.

    ReliefAid executive director Mike Seawright arrived in Kyiv this weekend after driving in from the western side of Ukraine — “down some roads that have seen a lot of intense fighting, burnt out buildings, warehouses completely flattened, family homes destroyed and lots of military hardware burnt out.

    “It was an interesting if not somewhat chilling drive.”

    He has been in the country for a month after crossing the border on foot.

    In Kyiv, “the fighting may have stopped … but the destruction of family homes is still there. People are living in the rubble of what was their normal lives with nothing to their name, faced with cold, harsh conditions, with little or no food. So humanitarian support such as we are providing … is essential.”

    But while fighting there may have stopped, missiles were still “raining down” on the city, making it unsafe.

    Management on the fly
    Seawright said that with many trucks bringing aid into the country — and at least one plane of medical supplies — a lot of organisation was involved.

    “It also takes a lot of management on the fly. So we’ve predefined plans … but of course what happens on the day is entirely dependent on checkpoints we can’t control, road conditions on roads that have been severely damaged … and a security situation that is extremely volatile. So this is our number eight wire – managing all of this.”

    Mike Seawright from ReliefAid
    ReliefAid’s Mike Seawright … “So this is our number eight wire – managing all of this.” Image: RNZ/ReliefAid

    His team also wants to deliver aid to people in the besieged city of Mariupol.

    “We are standing by to get in there as soon as conditions allow. We pride ourselves on being at the forefront of humanitarian action. ReliefAid is a warzone specialist humanitarian aid organisation but I have to say, even we can’t get access to Mariupol at the moment.”

    As soon as an access corridor was established, they would be in, Seawright said.

    Being on the ground was key to working effectively, he said.

    A lot of hard work
    “It takes a lot of hard working, a lot of networking, a lot of managing logistics, but I’m proud to say we’ve got an incredible team here in Ukraine allowing us to do that.

    “The most important thing you need to do when engaging with a new environment is see what is happening on the ground. We’ve got to know who we are supporting. We have got to make sure we know what their needs are and therefore we need to make sure the support that we receive by generous kiwis in New Zealand and across the world is going to the right place.

    “You can’t do this from a desk in New Zealand, you can’t do this by reading a report. You have to get on the ground and see it yourself.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The world is witnessing the fastest-growing refugee crisis in Europe since WW II as millions of refugees are streaming from Ukraine into neighboring countries. These refugees are crossing into Poland, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Moldova, and Romania. Soon other countries, including…

    This post was originally published on Human Rights at Home Blog.

  • The Biden administration’s decision to admit 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, announced last week in the wake of the president’s European tour, is a huge step in the rebuilding of the U.S.’s once-vaunted refugee program after years in which the Trump administration all but neutralized it. However, the program must expand further if the U.S. plans to attempt to accommodate the steep increase in refugees that the coming year will likely bring.

    At the urging of Stephen Miller, Trump’s mastermind of all things nasty when it came to making life miserable for immigrants, Donald Trump drastically reduced the numbers of refugees admitted yearly. By the time he signed off on his final presidential finding on the issue in the fall of 2020, he had set a refugee cap of 15,000 per year. It was a shockingly low number, barely one-sixth of the number admitted in Barack Obama’s final year in office, and a mere fraction of the 231,000 admitted in 1980; and — since refugee resettlement agencies receive much of their funding based on the numbers they are expected to resettle — it led to an evisceration of the U.S.’s resettlement programs.

    The horrendous notion of massively constricting the numbers admitted was made even worse by a series of travel bans, largely targeting Muslim-majority countries, that made it nearly impossible for refugees from Yemen, Syria, Sudan, and several other countries experiencing widespread violence to enter the United States. In other words, the U.S. actively shut out refugees from places where the need was greatest.

    Trump was determined to batten down the hatches against what he — and the far right in Europe — viewed as a tsunami of refuge seekers: In 2015-16, the period immediately before Trump’s election, more than 5 million asylum seekers and refugees from conflicts in the Middle East and in Africa headed to Europe to try to escape bloodshed and economic collapse. Trump slammed German Chancellor Angela Merkel for making a “very catastrophic mistake” in liberalizing Germany’s asylum policies, and said that more migrants were going to Europe as a result. And Trump determined that he wouldn’t allow the U.S. to go down the same road.

    While he never quite got to the level of zero refugee admissions advocated by Stephen Miller, he did everything but that to make it clear that asylees and refugees were no longer welcome.

    Within a couple years of Trump taking office, resettlement agencies such as the International Rescue Committee were hemorrhaging jobs and closing offices all around the country. In some states, including Florida — traditionally a hub for refugees and asylum seekers — the vast majority of refugee resettlement offices shut their doors.

    Biden came into office promising to increase the refugee cap to 125,000. He then ran into a buzzsaw of criticism when, already attacked from the right for being “weak” on immigration because of the surging number of asylum seekers crossing the southern border, he appeared to walk back this pledge in early 2021. Faced with a revolt from within Democratic ranks at this campaign promise betrayal, he reversed course again, initially raising the cap to 62,500, and then, in fall 2021, finally increasing it again, to the long-promised 125,000.

    Yet, with the Afghanistan and now Ukraine crises upending the lives of millions, even that aspirational number may prove inadequate to meet the vast refugee resettlement challenges of the moment.

    After the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the country’s rapid collapse back into brutal Taliban rule, the U.S. airlifted more than 130,000 people out of Afghanistan; by the late autumn, officials were estimating that about 50,000 had already arrived, or would soon do so, in the United States. Now, barely seven months later, Russia’s assault on Ukraine has unleashed the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II, with nearly 4 million refugees having crossed over to other countries, and millions more internally displaced in Ukraine in barely a month of fighting.

    That the U.S. is opening its doors to large numbers of refugees, some of whom will be granted permanent residency under the refugee resettlement program, many of whom will be given temporary status under the “humanitarian parole” program once they arrive, is a huge step in the right direction for U.S. refugee policy.

    But, for many aid agency workers, the unthawing of the refugee resettlement program is coming at far too slow a pace. Most Afghans were admitted under the humanitarian parole program rather than the refugee resettlement program, meaning that they aren’t on a pathway to permanent residency, and it looks like most Ukrainians will be admitted this way as well. For while the refugee cap was, indeed, raised to 125,000, that’s more a long-term goal than a reflection of on-the-ground realities. Indeed, so far this year, according to State Department data, a mere sliver of that total number, only about 8,000 refugees, has actually been admitted. The processing of refugees continues to be bogged down by staffing shortages and a denuded infrastructure — the legacy of Trump’s four years of unrelenting hostility to refugee resettlement.

    The Ukrainian catastrophe, coming so fast on the heels of Afghanistan’s fall to the Taliban, has shown just how vital — and also how fragile — refugee resettlement infrastructure is. U.S. efforts to isolate the Taliban, through freezing Afghanistan’s central bank assets, as Biden has done, have had ripple effects on civilians, further plunging the state into economic crisis and further fueling the exodus of desperate, hungry people.

    In an era of massive population upheavals, due to wars, climate change, disease and the rise of brutal narco-states in parts of the world, wealthy democracies have a particular obligation to shoulder their share of the weight in resettling those displaced. President Biden is on the right track, both in raising the refugee cap and in announcing that large number of Ukrainians will be eligible for entry into the U.S. Now, he needs to find ways to increase the numbers admitted via the traditional refugee resettlement program route, and to rapidly channel funding into programs that have too often in recent years been forced to make destructive cuts.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • When Israel steals Palestinian land … Image: imgflip.com

    COMMENTARY: By John Minto

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has exposed so much hypocrisy in Aotearoa New Zealand and around the Western world that’s it’s hard to keep track.

    Israel has racism down to a fine art.

    While the world was putting their hand up for Ukrainian refugees — Israel put its hand up only for Jewish Ukrainian refugees (at least one grandparent must be Jewish).

    As early as January 2022, Israel began planning to transfer Ukrainian Jews to become colonists in the land of the Palestinians. Israel’s Ministry of Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption proclaimed: “We call on the Jews of Ukraine to immigrate to Israel – your home.”

    The refugees/colonists began to arrive in early March, receiving preferential treatment, while Ukrainians who could not prove their Jewishness according to Israel’s racist criteria for refugees face myriad difficulties.

    Meanwhile, the World Zionist Organisation’s Settlement Division has begun preparing 1000 housing units for Ukrainian Jews on stolen and occupied Palestinian and Syrian land in the occupied West Bank and the occupied Golan Heights.

    When there was an outcry from Israeli liberals saying, quite rightly, that this was not a reflection of Jewish values, the government said they would take non-Jewish refugees as well.

    Predictable reaction
    The predictable reaction from racist Israelis was “We are a Jewish state — why are we taking in these gentiles?”

    The government, however, says the non-Jewish refugees won’t be able to claim Israeli citizenship — they will have to leave when the fighting stops.

    Important to point out here that Israel is NOT a Jewish state. Twenty percent of Israeli citizens are Palestinians. Israel is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multicultural state dominated by a racist regime which has made indigenous Palestinians second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth class inhabitants in the land of their birth and the land of their ancestors, Palestine.

    This is well described in Amnesty International’s short video on Israeli apartheid.


    The Amnesty International video.

    Jewish Ukrainian refugees are being welcomed because it helps Israel maintain a majority Jewish population. It’s a country obsessed with demographics and determined to maintain what Israel’s largest and most respected Human Right Group, B’Tselem, calls “A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea”.

    It is proposed that most of the Jewish Ukrainian refuges will be settled in illegal Jewish-only settlements on stolen Palestinian land while Israel’s apartheid government continues its refusal to allow Palestinians to return to their homes and land after around 800,000 were ethnically cleansed from vast swathes of Historic Palestine by Israeli militias in 1948 — a process which continues to this day.

    And Jewish Ukrainian refugees will qualify for automatic Israeli citizenship — something denied the big majority of Palestinians in their homeland Palestine – all of which has been occupied by the Israeli military since 1967.

    Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali — “I’ve killed a lot of Arabs in my time and there’s nothing wrong with that” — Bennett has been promoting himself as an international mediator.

    International condemnation
    Israel didn’t join the international condemnation of Russia and has repeatedly refused Ukrainian appeals for military assistance, but Bennet flew to Moscow for a three-hour meeting with Putin and was then on the phone to Zelensky suggesting to him he should think about the cost in death and destruction in Ukraine and agree to Russian terms.

    Bennett followed up by trying to get the parties together for a mediation meeting in Jerusalem.

    This is the same Israeli leader who refuses to meet with Palestinian leaders, refuses to negotiate any peace deal with Palestinians and says he will never agree to a Palestinian state being established on his watch. Not the credentials for an international mediator.

    And in case readers missed the recent news a further two high-profile groups have joined the international human rights condemnation of Israel as an apartheid state.

    A short summary of the highest profile groups that have described Israel in this way over the past 18 months is here:

    Racism on steroids
    It’s racism on steroids in Israel just as it was in apartheid South Africa. And increasingly Jews around the world are seeing it as such. From an opinion poll last year 25 percent of American Jews already regard Israel as an apartheid state and 38 percent of young American Jews say the same thing.

    We need regime change in Israel and everyone living in historic Palestine enjoying equal rights.

    John Minto is a political activist and commentator, and spokesperson for Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa. This article was first published by The Daily Blog and is republished with the author’s permission.

  • Western countries have opened their doors to millions of Ukrainians fleeing the war in their homeland, presenting a model of how refugees should be welcomed. But their experience stands in stark contrast to how African refugees are treated when attempting to reach Europe to escape war, hunger and despair. In her new book, My Fourth Time, We Drowned: Seeking Refuge on the World’s Deadliest Migration Route, author Sally Hayden details how a single message from an Eritrean refugee held in a Libyan detention center led her on a years-long journey to document the human rights disaster on Europe’s doorstep. She says that since a 2017 European Union agreement with Libya to stop migrants before they cross the Mediterranean, many refugees have been imprisoned in hellish detention centers run by armed groups with little care for the safety or well-being of the people inside. “Tens of thousands of people have been locked up in detention centers that Pope Francis, among many others, have compared to concentration camps,” says Hayden. “The situation is absolutely horrific.”

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

    As the world embraces Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion and presents a model for how refugees should be welcomed, we look now at how refugees from Africa face a very different story. The Western world has largely turned its back on the horrific conditions African migrants face inside Libyan detention centers. And this is the focus of a new book titled My Fourth Time, We Drowned: Seeking Refuge on the World’s Deadliest Migration Route. It’s just out this week. We’re joined by Sally Hayden, its author, Africa correspondent for The Irish Times.

    Welcome to Democracy Now!, Sally. Can you lay out how a single message to you from an Eritrean refugee being held in a Libyan detention center led to your interviews with hundreds of refugees and migrants who were fleeing to Europe but detained in Libya?

    SALLY HAYDEN: Yeah, sure. And thank you for having me.

    So, like you said, in August 2018, I got a Facebook message. It just said, “Hi, Sister Sally. I need your help. I’m under” — I think something like — “detention in Libyan prison.” They said “a Libyan prison.” “And if you have time, I’ll tell you all the story.” And I was kind of skeptical, because I didn’t really know where this had come from, why I had been contacted, like how someone in a prison would have my name or phone even. But I messaged back, and I said, “OK, tell me about it.”

    So, what this person said was there were 500 of them, men, women and children. They were in, effectively, a detention center. They had all pretty much tried to reach Europe by crossing the Mediterranean Sea and been intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard, and at that point forced back to detention and locked up indefinitely, with no legal recourse, no way to get out. And a war had broken out around them, and the guards that had imprisoned them had run away, leaving them with no food and no water.

    And so, this one message basically led me on what’s been now nearly four years of an investigation. And what I found out was that tens of thousands of people — I mean, to date now, since 2017, around 90,000 people — have been caught at sea under what is an EU policy which supports the Libyan Coast Guard, because under international law it’s illegal for — it’s illegal for European boats to return people to a place where their lives are in danger. And so, their lives are in danger in Libya, but if the EU supports the Libyan Coast Guard, then Libyan boats do the intercepting, that’s not illegal under international law. So it’s effectively a circumnavigation of international law. And yeah, like thousands of people — tens of thousands of people have been locked up in detention centers that Pope Francis, among many others, have compared to concentration camps, where every sort of abuse happens. And the situation is absolutely horrific. It’s ongoing.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Sally, could you talk about the role of technology and social media in what is happening with many of these refugees?

    SALLY HAYDEN: Yeah. I mean, social media is obviously the way that they contacted me. And what happened after that initial message, I actually started also posting the messages on social media, on Twitter, in a Twitter thread, and that ended up being viewed millions of times. And the result of that was that my name and my number and my contact details were passed around many detention centers. So I suddenly had many refugees in many different detention centers sending me messages on WhatsApp, on Facebook, on Twitter.

    But social media, I mean, it kind of has good and bad aspects, but, you know, very, like, life-changing aspects. What I found out was that, for example, when smugglers detain people in Libya, they’re now crowd-funding. So they’ll post photos of people who are being tortured online so that they can crowd-fund larger and larger ransoms. It’s really contributed to how captivity is being monetized. So it’s kind of raising the cost, but it’s also giving people a lifeline to try and be able to escape these situations.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And could you talk about how the — what the situation with Libya, and in terms of refugees, is like after the overthrow of Gaddafi and the NATO-backed bombing campaign that occurred in Libya, in terms of the EU utilizing Libya as a gatekeeper to Africa?

    SALLY HAYDEN: Yeah. I mean, I’m sure many people know, after the 2011 revolution, Libya has been in turmoil. It’s effectively a country that’s run between militias, like many different militias. There are multiple governments. There hasn’t really been a stable leadership since, since that revolution. And, of course, you had, like, smugglers, human smugglers, taking advantage of that in the beginning. So there were a lot of refugees and migrants who come to Libya to try and cross into Europe.

    But what has happened since 2017, particularly since the European Union is now spending hundreds of millions of euro on trying to effectively stop migration from Libya, that has turned into a monetization of captivity. So it’s more likely now that people, like refugees, are being moved around different detention centers, or even smuggling gangs, in these kind of, like, cycles there. It’s not so clear-cut always, you know, what is an official government-associated detention center and what is something being run by smugglers. I mean, they all kind of work together. And that includes the Coast Guard, as well. The Coast Guard is a looser entity than you would believe, but still the EU still continues to work with them.

    AMY GOODMAN: Sally, we just have a minute to go. Explain the title, My Fourth Time, We Drowned.

    SALLY HAYDEN: It actually comes from a quote by a Somali refugee who’s now in Europe, and he was speaking about the amount of times that they’ve tried to cross the sea before reaching safety. He tried three times, when he was intercepted. The fourth time, two of his family members actually died. That’s what the “we drowned” refers to. The fifth time, he alone made it to safety, but, I mean, he even says himself, like, he feels like part of him has drowned by going through this process. You know, part of him is dead because of the suffering he’s witnessed and the family members that he’s lost.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, Sally, we’re going to do Part 2 of this interview, where we’re going to talk about how, actually, the war in Ukraine will affect famine in Africa, and also talk about the role of organizations like the European Union in using Libya for these detention camps, what some have called concentration camps, for refugees fleeing poverty and persecution. Sally Hayden, Africa correspondent for The Irish Times. Her new book, My Fourth Time, We Drowned: Seeking Refuge on the World’s Deadliest Migration Route.

    That does it for our show. Democracy Now! has an immediate opening for a news writer/producer. Visit democracynow.org for details. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Stay safe.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Obscenities occupy the annals of State behaviour, revolting reminders about what governments can do.  One of Australia’s most pronounced and undeniable obscenities is its continuing effort to gut and empty international refugee law of its relevant foundations.  Instead of being treated as a scandal, populists and governments the world over have expressed admiration, even envy: If they can get away with that, what might we do?

    Along the way, Australia has also made its greatest contribution to deterring unwanted arrivals, creating the most ruthless, tropical detention network for individuals who, unblessed by paperwork, arrive by boat with the aid of people traffickers and are duly told they will never settle in Australia.  These “unlawful” arrivals – language itself in contravention of the UN Refugee Convention – are duly passed on the refugee camp conveyor belt, where they face ruination, despair and sadistic prison wardens.  To Manus Island or Nauru they go, awaiting settlement in another country.

    In 2013, New Zealand offered some mitigation to these ghastly conditions.  Australia might have expressed no interest in resettling such arrivals, but New Zealand did.  Thus, that great tradition of outsourcing obligations and responsibilities was continued, with Australia preferring to let others do the heavy lifting.

    That agreement involved Australia’s neighbour accepting 150 of its annual intake of refugees from Australian detention centres.  But the fall of the Labor government, and the coming to power of a conservative Coalition crazed by “turning back the boats”, all but killed the arrangement.

    This did not stop other inglorious attempts on Canberra’s part to abdicate human rights responsibilities with the connivance of other countries.  In 2014, a resettlement deal was struck with Cambodia costing in the order of AU$55 million.  Unsurprisingly, only a few refugees availed themselves of this less than impressive arrangement.  The next year, Australia tried, in vain, to coax the Philippines with an offer worth AU$150 million.

    The 2016 agreement with the United States, hammered out in the last days of the Obama administration, was seen as a diplomatic coup, obliging Washington to take between 1,250 to 2,000 refugees.  All would be subject to stringent US vetting.  Australia, in turn, would accept a much smaller complement of refugees from Central America.

    These arrangements, with much justification, were rubbished by the newly arrived President Donald J. Trump.  In a now notorious phone call between Trump and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, the President suggested that this “stupid deal” might facilitate the import of terrorists into the United States.  “I do not want to have more San Bernadinos or World Trade Centres.  I could name 30 others, but I do not have enough time.”

    In another action that could only be seen as ingratiating, Australia agreed, in 2017, to resettle 17 Cubans who were found desperately clinging to a lighthouse off the Florida Keys.  The pattern here should be obvious: Australia will do everything it can to evade, circumvent and subvert a refugee processing scheme that is humane and generous.

    Under the current, revived understanding, New Zealand will accept 150 refugees from Australia each year for three years, but only those who are already in detention.  Canberra has made it clear that the deal will not apply to those subsequently making an effort to travel to Australia by sea.  “Australia remains firm,” stated Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews, “illegal maritime arrivals will not settle here permanently.  Anyone who attempts to breach our borders will be turned back or sent to Nauru.”

    Another nasty proviso is also applicable.  Those refugees resettled in New Zealand will be looked at as a special category should they wish to enter Australia.  According to the Australian Department of Home Affairs, they will be allowed “to apply for visas to enter Australia on a short-term or temporary stay basis only”. This would also apply even after the grant of New Zealand citizenship.

    Government acceptance of this plan was only reached after what were described as “bullish” and “intimidating” negotiations between Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and non-government parliamentarians in 2019.  Independent Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie even claims that she was threatened with jail were she to reveal any details of the plan.  “So, for the sake of humanity, I had no other choice but to shut up anyway to make sure that job was done.”

    Lambie’s sense of humanity should not be exaggerated.  Negotiations with the government centred on securing her support for the repeal of laws permitting the evacuation of gravely ill refugees to the Australian mainland for medical treatment.  Compassion for refugees tends to be in short supply in the nation’s capital.

    The opposition Labor Party, hardly a shining light in the refugee debates, have tried to make hay from the Morrison government’s change of heart.  “This is an absolutely humiliating backflip,” cheered Shadow Assistant Minister for Immigration, Andrew Giles.  “It should not have taken nine years and that is the other big thought in my mind, the cost to those individual lives and the cost to all of us in this pointless, cruel intransigence by Mr Morrison.”

    While Australian Labor mocked, New Zealand Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi was self-congratulatory and business-like of his country’s record.  “New Zealand has a long and proud history of refugee resettlement and this arrangement is another example of how we are fulfilling our humanitarian international commitment.”  In marketing speak, Faafoi expressed his pleasure that NZ could “provide resettlement outcomes for refugees who would otherwise have continued to face uncertain futures.”

    While 450 refugees will find safety and sanctuary in New Zealand, that does little for 500 others.  The beastly, cruel system remains in place, and promises to cost AU$2 billion next year.  If anything, this revived agreement shows how far countries have pitifully fallen in their responsibilities in providing safety for the vulnerable and damaged.

    The post A Nine-Year Obscenity: The Australia-NZ Resettlement Deal first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Hewn in to human rights legislation borne of fascism’s decline in the mid twentieth century is a pool of glorious protections of civil liberties and press freedoms. It is deep, but it is not entirely immune from attack. Political opportunists undermine it in regular waves, repressing dissidence in their states and satellite states, even and especially in the West. Victims pile up, the criminalisation of journalism gathering steam, the propaganda to justify this awful retrenchment of civil liberties rising in the background. This is fascism resurgent.

    Glasnost translates to ‘transparency’, and it was assumed to be a core value of western government when Gorbachev’s administration began to dismantle socialism in Russia in the 1990s. The liberal democratic system prevalent in the world today is in theory buoyed by open, transparent government, and in every area where it is practised as the predominant form of government, gives rise to the rule of civil liberties said to be inalienable, universal, and non-negotiable. Being as old as democracy itself, they’re deeply rooted in history, representing progress and democratic status. Insofar as it remains worth defending, there remains no better way to adhere to “civilised” culture than to defend civil liberty and constitutional freedoms. While it may be a world away from the current zeitgeist among western leaders for criminalising dissent, journalism, and whistleblowing, reaching its zenith in the prosecution of Julian Assange, it’s nonetheless only a few fights away from restoration.

    All around the world are corrupt governments torturing and oppressing citizens critical of the regimes that rule, not serve, them. True to Orientalist stereotypes, this type of place is reflexively assumed by the privileged commentariat to be an anomaly, in some remote region of the East, where the rule of law is alien and everybody’s neighbour knows someone in the gulag. Taking the American tradition of world policing to new heights, however, the most advanced superpower in the advanced industrial west will supply everything you could want if you were seeking examples of archetypal tyranny, and its satellites are all too happy to turn this practice from an isolated infraction to standard, common practice. Being emboldened in power, the US jurisdiction, and those under its spell, practice extraterritorial prosecutions, extraordinary renditions, in which foreign citizens are either extradited to the empire state for trial and punishment bordering on and oft crossing the rubicon into illegal torture, or have it enforced upon them in US bases overseas.

    Unluckily, the CIA oversee these cases and will bend over backwards to accommodate torture, and to offend the constitution. Set in the context of the Patriot Act (an unconstitutional abomination of law rafted through congress during the hysteria after 9/11) they have unlimited powers to break non-refoulement law in the human rights convention. The principle of non-refoulement forms the crux of many internationally binding contracts in which signatory states agree to uphold and abide by the practice of not forcing refugees or asylum seekers to return to a country in which they are liable to be subjected to persecution.

    Despite power’s collective disgrace of the law by breaking the principles enshrined in non-refoulement law, missing the irony, the Tory government has said the arrest of Julian Assange is just and serves to show he is not above the law. Likewise the official line from Ecuador that Assange’s work constitutes “cyber-terrorism.” Such talk from the government evidences not the culpability of Assange for any crime, but precisely the establishment’s desire to invert the real narrative: ironically, Assange has been arrested for exposing corruption that posits powerful organisations and politicians above the law, and for so doing he is now deemed beneath justice.

    Assange had previously said it was not the prospect of answering to British or Swedish justice that worried him and put forward a robust case for the proximity of a British or Swedish trial to a US extradition during the debate about the moral ambiguity of his self-imposed exile, in which he credibly suggested he feared a kangaroo court in the US which would punish him to life, or gruesome death, for abiding by first amendment ethics, a claim that many thought was paranoid but has been vindicated.

    Like all young people looking out to the world today, I am acutely conscious we are growing up in a times of extreme volatility and complex global politics marred by violence, war and corruption, one yet borne aloft by revolutionary dreams of a better world that have come to fruition in hopeful global rebellions, which I cheered on as a socially conscientious teenager.

    Perhaps the defining note of optimism for me is that I am emboldened by hope in the face of an insurgency of brave truth telling, of righteous civil disobedience against corrupt and ossified power, but at once, the defining note of pessimism for me is that I am equally as worried by the way insurgent bearers of truth are being treated like mice in the maze of a Goliath American state, one that treats the whole world order as if it were its sole domain, its entire extraterritorial jurisdiction, a caliphate, whose subjects are treated with increasingly wanton whim at the behest of the senate, military and intelligence agencies in the empire state.

    Notorious names — Schwartz, Assange, Lauri, Manning, Winner — correspond to notorious cases. While the case specifics encompass a varied range of actions and activities associated with subversion of US imperial strategy, they encompass and are united by concerted efforts to subvert imperial activism of the US state decidedly through electronic means — whistle blowing, data dumping, hacking — activity which, rendered through the realpolitik filter with which hawk politicians have been conditioned in the corridors of Yale and The Pentagon, is tantamount to treason. Thinking logically it is obvious treason is an untenable accusation against those who — with the exception of Manning, Schwartz, Winner — have never been American citizens. Indeed such charges sullying the names of these renegades seems designed to inculcate fear and obedience to American objectives not just within but beyond domestic spheres of influence. Silencing dissent, then, can be seen as core imperial strategy, and one with terrifying, unprecedented extraterritorial reach.

    Hard working, principled journalists — who’d be legends and treasures in a long lost era of good press ethics in society — and their sources are paying a high price out of their human rights under the aegis of a craven new age of US imperialism. Most modern states bar the integration of legitimate journalistic activity with the penal code, like those currently being deployed to get Julian Assange. But in the data age, with less developed laws around the link between technology and sources, criminalisation is being embraced, or at least is being seized upon in the moment before laws and regulation are clarified and tightened up to get Assange.

    But it stinks. For one evidence cited in attempts to justify his arrest and pursuit under the law are at best dubious, at worst slanderous. Moreover in a zeitgeist defined by Brexit negotiations steeped deep in the rhetoric of protecting parliamentary sovereignty it ought to worry us British courts are willing to yield to the whims of US courts who are willing to put Assange away for life, or kill him, for the crime of doing journalism.

    It’s time that the establishment drops pretences and stops using the phrase “no man is above the law” as if the mantra is still meaningful. Either justice is a right or its not. For so many, conspicuously all in the business of exposing corruption, they don’t get it. It’s time to reform society’s treatment of whistleblowers and remove all legal obstructions to their freedoms.

    In theory, we are equal under the law. In practice, some are beneath justice. Equality under the law — from which the maxim “no one above the law” — is a bastion of liberal democracy. It is oft cited in defence of the moral superiority of the western way of life over other systems that have preceded it or stand in opposition. A fair legal system is seen to be the sign of an ethically mature democracy. Yet it is precisely because the law is administered to prosecute whistleblowers on elite crimes and reward elite corruption that this truism about our equivalence in the contemporary justice system is an anachronism with a diluted meaning. In war, justice is always the biggest casualty.

    The post Julian Assange is Not above the Law, but He Shouldn’t be Beneath Justice first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Rights group’s annual report accuses Britain of setting ‘worrying reverse course’ in bills on refugees, policing, protest and welfare

    The government’s attack on fundamental rights and protections enshrined in UK law is an “act of human rights vandalism” that would curtail the ability of people to hold the state to account, Amnesty International has claimed.

    In its annual report on the state of human rights across the world, Amnesty strongly criticised the British government for its attempts to dismantle the Human Rights Act and a battery of new “draconian” legislation on refugees and policing.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Russia’s invasion of Ukraine prompted an exodus of nearly 4 million people and an outpouring of support for many of the refugees. But a new report finds dozens of nonwhite people who fled Ukraine are being held in long-term detention centers in Poland and Estonia. We speak with Maud Jullien, investigations editor at Lighthouse Reports, which just published a series of reports in collaboration with The Independent, Der Spiegel, Radio France and others on the detention of African students fleeing Ukraine. She describes how the European Union’s temporary protection directive sets a double standard by permitting the safe entry of Ukrainian citizens into neighboring countries while withholding protection to third-party nationals escaping the same conflict.

    Please check back later for full transcript.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Having pointed to football clubs’ bad behaviour on several occasions [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/03/25/premier-league-football-and-human-rights-continuing-saga/], it is fair to point out good examples: UNHCR, along with its National Association in Spain, Spain for UNHCR, announced 24 March 2022 a new partnership with FC Barcelona and the FC Barcelona Foundation.

    The partnership will span the next four years. From next season, the UNHCR logo will appear on the back of the iconic FC Barcelona jerseys worn by the men’s and women’s first team and the Barça Genuine Foundation team, below each player’s number, with the aim of raising awareness of the plight of refugees and forcibly displaced people around the world.

    In addition, the Foundation will make a cash contribution of €400,000 per football season towards four UNHCR projects on four continents (€100,000 per project), plus a separate donation (valued by the club at €100,000 per season) of FC Barcelona sports equipment, as well as the technical expertise of the FC Barcelona Foundation’s sports specialists.

    The president of FC Barcelona, Joan Laporta, has stressed the club’s desire to respond to the growing number and complexity of refugee crises. UNHCR has been increasing its focus on the power of sport to help forcibly displaced people – and local communities that host them – to rebuild their lives.

    FC Barcelona, through its Foundation, has collaborated with UNHCR since 2009 in various initiatives and programmes for people forced to flee. The Foundation has developed several of its own programmes in refugee settlements in Greece and Lebanon, and for unaccompanied children in Italy and Spain. In 2019, the FC Barcelona Foundation joined the Sport for Refugees Coalition, which was set up at UNHCR’s Global Refugee Forum, where it pledged to increase availability and access to organized sports and sport-based initiatives for refugee and hosting communities.

    https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2022/3/623c47ef4/fc-barcelona-unhcr-unite-forcibly-displaced-children-worldwide.html

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • As the war in Ukraine enters its fourth week, EU authorities are increasingly revealing their double standards in how they treat refugees. European countries have welcomed white Ukrainian refugees, quickly integrating them into the labor market and schools. Meanwhile, Black and Brown refugees from the Global South continue to experience Europe’s racist border regime.

    The post Eat NATO For Breakfast: Abolish Frontex And Demilitarize Europe’s Borders appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Poland’s populist government has been under pressure over rights and democracy. Now it feels it has the moral high ground

    Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was a pivotal moment for Poland: proof positive it had been right about Russia all along, and the start of an immense national humanitarian effort. For its government, it is also an opportunity to score some points in Brussels.

    Poland has “never had such an excellent brand, all over the world”, its prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, declared last week. It is “in the right position in international politics”, he said, no longer behind a “wall of unfair isolation”. The US president, Joe Biden, is due to visit the country on Friday.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.