Category: refugees

  • When it comes to the tawdry, hideous business of politicising the right to asylum, and the refugees who arise from it, no country does it better than Australia.  A country proud of being a pioneer in women’s rights, the secret ballot, good pay conditions and tatty hardware (the Hills Hoist remains a famous suburban monstrosity) has also been responsible for jettisoning key principles of international law.

    When it comes to policy Down Under, the United Nations Refugee Convention is barely worth a mention.  Politicians are proudly ignorant of it; the courts pay lip service to the idea while preferring rigid domestic interpretations of the Migration Act; and the United Nations is simply that foreign body which makes an occasional noise about such nasties as indefinite detention.

    It should therefore have come as no surprise that, in the dying days of the Morrison government, another chance to stir the electorate by demonising refugees arose – somewhat conveniently.  As voters were, quite literally, heading to the polls, the commander of the Joint Agency Task Force Operation Sovereign Borders, Rear Admiral Justin Jones, revealed that a vessel had “been intercepted in a likely attempt to illegally enter Australia from Sri Lanka.”

    The Rear Admiral’s statement insisted that Australian policy on such arrivals had not changed.  “We will intercept any vessel seeking to reach Australia illegally and to safely return those on board to their point of departure or country of origin.” Shallow formalities are observed: the implausible observance of international laws, consideration of safety of all those involved “including potential illegal immigrants”.  Nothing else is deemed worthy of mention.  “In line with long standing practice, we will make no further comment.”

    With only a few more hours left being Australia’s most jingoistic Defence Minister in a generation, Peter Dutton tweeted a warning, referring to the statement from Jones: “Don’t risk Australia’s national security with Labor.”  In another comment, Dutton decided to peer into the minds of those aiding the asylum process.  “People smugglers have obviously decided who is going to win the election and the boats have already started.”

    The Minister for Home Affairs, Karen Andrews, was also mining the message for its demagogic potential, raising the spectre of emboldened people smugglers.  They, she squeaked, “are targeting Australia.”  The “people smuggling vessel” had been intercepted “off Christmas Island.”

    Andrews might as well have been using the same language to condemn drug traffickers and their commodities which, in terms of analogy, Australian politicians have implicitly done for decades. But for the occasion, the obvious target was the opposition vying for government.  “Labor’s flip flopping on border protection risks our border security.  You can’t trust them.”

    The Liberal Party’s electioneering machinery picked up on the Sri Lankan connection, bombarding voters in marginal seats with text messages about this newfound discovery.  “Keep our borders secure by voting Liberal today,” came the prompt.  As things transpired, the entire operation, from Cabinet to the distribution of phone messages, had the full approval of Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

    Revealing the existence of ships moving on mysteriously convenient schedules (another, according to the Saturday Newspaper, was also intercepted by Sri Lankan authorities) raised two burning questions.  The first goes to the troubling relationship with Sri Lanka, which the Australian government had gone some ways to promoting as a safeguard against asylum seekers.  Canberra has tended to skirt over issues of human rights, not least those associated with that country’s long civil war.  In fact, Australian officials have done their best to encourage Colombo to prevent individuals leaving Sri Lanka with a view of heading to Australia by boat.  In 2013, 2014 and 2017, Bay-class naval vessels were gifted to the Sri Lankan Navy to aid the interception of smuggling operations.

    During his time in office, Dutton has made more than the odd trip to Colombo.  In May 2015, he made a visit as then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to discuss “continued cooperation regarding people smuggling and to further strengthen ties between our two countries.”  He duly rubbished people smugglers – they had been “cowardly and malicious” for aiding individuals to pursue their right to asylum – and praised the success of Operation Sovereign Borders.  “Since we started turning back boats there have been no known deaths at sea.”

    In June 2019, he paid another visit to shore up the commitment.  It was prompted by a report that a vessel carrying 20 Sri Lankan asylum seekers had been intercepted off Australia’s north-west coast, with the possibility of six others on route.  Then, as now, Dutton could only blame his Labor opponents for somehow encouraging such journeys while reiterating the standard, draconian line.  “People are not coming here [to Australia] by boat and regardless of what people smugglers tell you, the Morrison government, under the Prime Minister and myself, will not allow those people to arrive by boat.”

    The second question goes to the supposed success of Operation Sovereign Borders.  This military grade, secretive policy had supposedly “stopped the boats” and remains a favourite Coalition mantra.  But why reveal a chink in the armour, a breach in the fortress unless it was manufactured with the aid of the Sri Lankan authorities or a failure to being with?  As comedian and political commentator Dan Ilic observed in a pointed remark to Dutton: “This happened on your watch dude.”  The Sri Lankan revelation demonstrated, when it comes to such matters, mendacity oils the machine of border protection.

    No side in Australian politics has been able to avoid politicising the issue of refugee and asylum arrivals via boat.  The moment Australia’s Labor government made the arrival of individuals without formal authorisation a breach of law warranting mandatory detention, the issue became a political matter.  It took the Liberal National Coalition led by Prime Minister John Howard to turn the issue into a form of feral, gonzo politics.

    That form remains unforgettably marked by the use of SAS personnel against 400 individuals, rescued at sea by the Norwegian vessel, the MV Tampa, in August 2001.  In defiance of maritime conventions and in blatant disregard for human safety, the Howard government held the asylum seekers at sea off Christmas Island for almost ten days.  Those on the vessel were accused of piracy and economic opportunism.  From this barbarism issued the Pacific Solution, a tropical concentration camp system which has had a few iterations since.

    Governments, both Coalition and Labor, have drawn political capital from harsh policies against unwanted naval arrivals, smearing the merits of asylum and ignoring the obligations of international refugee law.  The new Albanese government has the chance, however unlikely it is to pursue it, to extract the political and replace it with the humanitarian.

    The post Election Gambit: Australia, Sri Lanka and Politicising Asylum first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In a moving series of interviews with those fleeing persecution, the authors expose the appalling conditions in Greek refugee camps

    In this timely book, Helen Benedict, a British-American professor, and Eyad Awwadawnan, a Syrian writer and refugee, expose the appalling conditions of the overcrowded Greek camps where desperate people fleeing war, persecution, poverty and violence are confined and denied their legal rights under the watch of the west.

    As a consequence of the 2016 deal the EU made with Turkey, Greece has become “a trap” for those detained in camps while they wait to be granted refugee status or returned to Turkey, which many consider unsafe. Since 2020, thousands have been left in limbo in a country that does not want them and cannot accommodate them.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Posted on streetlamps all over Germany are stickers showing fleeing silhouettes with the caption, “Refugees welcome – bring your families”. Some have been blacked out with felt markers or ripped partially away. The Germans have mixed feelings about refugees, as demonstrated in the earlier waves from the Mideast and the current one from the Ukraine.

    Germany took in over two million refugees from the Mideast wars, far more than any other country. The equivalent for the US population would be eight million.

    This has created an enormous financial and cultural strain in a country that historically has had little immigration. It comes at a time when poverty is increasing and social services are being reduced. The once-generous welfare state is gradually being dismantled. This financial squeeze is worsening now because of expenses for the refugees. The two million newcomers receive enough money to live on plus free healthcare, education, and access to special programs. Some cheat on this, registering in several places under different names and getting multiple benefits. Many Germans resent paying for all this with high taxes while their own standard of living is declining.

    The trauma of war and displacement has caused a few refugees to lose their moral compass. They do things here they wouldn’t do at home.

    Two-thirds of the refugees are young men, some of them convinced Allah has ordained males to dominate females. In their view, women who aren’t submissive need to be punished. Since being male is the only power many of them have, they feel threatened by women in positions of power, and they sometimes react with hostility. Over a thousand women have been physically attacked — some murdered and raped and many aggressively grabbed on the breasts as a way of showing dominance. Many more have been abused — insulted, harassed, spat upon.

    Many refugees are aware that Germany, as a member of NATO, supports these wars that have forced them to flee their homes. They’re not fooled by the rhetoric of “humanitarian intervention.” They know NATO’s motives are imperialistic: to install governments agreeable to Western control of their resources and markets. Although they are now safe, their relatives and friends are still being killed with weapons made in Germany and oppressed by soldiers and police trained and financed by Germany. Rather than a grateful attitude, some have come with a resentful one.

    Crime has increased, especially violent crimes such as knife attacks. Police and others have been killed and wounded by refugees. Organized criminal clans have become established in Germany’s lenient legal atmosphere. A few ISIS and al-Qaeda members slipped in with the refugees. They have bombed a Christmas market, attacked synagogues, murdered Jews on the street, recruited new members in mosques.

    In the past 75 years Germany has become a peaceful country. The current violence is profoundly disturbing to them. It brings back terrible memories.

    The violent refugees, though, are only a small minority. Most of the newcomers have a positive attitude. They are getting a fresh start in life, recovering from trauma, getting an education, learning new skills. They’ve been introduced to other cultural possibilities.

    Women in particular are responding favorably to this new environment. Seeing how women here live, some of them are beginning to free themselves from patriarchal bondage. With help from German feminists they are developing the energy and determination to challenge male rule and change the conditions of their lives. And they’ll inspire their sisters back home.

    The situation with the Ukrainian refugees is much different. The cultures are similar, so there’s less clash. The war hasn’t been going on for long, so there are few of them and problems have not yet developed. They are being celebrated as brave heroes standing up to an aggressive Russia intent on dominating Europe. Anti-Russian feelings have been strong in Germany for two centuries, so this propaganda finds ready acceptance. During the Cold War the German government beamed out the constant danger of Russian attack in order to justify the presence of US troops and nuclear weapons on their soil. Now they condemn Putin as the new Hitler. Atrocity stories of Russian troops get enormous coverage, those of Ukrainian troops against separatists in Donbass are ignored. Every small Ukrainian victory is cheered with blood-thirsty enthusiasm. Welcoming these refugees is part of the strategy for maintaining NATO dominance.

    But, of course, it is important to take them in, to shelter them from this latest capitalist butchery. Like the Arabs, most of them are fine people, and many will stay and contribute to the society in their new home.

    Germany still has anti-foreign, anti-Semitic, right-wing extremists, but since World War Two the West German government has systematically pushed them out of public life. Unfortunately that wasn’t true in East Germany. There the Stalinist regime ignored the problem, as did Stalinist governments in the eastern European countries. They didn’t want to risk provoking uprisings against their dictatorships. In the former East Germany, which is much smaller than the West, right-wing extremists are a small minority, but a hateful, well-organized, and sometimes violent one. In eastern Europe they are much stronger, sometimes the most powerful political force.

    The establishment press in the USA, Britain, and France jump at every opportunity to exaggerate right-wing incidents in Germany in order to divert attention from problems in their own country. The right wing in the USA is much more powerful and dangerous than that in Germany. That’s why our resistance to it is so important.

     

    The post Report from Germany: Refugees Welcome … Sometimes first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • People fleeing Afghanistan made up almost a quarter of the migrants crossing the Channel in the first three months of the year.

    Out of 4,540 people detected arriving by small boats between January and March 2022, some 24% (1,094) were Afghan nationals, according to Home Office figures.

    This was the most out of any nationality recorded, followed by 16% who were Iranian (722) and 15% (681) Iraqi – which both typically outrank Afghans in the numbers.

    Taliban takeover

    The rise has prompted concerns from campaigners that the Government’s resettlement scheme in the wake of the Taliban takeover is failing and raised questions over whether Afghans could be at risk of being deported to Rwanda because they could be deemed to have arrived in the UK illegally under new immigration rules.

    Average number of arrivals per small boat crossing the English Channel
    (PA Graphics)

    It comes as separate figures showed the number of asylum claims made in the UK has climbed to its highest in nearly two decades, while the backlog of cases waiting to be determined continues to soar.

    Dangerous routes

    Marley Morris, from think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), said:

    Today’s migration stats show a shocking rise in the number of Afghans arriving in the UK on small boats. The government has said it is giving Afghans a ‘warm welcome’, but these figures reveal that many have felt they have been left with no option but to take this dangerous route to make it to the UK.

    Morris also added:

    Now the government’s new plans in response to the Channel crossings could mean that Afghan asylum seekers will be sent to Rwanda. This would be an unimaginably awful outcome for people who have already faced such great hardship.

    Contrary to the government’s claims, there are few safe routes for people forced into small boats to make it to the UK.

    Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said:

    The sharp increase in the numbers of people fleeing Taliban atrocities in Afghanistan, having no choice but to make desperate journeys over the Channel to find safety here in the UK, is concerning but unsurprising.

    This increase is the inevitable consequence of the restrictive nature of the Afghanistan resettlement schemes, for which the vast majority of Afghans are simply ineligible.

    Solomon continued:

    The government must honour the promises they made to the people of Afghanistan by immediately ensuring the most vulnerable people in the country are able to access a safe route to the UK, so they are not forced to risk their lives in order to find safety here.

    Dr Peter William Walsh, senior researcher at the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford said:

    The arrival of Afghans in small boats on the UK coast indicates that many more wish to find protection here than are able to do so under the UK government’s existing schemes.

    Questions remain

    The Government pledged to resettle 20,000 refugees, with as many as 5,000 in the first year under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS).

    It relocated the first people on January 6 2022 once the scheme opened some six months after the Taliban took over the country’s capital Kabul in August. But questions remain over its progress to date.

    Meanwhile, an estimated 7,000 people have been relocated under the existing Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) which launched in April last year and offers priority relocation to the UK for current or former locally employed staff who had been assessed to be under serious threat to life.

    The official Government figures on Channel crossings also show most of the people who made the crossing (89%) were male, the same as the average between 2018 and 2021.

    Some 3,448 men were recorded to have made the journey in the three-month period, as well as 342 women and 743 children, of which 594 were boys and 142 were girls, with seven recorded as unknown.

    But information on age, gender and nationality was not available for some arrivals.

    The average number of migrants on board each boat crossing the Channel almost doubled in the first three months of this year compared to the same period in 2021, up from 18 to 32.

    Crossings took place on 30 out of the 90 days.

    Some 9,330 migrants have reached the UK after navigating busy shipping lanes from France in small boats such as dinghies since the start of 2022, according to analysis of Government data by the PA news agency.

    A total of 28,526 people made the crossing in 2021, compared with 8,466 in 2020, 1,843 in 2019 and 299 in 2018, according to official figures.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Federico Soda said there needed to be ‘more condemnation’ of the conditions in state-run detention centres in Libya

    Europe has been accused by a senior international official of acquiescence in the plight of thousands of migrants in Libya held in arbitrary detention in “deplorable conditions”.

    Federico Soda, chief of mission at the International Organisation for Migration’s mission in Libya, said not enough was being done by outside actors to try to change the war-torn country’s “environment of arbitrary detention and deplorable conditions” for migrants.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Fawzia Amini advocates for rights of Afghan women and girls from London hotel room she’s been stuck in for nine months

    One of Afghanistan’s top female judges has been honoured with an international human rights award while she continues her work to advocate for her country’s women and girls from a London hotel.

    Fawzia Amini, 48, fled Afghanistan last summer after the Taliban takeover of the country. She had been one of Afghanistan’s leading female judges, former head of the legal department at the Ministry of Women, senior judge in the supreme court, and head of the violence against women court.

    Continue reading…

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

  • On 14/04/2022, the Home Secretary Priti Patel announced a new initiative to combat the incorrectly named ‘illegal’ crossings in the English Channel: those that cross the Channel seeking to claim asylum will be removed from the UK and placed in Rwanda, where they will then have the chance to claim asylum. During the announcement speech, Johnson referred to the November 2021 tragedy, where 27 people lost their lives crossing the Channel, in order to promote and rationalise this new policy. This is not the first-time fatalities in the Channel have been used to justify cruel and inhumane policies. Over the last decade, Channel crossings have been weaponised, used to push a political agenda that advocates for a harsher and more restrictive immigration system. Across government and the general public, we have witnessed a growing appetite to default on the moral and legal obligations we have towards those fleeing war, persecution and destruction. Successive governments have created policies (like the Rwanda initiative) to deter refugees and contain them in the Global South, thereby denying refugees their human right to claim asylum.

    In this immoral crusade against our obligations to refugees, the Johnson government’s most prominent strike is the extremely controversial Nationality and Borders Bill. Amnesty International has shown explicit concern about this bill, drawing attention to the following provisions (Amnesty International, 2022):

    • It would penalise and criminalise asylum seekers depending on the way they arrive in the UK. (e.g., crossing the Channel)
    • It would give government the power to strip people’s British citizenship without notice.

     

    This bill has been widely condemned for its likelihood to violate human rights, international and domestic law. Despite the already problematic nature of this Bill, the November 2021 tragedy was used by several Conservative MPs to not only advocate for further-reaching provisions to be added, but also to attack human rights (Riley-Smith, 2021). Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh said that “We have to be tough. We have to face down the human rights lawyers. If governments are weak, people die.” (Riley-Smith, 2021).

    Leigh’s statement reflects a sentiment select Conservative MPs have expressed. They argued that if the UK forcefully repels refugees and continues to perpetuate the hostile environment created by then-Home Secretary Theresa May, less people would try to cross the Channel. Subsequently, fatalities would fall. However, the refugee’s human rights prevent them from doing this. Effectively, these MPs have argued that if the government continues to respect the human rights of refugees and their legitimate claims to asylum, we are actively perpetuating dangerous and fatal Channel crossings.

    This rhetoric displayed by these MPs leads us away from a universal understanding of rights to an exclusionary position where they can be given and taken in pursuit of political goals. Here, these Conservative MPs are advocating for an exclusionary interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where Article 14 can be suspended for some in order to ‘stop’ Channel crossings. This interpretation of human rights is not isolated to the issue of the refugees. In their 2021/22 International Report, Amnesty International has warned that several pieces of the government’s proposed legislation have the potential to erode human rights for all of us here in the UK (Amnesty International, 2022, pg.388-389). In addition to the Nationalities and Borders Bill, Amnesty mentions the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill (PCSB) and proposed changes to the Human Rights Act (HRA) (Amnesty International, 2022, pg.388-389). Within these Bills, Amnesty highlights two potential breaches to human rights law: (1) the PCSB’s threat to our Freedom of Assembly and ability to protest and (2) how the proposed changes to the HRA would make it harder for UK citizens to make Human Rights claims, diminishing the UK’s accountability (Amnesty International, 2022, pg.388-389).

    These potential breaches of human rights law alone have grave consequences for all UK citizens. The Johnson government want to silence those who wish to challenge the government by restricting our right to protest. They want to restrict our ability to make human rights claims to supernational bodies (e.g., Council of Europe) when we have exhausted domestic means. This diminishes the UK’s accountability to the international community, an analysis shared by Amnesty UK’s campaign manager, Laura Trevelyan. Trevelyan stated that the proposed changes to the HRA are an attempt to take away the power of the general public, to suffocate their ability to challenge the government and the decisions they make (Badshah, 2022).

    By advocating for this exclusionary and restrictive interpretation of human rights, we demote these rights to mere privileges that can be taken and given at the will of governments (Bhambra, 2017, pg.404). Human rights were based upon the model of natural rights where they are derived from our shared humanity (Donnelly, 1982, pg.391). This interpretation adopted by Johnson’s government contradicts the very nature of human rights. This is why human rights must exist outside the law and remain inalienable: to ensure their universal enjoyment without the threat of governments or states. Without these protections, we will see oppression flourish, leaving some without the basic rights that enable them to live full, human lives.

    But alas, the government has landed a devastating blow. Since I started writing this article, the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill have now been passed. These bills will severely restrict everybody’s access to certain freedoms and rights. We face this threat universally because the erosion of human rights anywhere in society will affect us all. Regardless of where one stands politically, giving governments legislative power to restrict access to certain rights is an extremely dangerous precedent. One that promoted the creation of human rights. These bills have no place in a healthy democracy.

    But it is not too late. We must continue to push against this exclusionary and restrictive vision for human rights. We must challenge the government and show that we will not accept privileges, only rights. We must be guaranteed that no piece of UK legislation will ever be used to infringe on our human rights. We are entitled to these rights, as human beings, regardless of whether we are UK citizens or refuges. We have to all speak out. We have to transcend their attempts to divide us. We have to be united.

    That is my plea: let us speak out together in order to protect our freedoms and human rights. Because if we shout loud enough, they will have to listen.

     

    Bibliography

    Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2021/22: The State of the World’s Human Rights, Amnesty International Ltd, 2022

    Badshah, Nadeem, ‘Amnesty hits out at Tory plans to replace Human Rights Act with bill of rights’, The Guardian, Guardian News & Media Limited, 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/27/amnesty-hits-out-at-tory-plans-to-replace-human-rights-act-with-bill-of-rights

    Bhambra, Gurminder K., ‘The current crisis of Europe: Refugees, colonialism, and the limits of cosmopolitanism’, European Law Journal, Vol.23, No.5 (2017), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pg.395-405

    Donnelly, Jack, ‘Human Rights as Natural Rights’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.4, No.3 (1982), John Hopkins University Press, pg.391-405

    Riley-Smith, Ben, ‘Scrap the Human Rights Act or more people will die in the Channel, warn Tory MPs’, The Telegraph, 2021, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/25/scrap-human-rights-act-people-will-die-channel-warn-tory-mps/

  • The occasions when an activist, writer or commentator triumph over defamation lawsuits launched by a thin-skinned politician are rare in Australia.  When it comes to matters regarding the law of reputation, Australia remains a place where parliamentarians, as a species, thrive in the knowledge they can use favourable provisions to protect their hurt feelings and soiled reputations.

    The country, in also lacking a bill of rights protecting free speech and the press, has further emboldened politicians.  At best, the Australian High Court has only left an anaemic implied right “to protect freedom of communication on political subjects”, which should really be read as a restraint on executive and legislative power, never to be personally exercised.

    Defence Minister Peter Dutton, ever the nasty enforcer of the Morrison government, was one who had every reason to feel confident when he took refugee activist Shane Bazzi to court in April last year.  In February 2021, Bazzi published a six-word tweet: “Peter Dutton is a rape apologist.”

    The tweet was made some hours after Dutton had told a press conference that he had not been furnished with the finer details of a rape allegation made by former Coalition staffer Britney Higgins.  The context here was also important.  Dutton had, when Home Affairs Minister, characterised refugee women being held on Nauru, one of Australia’s carceral domains, as “trying it on” to get access to the Australian mainland for medical treatment.

    The following month, this sadist-in-chief promised that he would start to “pick out some” individuals who were “trending on Twitter or have the anonymity of different Twitter accounts” posting “all these statements and tweets that are frankly defamatory.” It was an informal declaration of war against critics.

    In instigating proceedings against Bazzi, Dutton claimed in the trial that he was “deeply offended” by the contents of the tweet.  He accepted that, “As a minister for immigration or home affairs … people make comments that are false or untrue, offensive, profane, but that’s part of the rough and tumble.”  But Bazzi had gone one step too far.   “It was somebody that held himself out as an authority or a journalist.”  His remarks “went beyond” the tolerably bruising nature of politics. “And it went against who I am, my beliefs … I thought it was hurtful.”

    In finding for Dutton in November and awarding $35,000 in damages, Justice Richard White ruled that the tweet had been defamatory, and that Bazzi could not resort to the defence of honest opinion.  Dutton failed to gain damages in three of the four imputations, while also troubling the judge with his hunger in pursuing the defendant for the full legal bill.  But in his remarks on Bazzi’s claim of honest opinion, White was dismissive.  “Bazzi may have used the word ‘apologist’ without an understanding of the meaning he was, in fact conveying.”  If this had been the case, “it would follow that he did not hold the opinion actually conveyed by the words.”

    On May 17, Bazzi found that he had convinced the Full Court of the Federal Court that the reasoning behind the six-word tweet, and the purportedly defamatory imputations it conveyed, was flawed.  Justices Steven Rares and Darryl Rangiah, in a joint judgment, found that Justice White had erred in not explaining “how the reader would understand the whole (or any part) of the tweet to convey the imputation.”  They also noted that Justice White had found the meaning of the word “apologist” was not that of an excuser but of a defender.  “When the material is read with Mr Bazzi’s six words, the reader would conclude that the tweet was suggesting that Mr Dutton was sceptical about claims of rape and in that way was an apologist.”  It was “very different from imputing that he excuses rape itself.”

    The judges put much stock in the context of the tweet, and the need to read it alongside Dutton’s previous remarks on the women held on Nauru as recorded in The Guardian.  “The reader would perceive that the message in the tweet consisted of both parts, Mr Bazzi’s six word statement and The Guardian material, read together.”  When read together, the reader “would understand that the point that the tweet was conveying was that a ‘rape apologist’ behaves in the way Mr Dutton had in expressing scepticism about the claims of rape.  That is a far cry from conveying the meaning that he excuses rape itself.”

    Justice Michael Wigney also found that the primary judge had erred in finding the tweet defamatory and “substantially agreed” with the two other justices.  It was “tolerably clear” that Bazzi’s statement “was about, or responsive to, the extract from The Guardian article.”  The primary judge had erred in how the ordinary reasonable Twitter user would have read the tweet, downplaying, for instance, the significance of the link to the article.

    Accordingly, “It was wrong for the primary judge, in analysing whether Mr Bazzi’s tweet conveyed the alleged imputation, to dissect and segregate the tweet in the way he did.”  While the tweet did convey “an impression that is derogatory and critical of [Dutton’s] attitude to rape or rape allegations,” it did “not go so far as to convey the impression that [Dutton] is a person who excuses rape”.

    Dutton’s litigious boldness was much in keeping with the Morrison government’s general hostility to social media outlets and the internet, in general.  Prime Minister Scott Morrison has shown a willingness to do battle with social media and making the platforms assume greater responsibility for material hosted on their sites.  Taking advantage of the killings in Christchurch in March 2019, he exploited the chance to pursue a global agenda of online censorship.  “We urge online platforms to step up the ambition and pace of their efforts to prevent terrorist and VECT (violent extremism conducive to terrorism) content being streamed, uploaded, or re-uploaded.”

    In the latter part of last year, the government announced that it was drafting laws that would make social media companies gather user details and permit courts to force the divulging of user identities in defamation proceedings.  While a re-elected Morrison government will be a dark day for internet freedoms and expression, Dutton’s defeat is a cause for genuine celebration.  It also heralds the need to water down the persistently draconian nature of laws that do all too much in protecting that strange animal known as the offended politician.

    The post Peter Dutton’s Defamation Defeat first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • 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.