Category: refugees

  • It was a “serious error of judgment” to think that military barracks could be suitable to house refugees and asylum seekers, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration (ICIBI) has said.

    And cross-party members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Immigration Detention have written to home secretary Priti Patel. They’ve said they “entirely agree” with the concerns of ICIBI David Bolt, whom they met in March.

    “Utterly unacceptable”

    The MPs branded the conditions at Napier Barracks in Kent and Penally Camp in Wales as “utterly unacceptable”. Almost 200 people in the Penally Camp tested positive for coronavirus (Covid-19) during an outbreak in January and February.

    Both sites have housed hundreds of refugees since September. This despite Public Health England warning the Home Office that it was unsuitable.

    Migrant camp at Penally
    Penally Camp in Wales (ICIBI/HMIP)

    The letter, signed by 21 MPs, states:

    We do not believe such sites provide the safe, stable accommodation that people seeking asylum – man, trafficking and other serious trauma –  need in order to recover and rebuild their lives.

    The ICIBI and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) inspected conditions at the barracks. Their report has laid bare the extent of the concerns raised.

    In their letter, the MPs condemn the conditions as “utterly unacceptable”. And they say the report highlights “serious failings on the part of the Home Office in terms of leadership, planning and accountability”.

    Conditions

    Key problems included the ineffective safeguarding of residents. These may include children, vulnerable people and those with mental health issues. Other issues included:

    • Filthy conditions or “variable at best” levels of cleanliness.
    • Cramped spaces that made social distancing difficult.
    • Lack of information for residents about how long they would have to stay at the sites or how their claims were progressing.
    • The negative mental impact that staying in these conditions has on residents.
    “Very serious risk of harm”

    The MPs said they’re “extremely concerned” that the Home Office is still using Napier Barracks for refugee housing. And they’re calling for it to be shut down, stating that people staying there for at least 60 to 90 days are at “very serious risk of harm”.

    Penally Camp’s closure was announced in March.

    Patel and immigration minister Chris Philp have both previously defended the use of such sites, despite the Home Office facing repeated criticism over the decision.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • President Joe Biden makes brief remarks before signing several executive orders directing immigration actions for his administration in the Oval Office at the White House on February 2, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    President Joe Biden will uphold former President Donald Trump’s historically low “refugee cap” despite earlier promises to raise it drastically, he announced Friday.

    Biden’s decision prolongs what Representatives Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) have decried as “the Trump Administration’s full-scale assault on refugee resettlement in the United States.” The progressive lawmakers had previously sent a letter to Biden criticizing this “unacceptably draconian and discriminatory” refugee policy and urging him to formally increase the maximum number of refugees that may be admitted to the U.S. each year.

    Though Biden pledged to raise the limit to 125,000 a year and overturn some of Trump’s restrictive policies, Biden delayed signing a presidential determination to formally raise the limit for weeks. Now, with this new decision, the U.S. will continue turning away tens of thousands of refugees, many of whom have already been cleared.

    A recent report found that Biden is set to accept the fewest refugees of any modern president because of the restrictive refugee limit of 15,000 people per year that Trump set during his term. Biden had given Democrats and progressives false hope that he would undo that limit earlier this year.

    “We have all been deeply distressed at the stories of hundreds of refugees who had been cleared for resettlement having their flights cancelled at the last minute, in some cases having already left their residences and sold their belongings.” read the letter led by Omar, Jayapal and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois). “We must keep our promises to people who have fled unthinkably brutal conditions in their home countries and live up to our ambition to provide them a safe haven to re-start their lives.”

    The letter had been cosigned by more than 30 other Democratic representatives as of Friday morning, including members of the progressive squad like Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) and Jamaal Bowman (D-New York). The lawmakers urged Biden to sign a presidential determination to formally lift the cap “immediately,” because “Lives depend on it.” Biden had delayed signing it for many weeks, presumably because he has now changed his mind on the matter.

    “There is immense and growing urgency on this issue, for the many who have already been approved for resettlement, and for the unimaginable number of people who continue to hold out hope that they can one day rebuild their lives destroyed by climate, conflict, and repression,” the letter from the lawmakers said.

    The lawmakers emphasized findings that Muslim refugees are disproportionately affected by oppressive policies put forth by Trump; Syrian refugees, who were hurt most by Trump’s policies cruelly banning refugees, are especially affected.

    The lawmakers’ letter followed similar demands from humanitarian organizations that have also urged Biden to undo Trump’s cap. Advocates from the International Rescue Committee, a nonprofit humanitarian aid organization, told The Washington Post this week that they were concerned and alarmed about Biden’s delay in signing the presidential determination.

    Some Democratic aides and senior administration officials have offered an explanation for Biden’s decision: The president apparently fears bad optics because of the Republican-driven narrative that Biden has prompted an unusually high number of immigrants to attempt to cross the U.S.’s southern border. In reality, analyses have shown that a slight uptick in border crossings this year is explainable by seasonal patterns and the pandemic.

    Many political commentators have pointed out that Biden’s logic of denying refugees entrance for political reasons is cruel. “So Biden is continuing a profoundly immoral policy that hurts desperate people because he’s worried about Republican fearmongering on a separate issue,” wrote Radley Balko, a Washington Post journalist, on Twitter. “That’s not leadership. It’s capitulation.”

    Democrats and progressives also recently expressed frustration over Biden’s immigration policies when news outlets reported that his administration was still continuing to build Trump’s border wall, despite Biden’s promises that “not another foot” of the wall would be built under his administration.

    Omar said in a press release earlier this month that she is “deeply disturbed by reports that the Administration is considering further construction of Donald Trump’s border wall.”

    She added: “The wall is a monument of xenophobia and hatred that does nothing to address the root causes of migration and asylum claims — violence and unrest in the countries of origin that the United States has often exacerbated.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • By the time Elrudia Abdalla Hussein, a Sudanese woman human rights defender was in secondary school, she had witnessed the killings of countless people. Growing up in Darfur, she observed violence and human rights abuses. “If you do not have power, you do not have rights,” she concluded.  As a result, she decided to join a student association during her tertiary education to raise awareness about human rights and fight injustice.

    When strangers entered their family home in 2010, Elrudia and her husband decided to flee to Uganda with their children. As a refugee, Elrudia faced new human rights challenges. Many of the Sudanese refugee women in her community are single mothers struggling financially. Coming from a war zone, they often face mental health challenges. Many of them only know basic English, making it difficult to navigate the Ugandan refugee system. When one of the women in Elrudia’s community struggled to pay rent, she got together with a group of Sudanese refugee women to help out.

    We decided to come together as sisters, and all put in a financial contribution to pay two months of her rent. After this, we decided to continue the communal support and founded an association.Sudanese Women for Peace and Development association not only helps refugee women financially, but also with asylum procedures, referrals for support by other NGOs, counselling, trainings, and raising awareness about their rights. It is run entirely by volunteers from the Sudanese refugee community, who also fund the project to a large extent.

    As refugees, it can be quite tricky to defend human rights in Uganda: involvement in politics can lead to an investigation that could ultimately revoke refugee status, but the line between politics and human rights is often rather thin. Elrudia’s association clearly focuses on social work, yet they carefully steer clear of any speech or activity that could be interpreted as political – a difficult balancing act sometimes. Another difficulty Elrudia and other exiled HRDs face is how to generate income for their families. Refugees have to rely on informal jobs to cover expenses like rent, food or school fees, so Elrudia often sells food she has prepared – while running the women’s association and also completing her master’s degree in Agriculture and Economics.

    What keeps her going is hope: “I see things getting better around me. It’s easier to be in touch with friends and family back in Darfur. That gives me hope. Seeing the impact that we make in our community pushes me to continue, despite the difficulties. And: when I start something, I finish it!

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

  • Labor frontbencher and members of parliamentary committee plan to visit Biloela Tamil family held in immigration detention

    Labor senator Kristina Keneally will make her own way to Christmas Island to visit a Tamil family who have been held in immigration detention since 2019, after Peter Dutton cancelled the use of a government aircraft for the trip.

    Keneally was due to visit Christmas Island on 19 April as part of a parliamentary committee looking at the availability and access to communications infrastructure in Australia’s external territories, and had applied for, and received, permission to visit Priya and Nades Murugappan and their daughters Kopika and Tharnicaa. The trip had been planned for some time and the committee was due to depart on Sunday.

    Related: Biloela Tamil family to remain on Christmas Island after federal court upholds ruling on daughter’s visa

    BREAKING:
    4:50pm – @AusBorderForce confirms my permission to visit the #hometobilo family
    5:12pm – I receive an email: “the Defence Minister has determined that the Special Purpose Aircraft can no longer be made available for the Committee’s travel”

    Dutton cancelled the trip. https://t.co/gGOSwAhUdj

    Continue reading…

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

  • Labor frontbencher and members of parliamentary committee plan to visit Biloela Tamil family held in immigration detention

    Labor senator Kristina Keneally will make her own way to Christmas Island to visit a Tamil family who have been held in immigration detention since 2019, after Peter Dutton cancelled the use of a government aircraft for the trip.

    Keneally was due to visit Christmas Island on 19 April as part of a parliamentary committee looking at the availability and access to communications infrastructure in Australia’s external territories, and had applied for, and received, permission to visit Priya and Nades Murugappan and their daughters Kopika and Tharnicaa. The trip had been planned for some time and the committee was due to depart on Sunday.

    Related: Biloela Tamil family to remain on Christmas Island after federal court upholds ruling on daughter’s visa

    BREAKING:
    4:50pm – @AusBorderForce confirms my permission to visit the #hometobilo family
    5:12pm – I receive an email: “the Defence Minister has determined that the Special Purpose Aircraft can no longer be made available for the Committee’s travel”

    Dutton cancelled the trip. https://t.co/gGOSwAhUdj

    Continue reading…

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

  • Government denies renewal of temporary residency status from about 189 Syrians

    Denmark has become the first European country to revoke the residency permits of Syrian refugees, insisting that some parts of the war-torn country are safe to return to.

    At least 189 Syrians have had applications for renewal of temporary residency status denied since last summer, a move the Danish authorities said was justified because of a report that found the security situation in some parts of Syria had “improved significantly”.

    Continue reading…

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

  • A former army barracks being used by the Home Office to house asylum seekers is “unsafe and entirely unsuitable”, the High Court has heard.

    The Napier Barracks in Kent has been used to accommodate hundreds of asylum seekers since last September, despite the Home Office being warned by Public Health England that it was unsuitable.

    Six refugees previously housed at the barracks, all of whom are said to be “victims of either torture or human trafficking or both”, say conditions are “appalling”, with no mental health support and just one nurse on site.

    Almost 200 people tested positive for coronavirus during an outbreak at the barracks in January and February, which one NHS official who visited Napier said was “inevitable” given the conditions at the site, the court heard.

    At the start of a two-day hearing on Wednesday, lawyers representing the six men said accommodating asylum seekers at the barracks was a breach of their human rights and could amount to false imprisonment.

    People seeking asylum – Napier Barracks
    A man carries his belongings as he leaves Napier Barracks in Folkestone (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    They also argue the Home Office failed to put in place a process to prevent “particularly vulnerable asylum seekers” being accommodated at the barracks.

    Opening the claimants’ case at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Tom Hickman QC – representing four of the six men – said: “The camp was squalid, ill-equipped, lacking in personal privacy and, most fundamentally of all, unsafe.

    “Those moved there, including the claimants, were exposed to conditions that had serious detrimental impacts on their mental health and, indeed, their physical health, in contracting Covid-19.

    “In terms of the Covid-19 situation, it is no exaggeration to say that moving the claimants and other people to the barracks exposed them to an exceptionally high risk.”

    Hickman told the court that “45 people or thereabouts were moved into the barracks last week”, adding that “it appears to be the intention to gradually refill the camp”.

    Napier Barracks incident
    A burnt out accommodation block at Napier Barracks following a fire at the site (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    He also said that there had been “seven suicide attempts (and) seven serious incidents of self-harm” at the barracks since it had been in use.

    In written submissions, Hickman said Public Health England told the Home Office in September that the barracks was not suitable and that, if there was a Covid-19 outbreak at the site, “the fallout would be significant”.

    He said asylum seekers were housed in groups of 14 “in a single dormitory, sharing washing and toilet facilities with 14 other persons”.

    This meant that, once coronavirus broke out at the barracks, “all residents were exposed, increasing the risk already inherent in the accommodation”, Hickman said.

    He added: “There is no evidence that either the second national lockdown in November or the subsequent discovery of the ‘Kent variant’ which led to a third national lockdown prompted reconsideration of the compatibility of the use of the barracks.”

    Napier Barracks
    The former barracks was used to house those seeking asylum in the UK (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    Hickman also said that “it is apparent from the Home Office’s evidence that a number of alternatives to barracks accommodation were considered and proposed to ministers as potential options”.

    But, he added, “the decision not to adopt alternatives was essentially political, not driven by necessity”.

    Hickman said the barracks, which is more than 100 years old and was previously used by the Ministry of Defence as temporary accommodation for soldiers, was “inappropriate for asylum seekers”.

    He said the site was “overcrowded and felt to residents like a prison”, adding: “The conditions are prison-like, they are military, with an eight-foot perimeter fence, barbed wire, unformed guards, curfews and padlocks on the gates.”

    Hickman told the court that the “appalling conditions” at Napier “acted as recurring triggers for traumatic flashbacks”, particularly for asylum seekers who were previously victims of torture.

    The Home Office is defending the claim and argues that housing asylum seekers at Napier Barracks is lawful.

    The hearing before Justice Linden is due to conclude on Thursday afternoon, and it is expected the judge’s ruling will be reserved to a later date.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Refugees are being moved back into Napier Barracks despite enduring concerns over conditions and coronavirus.

    One resident who arrived last Friday said the military site in Kent is “like prison”, despite claims from the Home Office that improvements have been made.

    More people are expected to arrive on Tuesday, the PA news agency understands.

    HMIP/ICIBI highly critical of Home Office asylum seeker housing
    Accommodation for asylum seekers in Napier Barracks in Kent (Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration/PA)

    The barracks in Folkestone has been dogged by allegations of poor conditions and was hit by a major outbreak of Covid-19.

    Nearly 200 cases of coronavirus were detected, leading to asylum seekers being moved off the site to help stem the spread.

    Last month, inspectors said people at high risk of self-harm had been found in a “decrepit” so-called isolation block which was “unfit for habitation”.

    The Home Office said the Covid-19 outbreak has been declared over. A spokesperson said: “While pressure on the asylum system remains, we will continue to make use of Napier Barracks. Asylum seekers are staying in safe, suitable, Covid-compliant conditions, where they receive three nutritious meals a day.”

    On Friday, around 50 people are believed to have been returned to Napier Barracks despite continued calls from charities to shut it down.

    One resident who arrived on Friday told PA there are 15 people in his dormitory, leading to concerns over social distancing.

    “It’s very bad,” he said. “It’s like prison.”

    “They are planning to bring more people,” he added.

    An ambulance had to be called on Friday after one resident expressed suicidal ideation, according to refugee charity Care4Calais.

    The charity also said that at least one “age disputed minor” was transferred into the barracks.

    Care4Calais founder Clare Moseley said: “It’s terrible to see people moving back into Napier Barracks given all the traumatising effects we have seen it have on vulnerable people.

    “When our friends are notified they will be going there, they are shocked and afraid.

    “Putting them through this unnecessary stress and fear is wanton cruelty.

    “Small improvements may have been made but it is still an Army barracks and this induces fear in those fleeing conflict; people are still in shared dormitories which cannot be Covid safe; they are still cut off from communities that can help them.

    “Our volunteers are there to welcome them and, as before, we will do all we can to help.”

    People seeking asylum – Napier Barracks
    The Home Office said steps have been taken to improve conditions at Napier Barracks (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Guatemala sends more migrants to the U.S. than anywhere in Central America. What is driving so many people to leave?

    Crusading prosecutor Iván Velásquez has been called the Robert Mueller of Latin America. He’s known for jailing presidents and paramilitaries.

    But Velásquez met his match when he went after Jimmy Morales, a television comedian who was elected president of Guatemala. Morales found an ally in then-U.S. President Donald Trump.

    Like the alleged quid pro quo with Ukraine that prompted Trump’s impeachment, the details can seem confusing – but, ultimately, Velásquez says, both parties got what they wanted: Morales got Trump to pull U.S. support for an international anti-corruption force that was going after his family. And he says Trump secured Guatemala’s support for some of his most controversial policies, both in the Middle East and on immigration.

    Veteran radio journalist Maria Martin teams up with Reveal’s Anayansi Diaz-Cortes for this week’s show. Martin takes us to Huehuetenango, a province near Guatemala’s border with Mexico that sends more migrants to the U.S. than anywhere in Central America. There, she shows that Trump’s hard-line immigration policies did nothing to slow the movement of people from Guatemala to the southern border of the U.S.

    This is an update of an episode that originally aired Aug. 29, 2020.

    Don’t miss out on the next big story. Get the Weekly Reveal newsletter today.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Nothing makes better sense to the political classes than small time demagoguery when matters turn sour. True, the United Kingdom might well be speeding ahead with vaccination numbers, and getting ever big-headed about it, but there is still good reason to distract the voters.  Coronavirus continues to vex; the economy continues to suffer. In February, the Office of Statistics revealed that Britain’s economy had shrunk by 9.9%.  The last time such a contraction was experienced was in 1709, when a contraction of 13% was suffered as a result of the Great Frost which lasted for three devastating months.

    With Brexit Britain feeling alone, it is time to resort to mauling targets made traditional during the 2016 campaign to exit the European Union: the asylum seeker, the refugee and anyone assisting in that enterprise.  And the person best suited to doing so is the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, who outlined the government’s New Plan for Immigration on March 24th.  It has three objectives with one overarching punitive theme “to better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum.”  The authenticity of that need will be aided by deterring “illegal entry into the UK, thereby breaking the business model of criminal trafficking networks and protecting the lives of those they endanger”.  Those with “no right to be” in the UK will also be more easily “removed”.

    It is in the nature of such policies to conceal the punitive element by extolling virtues.  “The UK accepted more refugees through planned resettlement schemes than any other country in Europe in the period 2015-2019 – the fourth highest resettlement schemes globally after the USA, Canada and Australia,” reads the policy statement. “The UK also welcomed 29,000 people through the refugee family reunion scheme between 2015 and 2019. More than half of these were children.”

    This self-praise ignores the inconvenient fact that the UK received fewer applications for asylum than European states such as France and Germany in 2020.  According to the UNHCR, both countries received four times the number in 2020.  “The number of arrivals in the UK in 2020,” remarks academic Helen O’Nions, “was actually down 18% on the previous year.”

    It does not take long, however, to identify and inflate the threats: people crossing the English channel in their “small boats reached record levels, with 8,500 … arriving this way” in 2020.  Sinister imputations are made: 87% of those arriving in small boats were male.  In 2019, 32,000 illegal attempts were made to enter the UK, but foiled in Northern France while 16,000 illegal arrivals were detected in the UK.

    The Home Office laments the rapid increase of asylum claims; decisions cannot be made “quickly”; “case loads are growing to unsustainable levels”.  Never mind the UN Refugee Convention and human rights: what matters is bureaucratic efficiency.  To achieve that, Patel hopes to “stop illegal arrivals gaining immediate entry into the asylum system if they have travelled through a safe country – like France.”  Any arrivals doing so could not be said to be “seeking refuge from imminent peril”.  Stiffer sentences are also suggested for those aiding asylum.  “Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers.”

    Much of what the Home Office makes of this is nonsense.  It entails a fantasy about a model cut, idealised asylum seeker: those with state documents from the persecuting state, clearly of the identifiable sort, all morally sound.  The murkier reality necessitates deception as an indispensable part of the process.  To not have documents makes travel impossible.  Alternative routes and means are therefore required.

    The threat to relocate and refuse those seeking asylum would also breach the UK’s own Human Rights Act of 1998, obligating the state to prevent people from being returned to places where they are at the risk of torture, inhuman, degrading treatment or cruel and unusual punishment.  That principle is also a cardinal feature of the Refugee Convention.

    The view from those who actually have more than a passing acquaintance with the field is vastly different from Patel’s.  Politely, some 454 immigration scholars in the UK have told the Home Secretary in an open letter that she does not know what she is talking about.  The New Plan, for instance, may have 31 references, but “there is just one reference to research evidence, a research paper on refugee integration.”  The undersigned scholars suggest that Patel look more deeply, as the plans being proposed “not only circumvent international human rights law, but are also based on claims which are completely unfounded in any body of research evidence.”

    The scholars also note that asylum seekers and refugees lack safe and legal routes, with countries across Europe, North American and Australasia going “to huge efforts and massive expense in recent decades to close down access to the right to asylum.”

    The markings of the New Plan resemble, all too closely, the Australian approach of discrimination which has become an exemplar of how to undermine the right to asylum: an obsession with targeting those people smuggling “gangs” and associated business rackets, merely code for targeting those fleeing persecution; distinguishing the method of arrival in order to demonise the plight of the asylum seeker; the decision that, irrespective of the claims of asylum, no sanctuary would ever be given to certain individuals because they chose to jump a phantom queue and not know their place.

    The open letter also notes the “distinct and troubling echoes” of “the Australian Temporary Protection Visa programme and the vilification of people with no option but to travel through irregular means to flee persecution and seek sanctuary.”

    Another unsavoury aspect of the British turn in refugee policy towards the antipodean example can be gathered by the possible use of offshore detention centres.  Canberra relies on the liberal use of concentration camps on remote sites in the Pacific, centres of calculated cruelty that serve to destroy the will of those whose governments have already done much to encourage their flight.  The official justification is one of killing asylum seekers with kindness: We saved you from almost certain drowning at sea, only to seal you within the confines of legal purgatory.  In the New Plan, one senses a touch of envy for it.

    In October last year, it was revealed that the UK Prime Minister’s office was considering the detention of asylum seekers in places as varied as Moldova, Morocco and Papua New Guinea.  According to documents obtained by The Guardian, the Foreign Office had been charged with a task by Downing Street to “offer advice on possible options for negotiating an offshore asylum processing facility similar to the Australian model in Papua New Guinea and Nauru”.  Patel herself had flirted with the idea of establishing centres at Ascension and St. Helena, though she has had to content herself with ill-suited military barracks on the mainland that facilitated the spread of COVID-19.

    Alison Mountz, in The Death of Asylum, makes much of this transformation of the island from a point of transit to that of hostile containment.  From field research conducted in Italy’s Lampedusa Island, Australia’s Christmas Island and the US territories of Guam and Saipan, Mountz argues that “the strategic use of islands to detain people in search of protection – to thwart human mobility through confinement – is part of the death of asylum.”  Officials such as Patel are happy to help matters along.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Nothing makes better sense to the political classes than small time demagoguery when matters turn sour. True, the United Kingdom might well be speeding ahead with vaccination numbers, and getting ever big-headed about it, but there is still good reason to distract the voters.  Coronavirus continues to vex; the economy continues to suffer. In February, the Office of Statistics revealed that Britain’s economy had shrunk by 9.9%.  The last time such a contraction was experienced was in 1709, when a contraction of 13% was suffered as a result of the Great Frost which lasted for three devastating months.

    With Brexit Britain feeling alone, it is time to resort to mauling targets made traditional during the 2016 campaign to exit the European Union: the asylum seeker, the refugee and anyone assisting in that enterprise.  And the person best suited to doing so is the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, who outlined the government’s New Plan for Immigration on March 24th.  It has three objectives with one overarching punitive theme “to better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum.”  The authenticity of that need will be aided by deterring “illegal entry into the UK, thereby breaking the business model of criminal trafficking networks and protecting the lives of those they endanger”.  Those with “no right to be” in the UK will also be more easily “removed”.

    It is in the nature of such policies to conceal the punitive element by extolling virtues.  “The UK accepted more refugees through planned resettlement schemes than any other country in Europe in the period 2015-2019 – the fourth highest resettlement schemes globally after the USA, Canada and Australia,” reads the policy statement. “The UK also welcomed 29,000 people through the refugee family reunion scheme between 2015 and 2019. More than half of these were children.”

    This self-praise ignores the inconvenient fact that the UK received fewer applications for asylum than European states such as France and Germany in 2020.  According to the UNHCR, both countries received four times the number in 2020.  “The number of arrivals in the UK in 2020,” remarks academic Helen O’Nions, “was actually down 18% on the previous year.”

    It does not take long, however, to identify and inflate the threats: people crossing the English channel in their “small boats reached record levels, with 8,500 … arriving this way” in 2020.  Sinister imputations are made: 87% of those arriving in small boats were male.  In 2019, 32,000 illegal attempts were made to enter the UK, but foiled in Northern France while 16,000 illegal arrivals were detected in the UK.

    The Home Office laments the rapid increase of asylum claims; decisions cannot be made “quickly”; “case loads are growing to unsustainable levels”.  Never mind the UN Refugee Convention and human rights: what matters is bureaucratic efficiency.  To achieve that, Patel hopes to “stop illegal arrivals gaining immediate entry into the asylum system if they have travelled through a safe country – like France.”  Any arrivals doing so could not be said to be “seeking refuge from imminent peril”.  Stiffer sentences are also suggested for those aiding asylum.  “Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers.”

    Much of what the Home Office makes of this is nonsense.  It entails a fantasy about a model cut, idealised asylum seeker: those with state documents from the persecuting state, clearly of the identifiable sort, all morally sound.  The murkier reality necessitates deception as an indispensable part of the process.  To not have documents makes travel impossible.  Alternative routes and means are therefore required.

    The threat to relocate and refuse those seeking asylum would also breach the UK’s own Human Rights Act of 1998, obligating the state to prevent people from being returned to places where they are at the risk of torture, inhuman, degrading treatment or cruel and unusual punishment.  That principle is also a cardinal feature of the Refugee Convention.

    The view from those who actually have more than a passing acquaintance with the field is vastly different from Patel’s.  Politely, some 454 immigration scholars in the UK have told the Home Secretary in an open letter that she does not know what she is talking about.  The New Plan, for instance, may have 31 references, but “there is just one reference to research evidence, a research paper on refugee integration.”  The undersigned scholars suggest that Patel look more deeply, as the plans being proposed “not only circumvent international human rights law, but are also based on claims which are completely unfounded in any body of research evidence.”

    The scholars also note that asylum seekers and refugees lack safe and legal routes, with countries across Europe, North American and Australasia going “to huge efforts and massive expense in recent decades to close down access to the right to asylum.”

    The markings of the New Plan resemble, all too closely, the Australian approach of discrimination which has become an exemplar of how to undermine the right to asylum: an obsession with targeting those people smuggling “gangs” and associated business rackets, merely code for targeting those fleeing persecution; distinguishing the method of arrival in order to demonise the plight of the asylum seeker; the decision that, irrespective of the claims of asylum, no sanctuary would ever be given to certain individuals because they chose to jump a phantom queue and not know their place.

    The open letter also notes the “distinct and troubling echoes” of “the Australian Temporary Protection Visa programme and the vilification of people with no option but to travel through irregular means to flee persecution and seek sanctuary.”

    Another unsavoury aspect of the British turn in refugee policy towards the antipodean example can be gathered by the possible use of offshore detention centres.  Canberra relies on the liberal use of concentration camps on remote sites in the Pacific, centres of calculated cruelty that serve to destroy the will of those whose governments have already done much to encourage their flight.  The official justification is one of killing asylum seekers with kindness: We saved you from almost certain drowning at sea, only to seal you within the confines of legal purgatory.  In the New Plan, one senses a touch of envy for it.

    In October last year, it was revealed that the UK Prime Minister’s office was considering the detention of asylum seekers in places as varied as Moldova, Morocco and Papua New Guinea.  According to documents obtained by The Guardian, the Foreign Office had been charged with a task by Downing Street to “offer advice on possible options for negotiating an offshore asylum processing facility similar to the Australian model in Papua New Guinea and Nauru”.  Patel herself had flirted with the idea of establishing centres at Ascension and St. Helena, though she has had to content herself with ill-suited military barracks on the mainland that facilitated the spread of COVID-19.

    Alison Mountz, in The Death of Asylum, makes much of this transformation of the island from a point of transit to that of hostile containment.  From field research conducted in Italy’s Lampedusa Island, Australia’s Christmas Island and the US territories of Guam and Saipan, Mountz argues that “the strategic use of islands to detain people in search of protection – to thwart human mobility through confinement – is part of the death of asylum.”  Officials such as Patel are happy to help matters along.

    The post Priti Patel and the Death of Asylum first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Last year a group called Channel Rescue began watching the waters off Dover, to ensure the safety of those arriving on our shores. They explain why this is more important than ever

    Louise vividly remembers her first Channel watch. She had just moved from London to Dover when, one morning last autumn, she got up at half past five. After a few tries to get her 1980s moped going, she was off. “I’m driving through the mist on top of the cliffs, racing to meet a man in the dark.” Fifteen minutes later, she was at the car park of a local golf course, metres from the cliff edge. The only car there belonged to her fellow volunteer. “I met Joe and he was totally lovely. We chatted and watched the darkness through a telescope. And then, very slowly, watched it get light.”

    Magnificent as it was, Louise, 30, and Joe, 36, were not there for the view. They are volunteer human rights observers for Channel Rescue (CR), established in 2020 as a citizens’ response to last year’s surge in migrants attempting to cross the Channel from France. The originators were a loose group of anti-racist and anti-fascist activists based, mostly, in London. They crowdfunded £19,000 and modelled their mission on the longstanding human rights monitoring around the Greek island of Lesbos.

    You can’t get anywhere near people … People are taken to mysterious locations, whether it’s a hotel or detention centre

    Priti Patel says they’re gonna push the boats back. It’s against human rights and international law but it could happen

    We’re not tackling the heart of the problem, which is racism. We’re skirting around the edges

    Related: Refugee supporters hold ‘welcome event’ for asylum seekers in Kent

    Continue reading…

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

  • By Elizabeth Arif-Fear

    Here in Europe, whilst we should be sympathetic to the plight of refugees and asylum seekers and promote diversity and inclusion, anti-refugee and xenophobic sentiment has however long reared its ugly head

    Anti-refugee and anti-migrant narratives and misconceptions around the numbers and location of refugees and asylum seekers continue to enter conversations, television screens and newspaper spreads. This sadly spreads fear, misinformation and distrust of those who’ve been forced from their homes in search of safety and security. 

    To read more, click here.

    This post was originally published on Voice of Salam.

  • Australia’s asylum processing centres on the islands of Manus and Nauru have been widely condemned for systemic abuses, and human rights violations

    Eight years and the equivalent of £5bn. Twelve deaths and thousands of lives damaged, disrupted, and left in limbo. Australia’s “offshore processing” regime for asylum seekers achieved little and resolved less, a refugee held at the heart of the system for seven years has said.

    “Australia has created a tragedy,” journalist and author Behrouz Boochani, an Iranian Kurdish refugee detained on Manus Island, told the Guardian. “I don’t think the people of the UK want their government to create the same tragedy in their name.”

    Related: More than 30 countries condemn Australia at UN over high rates of child incarceration

    Continue reading…

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

  • An asylum seeker who fled gang violence and kidnap in his home country said being housed in military barracks in the UK was like “a really bad dream”.

    Eduardo spent more than a month living at Penally camp in Wales, one of two Ministry of Defence sites the Home Office has used to house refugees.

    And while Penally is now set to close, it is understood that the controversial use of Napier Barracks in Kent is set to continue.

    Later on Friday, people across the country are to come together for a virtual day of action calling for fair treatment of people seeking asylum.

    The event is being organised by various charities and organisations, and will feature speeches from several MPs.

    People seeking asylum – Napier Barracks
    Napier Barracks in Folkestone (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    “It was the worst experience of my life… when we arrived there it was awful, it was really, really scary.”

    Speaking exclusively to the PA news agency, Eduardo, from El Salvador, spoke of how he was forced to flee his home country after being kidnapped by gangsters.

    When he arrived in the UK, he was held in a detention centre before being taken to a hotel, where he stayed for several months.

    One day, he was notified that he was being moved to an unknown location and told to get on a bus with 22 others.

    He told PA: “It was raining, the wind was blowing a lot, it was a really, really scary situation.

    “I was afraid because nobody was explaining what was happening with us.”

    He arrived at Penally camp in Wales at around 4am.

    “It was the worst experience of my life… when we arrived there it was awful, it was really, really scary.”

    He described Penally as a “really bad dream” and said proper Covid protocols were not in place, with 200 men sharing facilities.

    Eduardo has since left Penally, but says he is keen to help others in need, like he was.

    “It is time the Government stops playing politics with people’s lives”

    Friday’s virtual day of action is being organised by Freedom from Torture, Asylum Matters, Choose Love, Detention Action and Refugee Action, who are campaigning against the Home Office’s policy to house asylum seekers in army barracks during the pandemic.

    Kolbassia Haoussou, director of survivor empowerment at Freedom from Torture, said: “After huge pressure from frontline charities and medical experts, we are pleased that the barracks in Penally are closing. But Napier remains open despite the life-threatening conditions inside.

    “The way people are housed in this country is about more than providing shelter, it is a reflection of how we treat people who have fled danger and chaos to find safety. It is a reflection of who we are.

    “It is time the Government stops playing politics with people’s lives.”

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Asylum seekers could be sent to processing centres abroad under the home secretary’s plans to overhaul the immigration system, according to reports.

    Overhaul

    The British overseas territory of Gibraltar is a location under consideration by officials, according to the Times, as well as the Isle of Man and other islands off the British coast.

    Priti Patel has pledged to stop migrants making the journey across the English Channel and is expected to publish details of plans overhauling the UK’s asylum and immigration system next week.

    Home Secretary Priti Patel
    Home Secretary Priti Patel (Aaron Chown/PA)

    The Times said plans due to be set out by the home secretary will include a consultation on changing the law so that migrants seeking asylum can be sent to processing centres in third countries.

    It follows a series of leaks last year suggesting the UK government was considering a number of offshore policies akin to those used in Australia. Speaking on Australia’s refugee policy in 2018, Human Rights Watch reported:

    Many refugees and asylum seekers suffer from poor mental health or mental illness due to, or exacerbated by, years of detention and uncertainty about their futures. Self-harm and suicide attempts are frequent. At least 12 refugees and asylum seekers have died on Manus Island and Nauru since 2013. Two refugees with mental health conditions reportedly committed suicide on Manus and Nauru in 2018.

    The leaked UK plans included sending asylum seekers to Ascension Island, more than 4,000 miles from the UK, to be processed, and turning disused ferries out at sea into processing centres. The ideas were dismissed by critics at the time as unfeasible, while Labour condemned the suggestion of an asylum processing centre on Ascension Island as “inhumane, completely impractical and wildly expensive”.

    Human Rights

    The government believes sending migrants to third countries for processing would be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), according to reports. The Times said the new legislation will include life sentences for people smugglers and the establishment of migrant reception centres on government land, with many currently being housed in hotels.

    Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council charity, condemned the proposed policy as “inhumane”.

    He told the paper:

    We know from the Australian model that offshore detention leads to appalling outcomes including high levels of self-harm and mental illness. It is an inhumane policy that undermines our nation’s proud tradition of providing protection to people fleeing persecution and terror many of whom have gone on to work as doctors and nurses in the NHS.

    As we mark the 70th anniversary of the UN convention on refugees later this year we should be welcoming refugees, treating them with compassion.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Home Office has had the situation for refugees in the UK brought directly to its door. Because protesters have blockaded the entrance to one of its offices. It was over the appalling conditions in a Home Office-run refugee camp.

    Hell on earth in Penally

    As The Canary previously reported, in September 2020 the Home Office controversially began housing refugees at two disused army barracks in Kent and Wales. The latter is a facility at Penally, just outside Tenby on the Pembrokeshire coast. Penally has been leased from the Ministry of Defence by the Home Office, and could be used to house 250 people. At one point the Home Office was holding 150 people there.

    People have protested about the Penally facility. And The Canary has reported on the appalling conditions in the camp. As Tom Anderson wrote:

    Conditions at Penally are hellish. Camp residents complain of inadequate and poorly cooked food, no privacy, and inadequate shower and toilet facilities. They are unable to socially distance, or to take proper precautions to prevent the spread of coronavirus (Covid-19).

    Residents told The Canary about conditions in the camp. They have to brave the outdoors to access the toilets; measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus are poor, and the camp is cramped. But now, people who have been campaigning against the forced housing of refugees in Penally have taken further action.

    Blockading the Home Office

    Anti-racist protesters blockaded the Home Office in Cardiff on Friday 5 March:

    A protest over the Penally refugee camp

    They said in a statement that:

    The Home Office has a duty of care to all those who arrive in the UK seeking sanctuary. People staying in the Penally ex-military training camp, run by Clearsprings on behalf of the Government, are experiencing:

    Lack of drinking water and hygienically prepared food;

    Failing plumbing and heating systems leading to cold and unsanitary conditions;

    Lack of access to phones and internet, meaning they cannot communicate with family or legal support;

    Overcrowded conditions, making it impossible to comply with Covid social distancing rules;

    No provision of health or mental health services;

    Inadequate provision of toilets and showers.

    ‘Trauma’ and ‘purgatory’

    Protestor Lois Davis said:

    Wales has a proud culture of welcoming guests. These people seek only the opportunity to live a normal life and contribute to our society. This is being denied to them by the Home Office, which prefers to keep them in a state of purgatory, not knowing if and when they can begin to study, work and get on with their lives. This further compounds the trauma they have been trying to escape.

    Another, Jenny Roberts, said:

    Penally Camp must be shut down immediately, and suitable accommodation and support provided to help new migrants integrate and become active citizens. Not to do this is a failure in the statutory duty on the part of the Home Office. This concept of using ex military camps to house refugees is a proven failure. No more camps!

    But the story of Penally may not be coming to an end any time soon.

    Homes not camps

    As Davis and Roberts said in a statement:

    We now understand that, rather than reducing numbers and eventually closing the camp, as announced by Immigration Minister Chris Philps in January, the Home Office is sending even more refugees to this dysfunctional facility. Residents and volunteers risk prosecution under the Official Secrets Act for speaking out about the conditions.

    It’s a damning indictment of the Tory government that it considers refugees’ lives so worthless it houses them in appalling facilities. In fact, as The Canary previously reported, there’s an outrageous reason why refugees are being forced to endure these appalling conditions. The Home Office is housing refugees in barracks because of concern about confidence in the asylum system with internal documents saying “the need to control immigration” justified the provision of “less generous” housing for refugees.

    Yet perhaps more damning is that it intends to continue with this potential breach of human rights. It is heartening to see people showing love and solidarity for the residents of the camps. But more still needs to be done. And the drive to have these camps permanently shut needs to continue.

    Featured image via Homes Not Military Camps

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • ‘There is a huge amount of damage you can’t see – the mental trauma’, says Syria Relief report author

    More than three-quarters of Syrian refugees may be suffering serious mental health symptoms, 10 years after the start of the civil war.

    A UK charity is calling for more investment in mental health services for refugees in several countries after it found symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were widespread in a survey of displaced Syrians.

    Related: Experts sound alarm over mental health toll borne by migrants and refugees

    Continue reading…

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

  • Home Office accused of betrayal over network of new asylum-seeker centres

    A new network of immigration detention units for women is being quietly planned by the Home Office, contrary to previous pledges to reform the system and reduce the number of vulnerable people held.

    An initial detention centre, based in County Durham on the site of a former youth prison, will open for female asylum seekers this autumn.

    Related: Britain’s immigration detention: how many people are locked up?

    Continue reading…

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

  • A doctor has accused the Home Office of “moral failure” over the continued housing of asylum seekers at an ageing and virus-hit military barracks.

    Napier Barracks in Kent has been used as “emergency” accommodation since September last year, despite significant welfare concerns.

    But even before any residents had moved in, Public Health England (PHE) gave warnings that the dormitories on the military site were “not suitable” for use, according to court documents.

    In the months since it opened, coronavirus (Covid-19) has surged behind the barbed wire fences with at least 120 residents testing positive.

    Despite this, the Home Office has continued to defend its use of the Ministry of Defence-owned barracks.

    Napier Barracks incident
    Napier Barracks in Folkestone, Kent following a fire at the site (Gareth Fuller/PA)

    Last week, home secretary Priti Patel said the site is “Covid-compliant” and “has been from day one”.

    Immigration minister Chris Philp said last month that those housed in Napier Barracks were staying in “safe, suitable, Covid-compliant accommodation”.

    At least four residents at Napier Barracks have attempted suicide and others have self-harmed, according to court documents.

    Dr Jill O’Leary, the leading GP for charity the Helen Bamber Foundation’s medical advisory service, said the news that the Home Office had apparently rejected a PHE warning was “very, very sad but not surprising”.

    She told the PA news agency:

    We have been very vocal about our concerns about the unsuitability of the barracks and the fact that it wasn’t Covid-19 compliant which is evidenced by the fact that there was obviously this Covid-19 outbreak.

    Dr O’Leary said the barracks had been chosen for “political expediency” and the continued use amounted to a “moral failure”.

    She added:

    The barracks need to be evacuated, there’s no justification and no argument left for keeping people in there.

    Doctors and lawyers from organisations including the Helen Bamber Foundation, Doctors of the World and Freedom from Torture have been monitoring the situation at the barracks.

    The site has been used to house up to 400 residents, but reports suggest many have been moved off the site in recent days with around 50 remaining.

    Lawyers representing six men previously housed at Napier Barracks, all of whom are said to be “survivors of torture and/or human trafficking”, say it must be “immediately” closed down.

    In a witness statement, in court documents, they remark on the “troubling” revelation that PHE warned the Home Office that the dormitories “were not suitable” for use – advice which was rejected.

    They also allege that “no Home Office official has visited the site since November 13 2020” – a claim the Home Office has denied.

    That the Home Office had been warned by PHE that the dormitories were not suitable was mentioned in the department’s submissions to the court and was not disputed by its spokesperson.

    The Home Office spokesperson said:

    The Government provides safe, warm and secure accommodation with three nutritious meals served a day, all paid for by the taxpayer.

    Napier has previously accommodated army personnel and it is wrong to say it is not adequate for asylum seekers.

    The Home Office has worked extremely closely with Public Health England to minimise risks of coronavirus and this track record will be robustly defended in court.

    The spokesperson added that Tuesday’s hearing was “one step in the legal process”, adding “the Home Office has not lost or conceded the case”.

    Bella Sankey, director of charity Detention Action, said:

    Of course PHE warned Priti Patel that her refugee camp experiment would put public health at risk – anyone with a passing interest in Covid transmission can see this.

    The Home Office should fully concede, close the barracks and save lives without delay.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Father and son sought refuge after protests but are becoming a diplomatic issue for Sweden

    Two Belarusians who sought refuge in the Swedish embassy in Minsk in September are still there five months later, Sweden’s foreign ministry has announced, in a case turning into a diplomatic headache.

    A father and son, Vitaly and Vladislav Kuznechiki, tried to enter the Swedish embassy in the capital of Belarus on 11 September to seek asylum in the midst of widespread protests disputing the election of President Alexander Lukashenko.

    Related: Video shows taxi driver helping protester escape police in Belarus

    Continue reading…

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

  • Despite Biden's Moratorium, ICE Deports Dozens to Haiti -- Including a Baby

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has deported at least 72 people to Haiti, including a 2-month-old baby and 21 other children. The deportations appear to be a contradiction of the Biden administration’s order to deport only people with serious charges against them. Haiti faces an increase in political violence and ongoing protests against President Jovenel Moïse’s U.S.-backed regime, and Guerline Jozef, co-founder and executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance, says sending people to Haiti is putting them in danger. “We should be providing protection for those people, but we are sending them into a burning house,” says Jozef.

    TRANSCRIPT

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

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

    President Biden ordered a 100-day moratorium on deportations as one of his first acts in office. But on Monday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, deported at least 72 people to Haiti. Those deported included a 2-month-old baby and 21 other babies and children — which seems to contradict the order by a federal judge that blocked the moratorium but left in place instructions that only the most serious immigration cases should be subject to deportation. The Guardian reports the adults and children were deported on two flights to the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince as the country faces skyrocketing political violence and protests against the Haitian president’s U.S.-backed regime. They’ve been going on for months, these protests.

    Their push came after hundreds were deported within Biden’s first days in office, mostly from Haiti and African countries, including a man named Paul Pierrilus, who was deported to Haiti. New York Congressmember Mondaire Jones had previously worked to successfully stop his deportation by the Trump administration, before Biden was sworn in. But last Tuesday, Mondaire Jones tweeted, quote, “At 3am, my staff woke up to an urgent call. Suddenly, and in the dead of night, ICE was set to deport Rockland County’s beloved Paul Pierrilus to Haiti, a country where he has never been,” unquote.

    Monday’s deportations to Haiti came after ICE had just suspended deportation flights to Haiti on Friday, following pressure from immigrant justice advocates, including our next guest, Guerline Jozef, co-founder and executive director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, an immigrant support group. She’s joining us from Orange County, California, not far from the border.

    Welcome to Democracy Now!, Guerline. Can you explain what just happened? How does a 2-month-old, a number of babies and, overall, more than 70 people get reported to Haiti after the moratorium of Biden is put into effect? Has ICE just gone rogue, or is this part of a Biden-Harris plan?

    GUERLINE JOZEF: Good morning, Amy. Thank you for having us.

    Actually, we are all in disbelief of what we are witnessing right now in these United States of ours, to see how we continue to witness the same draconian, the same cruel and inhumane process that President Trump left behind.

    Yesterday, as you mentioned, there were two deportation flights to Haiti, unfortunately, the first one carrying about 72 people. Out of those 72 people included 22 children, and we saw as young as 2 months old. And we are looking at children, 2 months, 10 years old. They are right in the middle of developmental stage, where we should be providing protection for those people, but we see we are sending them into a burning — in a burning house. Literally, there’s a house burning, and we are sending pregnant women and children into this burning house.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Guerline Jozef, apparently ICE is using a controversial health statute, Title 42, that’s about more than 70 years old, that the Trump administration first started using. What is Title 42?

    GUERLINE JOZEF: Title 42, they are using right now because of the pandemic. But the reality is, those people, I will say, are testing negative for COVID-19, so, therefore, it is an excuse to continue to deport people.

    And as you mentioned earlier, under the moratorium from the president, did provide provision of relief and protection for those most vulnerable people, as we mentioned, that have been at the border for the past four years waiting for a chance to ask for asylum, understanding that President Trump completely destroyed the immigration system, completely trapped people at the U.S.-Mexico border, from MPP to third-country asylum agreement, forcing people to literally die, understanding that Black immigrants are the most vulnerable, the most impacted and the most neglected group of immigrants. So this has to stop. We can no longer stand by and watch people’s lives being destroyed. We are asking and demanding that all deportation flights are stopped immediately.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And is it your sense that ICE is acting on its own or that the Biden administration, the officials who have come in to homeland security and to ICE, the newly appointed officials, are aware of this?

    GUERLINE JOZEF: I cannot speak on behalf of ICE nor the government nor the administration. But what I can say is that we saw — we saw the pain. We hear it in the voices of those children and those asylum seekers and those immigrants. We do not know what is going on. We do not know what the relationship is. But what we are seeing is unacceptable.

    So we are asking for President Biden, for the administration, to do what needs to be done. ICE needs to listen to what the administration and the secretary are instructing them to do, right? They cannot just decide they’re going to do whatever they want. We understand, under President Trump, the boldness that it took for them to gut the immigration system. We understand the boldness that it took to literally uplift these draconian practices. So now we are asking boldness for good. We are asking boldness to build better. We are asking boldness for relief and protection for the people. So, whatever it is, the relationship might be, between ICE and the administration, we want this to be the — we want this to be the catalyst that we move forward to as a country.

    AMY GOODMAN: You know, Juan and I —

    GUERLINE JOZEF: And we are also asking — yeah, and we are also asking the Haitian government to not accept those deportation flights. As you mentioned, we have a stateless man in Paul Pierrilus. I was on the phone with him and his attorney and Congressman Mondaire Jones’ staffer when they came to take him. I was on the phone hearing to his voice. I was on the phone with his attorney telling him to, please, please, go with them, because they wanted to remove him forcibly, while he was on the phone. His attorney did not receive a note saying that he was being removed. We only found out because we were on the phone with him when they came to get him.

    AMY GOODMAN: Juan and I met in Haiti covering the U.S.-backed coups that took place there. Finally, Guerline, what people are being deported to in Haiti? And we don’t have much time.

    GUERLINE JOZEF: Yes, thank you so much. Actually, right now we are in the middle of a major uprising. We are worried that we might end up with a bloody massacre. In one side, we have the opposition and a lot of people in the diaspora, in U.S. Congress, stating that based on the Constitution, the president should have left on Sunday, February the 7th. The president is saying, no, his term ends next year.

    So, right now we are asking for protection. Those deportations cannot still continue to happen in the middle of a major crisis in Haiti. As you mentioned, we continue to see over and over the neglect, the lack of respect for life on both sides. So we are asking for that to be stopped.

    AMY GOODMAN: Guerline Jozef, we want to thank you for being with us, executive director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance.

    And again, Democracy Now! will be live-streaming the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump, gavel to gavel, starting at 1:00 Eastern time today. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Wearing a mask is an act of love. Wear two.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Migrants and associates install tents as part of a protest on Republique square in Paris on November 23, 2020, one week after migrants were evacuated from a makeshift camp in the northern Paris suburb of Saint-Denis without being relocated.

    During the election campaign that led him to the White House, Joe Biden promised swift reversal of Donald Trump’s draconian anti-immigrant policies. On his first day in office, President Biden signed executive orders to halt construction of the border wall, reverse the Muslim ban and safeguard DACA, a temporary programme that protects some migrants who came to the U.S. as children.

    Only a week into his term, the bold plans for reform began to falter. Biden’s 100-day deportation moratorium was barred by a judge. The plan to reunite separated migrant families is delayed. And Biden’s most ambitious proposal, amnesty for most of the 11 million undocumented, is already in doubt. Meanwhile, in the midst of a raging pandemic, Democrats are calling for more targeted relief for undocumented immigrants who act as essential workers.

    A Progressive Vision?

    The precedent for immigration relief for workers on the frontlines of COVID-19 came from the other side of the Atlantic a month earlier. In late December 2020, the French government announced that it was fast-tracking citizenship applications for immigrants working as essential workers during the pandemic, in order to reward them for their special service to French citizens. The naturalisation applications of these immigrants already on the path to citizenship would be expedited, but they would still go through the required steps, including proving their integration into French society.

    France’s new citizenship exception would seem to offer a progressive vision for the new Biden administration. The spectacle of white nationalists storming the U.S. Capitol on 6 January, with their belligerent messaging of racism, misogyny and xenophobia, redoubled the calls by liberals to undo or reverse Trump’s immigration policies. Many continued to advocate specifically for immigrant essential workers.

    Tweet advocating citizenship for essential workers

    However, it would be wrong to follow this vision of immigration policy. To address the entrenched racism exposed and exacerbated — but not created — by the Trump administration, different tactics are required. The demands for the Biden administration should reach much further than reforms that entrench the system itself, whether a path to citizenship for the most deserving essential workers or protecting DACA, which is just a temporary programme with no path to citizenship.

    France’s fast-tracked naturalisation process undoubtedly improves the lives of a few immigrants, providing them with security and benefits that they would not otherwise have. Notably, these are not undocumented immigrants but those already on the path to citizenship. Yet, it is a mistake to uncritically celebrate the French government and its pandemic-era generosity.

    While a few hundred, or even, eventually, thousand immigrants may become French citizens in recognition of their “commitment to the nation”, this policy makes no change to the country’s harsh immigration system. By recognising essential migrant workers, the French state is primarily making a statement about how it values the lives of citizens who require care. U.S. observers are pointing to France as an example of inclusive immigration policies when France, like the U.S., is actually waging a racist war against immigrants.

    As with the exceptional humanitarian measures the French state has instituted in the past, which simultaneously justify criminalising and deporting a majority of immigrants, these policies draw attention away from the precarious conditions in which the majority of immigrants live — which include an increasing number of informal camps in the heart of Paris.

    The French immigration system is increasingly draconian, under pressure from the extreme rightwing populist National Rally party, formerly known as the National Front, and the turn to the right in Europe more generally. President Macron imposed a new law in 2018 that cut the timeframe to legally apply for asylum — with the goal of deporting people more quickly — and doubled the amount of time that immigrants could be kept in detention. In 2018, France detained more migrants than any other EU country.

    No Pathway to Legalization

    Like the U.S., France is home to legions of undocumented immigrants who work in exploitative conditions that now expose them to COVID-19, and who have no pathways to legalisation, before or after French government’s new policy. Furthermore, there is the long-standing fear in France that acknowledging race and racism or even the existence of different ethnic communities in its society would lead to an ‘Anglo-Saxon’ acceptance of divided communities. But this unacknowledged racism, often expressed as Islamophobia, has been called out by French immigrant rights groups and anti-racist collectives, who say the country’s colonial history is expressed in exclusionary immigration policies, among other practices.

    If the U.S. government adopted the policy of fast-tracked naturalisation for essential workers, as some are calling for, it would similarly serve to draw attention away from the difficult and often violent conditions under which so many immigrants live, covering up the fact that both American and French societies primarily value immigrant lives when they are sacrificed. The trend in the U.S. throughout the last two decades of Democrat and Republican administrations has been increased surveillance and criminalisation of immigrants, expansion of immigrant detention and deportation, and extreme militarisation of the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Rewarding essential workers with citizenship entrenches the idea that most immigrants should not be granted legal status and that the state’s job is to keep its borders closed, protecting limited resources — this is so even as both France and the U.S. are fully reliant on immigrant labour.

    Rather than putting in place a standard policy of inclusion, the state decides which few immigrants have proved themselves most deserving of inclusion, gathering accolades for its generosity. Speeding up citizenship for immigrant essential workers in the US — similarly to members of the U.S. military, at least in theory — would serve the same purpose. These policies are designed to build pride in the nation’s benevolence and care, even as they work behind the scenes to legitimise the mass exclusion, detention or exploitation of migrants, based on racist ideas of belonging. They make citizens feel better about the woeful ways in which their governments treat immigrants, giving them a moral pass.

    Premising citizenship on exceptional deservingness is a common way of talking about who deserves to become a citizen. Before this pandemic, France gave citizenship to a Malian immigrant who risked his life to scale a building and save a child. But rewarding heroes has also meant implicitly consenting to criminalising everyone who is not a hero.

    During the pandemic, the stories of immigrant deservingness in the U.S. shifted from exceptional youth to essential workers — farm labourers, cleaners, medical personnel — who were amply demonstrating their utility to the nation. Some called on the U.S. government to give these undocumented essential workers protection from deportation or even a path to citizenship. This would undoubtedly improve the lot of these immigrants, yet once again lifts up the few, while maintaining a system that criminalises most. Such calls draw attention away from the failures of the government to provide state payments that allow people to stay at home during a pandemic or make their workplaces safer.

    The linkage between citizenship and productivity in a capitalist workplace, usually as an exploited worker, has uncomfortable implications. Firstly, it leaves out all those who work outside the narrow definitions of productivity, such as in unpaid care work, and those who are young, elderly, disabled, and otherwise outside the capitalist market. Secondly, immigrants are positioned as deserving of the protections of citizenship by the dint of their labour for others.

    After the past year of uprisings against white supremacy in both France and the U.S., it is easy to connect this way of valuing immigrants to the legacies of slavery and colonialism. Indeed, immigrants are being valued for their ability to take the fall, to get sick so “we” do not. To pay this impossible debt — the debt of life, and generations of life, valued as lesser — the state is recognising these immigrants now: quid pro quo. It says: now, we owe you nothing — all histories can be forgotten. We must resist judging the worth of human life and dignity in this way.

    Protecting Ill-Gained Riches of Empire

    What if, in fact, France and the U.S. truly followed the principles upon which their nations were formed — liberty, equality, fraternity; and to be the land of the free? What if they valued everyone’s life equally? Tendayi Achiume, legal scholar and UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, argues that citizenship for all immigrants from the “Third World” to the “First” would simply enact an entitlement to political equality that recognises the interconnections created by past and ongoing forms of imperialism. In other words, French or U.S. citizenship for immigrants — all immigrants — is a form of decolonisation or even debt repayment for past and ongoing imperial projects. Militarised borders, in contrast, are attempts to protect the ill-gained riches of empire.

    There should be an immediate amnesty and path to citizenship for all immigrants in the U.S., whether or not they are deemed essential. While Biden’s plan to provide a pathway to all 11 million undocumented immigrants is a start, why should it be delayed for eight years? More urgently, the U.S. border must be demilitarised, through the dismantling of ICE and Border Patrol, as these groups create the need to label some people as “illegal”, enabling violence against them, and will continue to do so, regardless of a one-time pathway to citizenship. These demands tie in with the Black Lives Matter movement’s abolitionist demands to undo the carceral system, and replace it with one that treats all people with care and respect.

    With a week left in his presidency, Trump visited the border wall in the Rio Grande Valley, to shore up his legacy of hate. A true break with racist policy would knock down the wall and all its supporting ramparts, including the idea of deservingness.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Thousands of refugees in the UK live in rundown conditions with the bare minimum of provisions, writes Enver Solomon of the Refugee Council

    If you or your family had to uproot yourselves to flee war, persecution and torture, and you managed to make it to a safe country, only to be put in a former army barracks or rundown hotel room with little access to support beyond the bare minimum of provisions, how would you feel (‘We felt like we were animals’: asylum seekers describe life in UK barracks, 2 February)? Distressed? Terrified? Anxious? Traumatised? Probably all of those things.

    That’s the reality for thousands of people in the UK. They are forced to live in limbo due to delays in their asylum claims, while living in accommodation where they struggle to access basics such as clothing, healthcare and education. Our government presents people seeking asylum as a threat, rather than humans with great potential to offer our communities. We must do better. Global Britain should be a beacon of compassion and humanity. There are Conservative MPs who believe this (Former immigration minister criticises use of barracks to house asylum seekers, 2 Feb). The prime minister should speak out and move quickly to house people seeking asylum in decent living conditions.
    Enver Solomon
    Chief executive, Refugee Council

    Continue reading…

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

  • In September 2020, the Home Office began to house refugees in former Ministry of Defence (MoD) sites.

    Two military camps are being used – Penally Barracks in Pembrokeshire, and Napier Barracks in Kent. As The Canary previously reportedthe poor conditions at military barrack camps have increasingly been the subject of protests.

    But it turns out that there’s an outrageous reason why refugees are being forced to endure these appalling conditions. The Home Office is housing refugees in barracks because of concern about confidence in the asylum system.

    The Independent reported on 31 January that it had seen internal documents saying “the need to control immigration” justified the provision of “less generous” housing for refugees.

    The documents

    The Independent saw a copy of the equality impact assessment of using military barracks as refugee camps.

    The assessment stated:

    Any provision of support over and beyond what is necessary to enable the individuals to meet their housing and subsistence needs could undermine public confidence in the asylum system and hamper wider efforts to tackle prejudice and promote understanding within the general community and amongst other migrant groups.

    It also said there is a difference between British citizens in need of welfare assistance and refugees.

    The camps

    In December, The Canary interviewed refugees at the Penally camp. They said there were few measures to protect against coronavirus (Covid-19), that they lacked privacy, and that they felt at risk from racist demonstrators outside.

    One refugee said:

    It’s horrible here, I can’t describe how difficult. And every day it is getting worse.

    People are really depressed and we have no hope. We always ask each other ‘why is it us that were sent here’.

    In January, more than a hundred residents at Napier Barracks tested positive for coronavirus.

    Opposition to the camps

    Community organisations have been urging the government to move refugees out of the military barracks.

    Refugee organisations and campaigners wrote a letter in December to Chris Philp, under-secretary of state for immigration compliance, that said:

    We believe that it’s unviable to keep people in barracks; the accommodation is not suitable for vulnerable people and over the last few days there have been suicide attempts, hunger strikes and protests about conditions at the Napier Barracks. It is impossible to socially distance when there are as many as 28 people sharing two toilets and up to 14 people sleeping in a room. As you know, there have already been a number of Covid-19 cases in the barracks which shows the difficulty in keeping the virus contained in such conditions.

    There have also been several protests outside the camps and in cities about the conditions.

    Political gain

    In light of what the documents reveal, opposition to the camps has increased.

    Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) legal director, Chai Patel, told the Independent:

    The government implied these cramped and disused barracks were being used as temporary housing because there was no alternative.

    But this document reveals that Home Office has been jeopardising people’s health for partly political ends – prioritising playing ‘tough’ on migration over the lives of extremely vulnerable people, who’ve been placed in conditions reminiscent of those they were fleeing.

    The Home Office will have to answer for the decision to endanger the health of refugees to control immigration. This revelation showcases some of the worst of anti-refugee policies in this country – people housed in the camps deserve proper, safe housing.

    Featured image via Corporate Watch

    By Jasmine Norden

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • US-based group asks Athens to release details of tests conducted at facility built on former military installation

    An emergency refugee camp erected on the Aegean island of Lesbos is a potential health hazard for thousands of asylum seekers and aid workers because the site has been contaminated by lead poisoning, according to Human Rights Watch.

    The US-based group urged Athens’ centre-right government to release further details of the tests it has conducted at the facility, which was formerly a military installation.

    Continue reading…

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

  • The Kurdish refugee – widely known as Moz Azimi – is adjusting to liberty after 2,737 days in detention, starting with ‘the most Aussie experience I could ever imagine’

    On his second day of freedom in Australia, at the start of the Australia Day weekend, Mostafa Azimitabar went to a Jimmy Barnes concert, which he called “the most Aussie experience I could ever imagine”.

    A member of Iran’s Kurdish minority who fled racist repression in his homeland to seek sanctuary in a safe country, Azimitabar spent 2,737 days detained by Australia.

    Related: Peter Dutton says refugees released from Melbourne hotel detention to save money

    This is the most beautiful moment of my life and one that I would like to share with you all. After 2,737 days locked up in detention – I am free.
    Thank you to all of the amazing people who helped me to stay strong.#GameOver pic.twitter.com/Y5HjFrN9U0

    48 hours after eight years in detention, I am here in the Yarra Valley, at a Jimmy Barnes concert. The most Aussie experience I could ever imagine. I am so deeply grateful to Jimmy and the Barnes family for the invitation.
    #GameOver pic.twitter.com/PqNmevcGSy

    I believe the power of the people can crumble the walls of oppression and my freedom is proof.

    Related: Fazel Chegeni wanted ‘nothing but peace’. Instead he died alone in Australia’s island prison

    Continue reading…

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

  • Call for Home Office to act after private contractors tell people their applications will be jeopardised for speaking out, going on hunger strikes or complaining about food

    People held at temporary Home Office refugee camps are being threatened that their asylum claims will be harmed if they “misbehave”, according to testimony from site residents.

    A series of statements from asylum seekers inside the camps, anonymised to protect them from possible reprisals, allege they have been told by staff employed by private contractors that their asylum application will be jeopardised for speaking out about conditions or going on hunger strike.

    Related: Home Office wrong to stop asylum seekers working in UK, court rules

    Continue reading…

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

  • The UN calls for the resumption of state-led operations in the Mediterranean, as rescue groups’ vessels are detained in port

    At least 43 people have been killed after a boat carrying migrants capsized off the Libyan coast, the UN said on Wednesday.

    Ten people survived the shipwreck, which happened after the boat’s engine failed a few hours after departing the coastal city Zawiya, west of the capital Tripoli, on Tuesday morning.

    Related: Senior Libyan coastguard commander arrested for alleged human trafficking

    Continue reading…

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

  • Human rights session calls on Canberra to raise age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 as China attacks Australia over ‘baseless charges’

    Australia has come under international pressure to reduce the number of children in detention, with more than 30 countries using a UN human rights session to call on authorities to raise the age of criminal responsibility.

    Amid ongoing tensions between China and Australia, Beijing’s representative took the opportunity on Wednesday evening to demand that Canberra “stop using false information to make baseless charges against other countries for political purposes”.

    Related: ‘Treat children like children’: Indigenous kids are crying out for help, judge says, not punishment

    Related: Australia ‘choosing to invest’ in hurting Indigenous kids, activist says – harming all of us

    Continue reading…

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