Immigration and asylum - new material (7)
01 July 2010
State Sponsored Cruelty’ – Children in immigration detention, Jon Burnett, Judith Carter, Jon Evershed, Maya Bell Kohli, Claire Powell, and Gervase de Wilde. Medical Justice, 2010, pp. 80. This important report explores the physical and psychological harms caused by the detention of children for immigration purposes in the UK, examining 141 cases between 2004 and April 2010. It sets out key findings in the following areas: the length of time a child is detained; the impact of dawn raids; conditions in detention; violence in detention; psychological and physical harms; the provision of medical care; the failure to immunise children prior to removal; the impact of detention upon parents and the impacts of separating families. These investigations expose “a catalogue of damage that has been both caused and exacerbated by detaining children” and the authors make 11 recommendations to the government, demanding the end of detention for children and families and alternatives to detention that are based on the interests of the child. Its final recommendation is for “a full public inquiry which investigates how UK immigration policy led to the routine detention of children for the purposes of immigration control, and the harm that this policy caused.” Medical Justice website: http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/
La ficción de las políticas de control migratorio. Los programas de retorno voluntario, Peio Aierbe. Mugak, no. 51, June 2010, pp. 36-37. In its analysis of a EP report on “Programmes for voluntary returns”, this article analyses the institutional use of language in this field, highlighting “the huge gulf between the goals that are stated, the contents of migration and control policies, and what they effectively achieve”. “Returns of migrants in an irregular situation” (a euphemism to avoid talking of expulsions) are identified as an “economic, social and political priority”, without what makes them a “priority” deserving even a passing comment. The fact that forced returns may undermine “a person’s dignity” is fleetingly mentioned, but the real concern is that they are “expensive and unpopular”. In fact, the difference in the range of costs between “forced” and “voluntary” returns is such, that in the UK, the former cost “between £11,000 and £25,600”, whereas the latter cost “between £600 and £5,000”, without taking the considerable cost of detention into account. The author goes on to question the meaning given to the figures provided in the report, before looking at the key fallacy: how can a return be termed “voluntary” without considering the view and interests of migrants who have come to Europe moved by powerful reasons that are not remotely balanced by the incentives that these programmes supposedly offer (support for reintegration, development aid, etc.)? The answer: the message is for consumption by the EU’s internal public opinion, a mere façade, because migrants who have been declared “undesirable” are well aware of the true nature of these policies.
Two asylum seekers deported to Iraq and ‘tortured’ were not Iraqis, Owen Boycott. The Guardian 11.11.10. This short article describes admissions made by the Foreign office in a letter to the European Court of Human Rights arguing for a resumption of removals to Iraq. It describes the traumatic experience of two asylum seekers who were deported to Iraq and were tortured before being returned to the UK when they were found not to be Iraqi. The Foreign Office says: “The UKBA is investigating allegations by two individuals, who were removed on [the] charter flight to Baghdad on 6 September, and they were tortured by Iraqi authorities while detained in Baghdad. The two were subsequently returned to the UK on 22 September because they were found by Iraqi authorities not to be Iraqis.”
Family Removals: A Thematic Inspection January – April 2010, John Vine. Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency (HO_01690_ICIU) 2010, pp. 34. Vine, the Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, writes that he is “concerned” to have found significant weaknesses in current removal procedures: “... specifically no clear individually tailored plans for families throughout their contact with the UK Border Agency, poor compliance in the completion of health and welfare documentation and, should an arrest be necessary, where and when this should be carried out.” He “consider[s] that the UK Border Agency could be more effective in ensuring families are encouraged to return voluntarily.” It is “unacceptable that the UK Border Agency has no system or process in place to capture and publish with confidence data on families. Given the potential stress experienced by families who are detained, together with the significant cost to the taxpayer both of detention and supporting families in the community, I would expect to see more comprehensive information collected, analysed, produced and published by the UK Border Agency”. He says that “clear records need to be maintained in each and every family case and appropriate information on how the UK Border Agency exercises its powers of arrest and detention should be placed routinely in the public domain. Transparency in this area is important – the public should have confidence that the UK Border Agency is meeting its obligation to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children while still being effective in removing families who have no right to remain in the United Kingdom.” See: http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Family-Removals-A-Thematic-Inspection.pdf
Women's labour migration in the context of globalisation, Anja K. Franck & Andrea Spehar (WIDE) 2010, pp. 83. This study points out the ambiguity in migration discourse in Europe, “where a combination of economic needs and security interests define fairly restrictive migration policies. While the (temporary), regular movement of highly skilled professionals is encouraged, migrants moving into low-skilled jobs to meet the increasing demand for cheap and flexible migrant labour are facing manifold discrimination. They often find themselves with an unregulated status, where they are systematically denied a basic standard of living and face a de facto violation of their fundamental rights: they lack access to basic services such as health care or education, they are deprived of labour rights and social protection, and in the worst cases their bodily integrity and physical security are threatened.” The authors also draw attention to the “inconsistencies and lack of cohesion between international and EU commitments to human, women’s and workers’ rights, on the one hand, and its migration policy discourse and practice, on the other.” See: http://62.149.193.10/wide/download/WIDE%20Migration%20report%20final.pdf?id=1256