18 Deaths A Year In U.S. Immigration Prisons

More than 90 prisoners held in immigrant detention centres have died in the past five years, the New York Times reports today, as revealed in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) document labelled "List of Detainee Deaths since October 2003." The record was obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, part of an ongoing investigation of deaths in immigrant prisons.

According to the Times, 32 of the 92 deaths occurred at jails run by private companies, including "at least 18" at facilities run by the notorious Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in the country.

The list of detainee deaths, available here, charts prisoners' names, dates of birth, the facilities where they were held or died, and whether or not an autopsy was performed. The "Cause of Death" field lists everything from AIDS to heart disease, suggesting that many of the prisoners likely suffered from medical neglect. A number committed suicide; "hanging" is listed as the cause of death for six prisoners.

"Of the 92 people who died in detention," reports the Times, "21 were from Cuba, 19 from Mexico, 6 each from Guatemala and Honduras, 5 from El Salvador, three each from Colombia, Haiti and Jamaica; two each from Ghana, Guinea, India, Korea and one each from 18 other countries, including Germany, Brazil, Afghanistan and the Philippines." [from Alternet.org]

Europe's Externalised Immigration Controls Results In Mass Drowning

Over 500 migrants are likely to have drowned crossing the Mediterranean from Libya as two boats sank and a third is still missing. The Libyan authorities put responsibility on strong winds rather than on the border regime they are implementing on behalf of Italy and European governments and paid for by the taxpayers of Italy and of the European Union.


"On 29 March 2009, 30 km from the Libyan coast, there was one of the largest shipwrecks in the history of immigration into Europe: out of three boats that set off from Libya, two sank and the third disappeared.

"Provisional figures refer to 23 survivors, 21 corpses recovered and over 500 disappeared people, undoubtedly swallowed up by the Channel of Sicily. As always happens for this sort of events, information is opaque and often contradictory. At first, the Libyan press agency limited itself to announcing that a majority of the migrants were Egyptian and that the three vessels had set off from the port of Sid Belal Janzur, with a total of 257 people on board. As for the International Organisation for Migrations (IOM), two days later, on 31 March, it announced that the number of victims from the three boats was estimated at 300. In Italy (the passengers’ destination), the press switched between repetition of the news from Libya and reports that the 257 people referred to were all on one of the three boats: which, if it were revealed to be true, would throw up a far more appalling estimate of the total number of people who have disappeared.

"Beyond these hideous estimates, the statements from Libya are shocking, as they explain away this tragedy as the consequence of a very strong wind that was prevalent at the time. Rather, should responsibility for this slaughter not be attributed to the European Union, which promises 20 million Euros to the Libyan state in exchange for its co-operation in the fight against "irregular" immigration ? Or to Italy, which has been signing various "friendship agreements" that include migration clauses with this dictatorship since 2000 ? And also to Libya, which, like its neighbours in the Maghreb, use migrants as an exchange currency to obtain a privileged position in international negotiations ?

"It is feared that the authorities’ reaction to this new tragedy will, once again, be to exploit these dramatic events without regard for the real causes that push migrants to take on deadly risks to reach Europe, in order to justify a hardening of controls.

"On this portion of the maritime borders, the effects of the Italian policy to externalise patrolling operations along the Libyan coasts are also to be feared, as they will only result in an increase in the number of tragedies at sea and of the instances in which people who are returned are placed at risk in the country not governed by the rule of law that is Libya."

[from Migreurop press release]

Department of Health Guidance Ruled Unlawful...

...But 'Failed' Asylum Seekers Are Still Not Entitled To Free NHS Treatment.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that Department of Health guidance which forbids hospitals from providing temporary healthcare to destitute migrants with chronic illnesses is unlawful.

The court case brought by a Palestinian man, Mr. A, with chronic liver disease, who had had his asylum claim refused and, prevented from travelling back to the West Bank by Israeli travel restrictions despite having agreed to return, was refused treatment by West Middlesex University Hospital.

Dept. of Health guidance states that hospitals should not provide treatment to such patients unless they pay for it in advance, ignoring the fact that many of these patients are destitute, many cannot return home, so they are not treated until they require life-saving treatment.

The hospital eventually agreed to treat Mr. A after he started an urgent High Court action. However, he continued the case, arguing that the guidance was unlawful and it was preventing thousands of other refused asylum-seekers from accessing urgent treatment. The High Court ruled that refused asylum-seekers could be entitled to free treatment if they had been here long enough and were following the rules, but the government appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeal, whilst rejecting the High Court’s ruling that refused asylum-seekers could be classed as being legally resident in the country, upheld the decision that the guidance was unlawful as it did not make it clear enough that hospitals must consider providing treatment where a patient cannot return home and cannot pay for the treatment in advance.

However, this still leaves a situation where there is no automatic right to health care for failed' asylum seekers who are unable to return to their country of origin and that it up to individual hospitals to make decisions about treatment on a case by case basis. (See: 1, 2)

Tinsley House Blockaders Sentenced

Seven of the anti-deportation campaigners who blockaded Tinsley House immigration detention centre at Gatwick airport earlier this month (see 18 March post) pleaded guilty to the charge of 'aggravated trespass' at Crawley Magistrates Court yesterday. Six of them locked and glued themselves to the gate of Tinsley House on 17th March in an attempt to prevent Iraqi refugees being taken to Stansted airport to be forcibly deported on a special charter flight to northern Iraq later that day. All seven were released on conditional discharge and ordered to pay the court fees. Two other protesters, who were also arrested on the action, pleaded not guilty and are due in court again soon.

Guantanamo-Sur-Mer?

If a news story in yesterday's Independent is to be believed, it now appears that the new detention centre 'planned' for Calais and currently under discussion by the French & UK governments, will be sited within the UK 'control zone' within the port area. This proposal attempts to exploit the ambiguous legal status of the 'control zone', allowing the UK & French authorities to bypass both their own and the EU's legal strictures that currently prevent them from expelling detained migrants as easily as they would wish.[1]

In February 2004 Home Office immigration controls moved to the so-called 'juxtaposed control zones' within the Calais, Boulogne and Dunkerque dock areas established under the 2003 Le Touquet treaty. Since then immigration officers have operated on 'French soil' and are allowed, under the reciprocal provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum [NIA] Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003, to search ships and vehicles and detain 'illegal' immigrants.

When the Home Office was reorganised and the UK Border Agency created, a second version of the legislation was passed, the NIA Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2006, which "authorise persons other than immigration officers to search a ship, aircraft or vehicle or other thing for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there are individuals whom an immigration officer might wish to examine for the purposes of considering whether the person should enter the UK."[2]

Now this may create a little bit of Blighty in France but UK control ends at the fence around the port.[3] And there is still the small problem of where the deportaion flights for the detainees, from what would potentially be the UK's very own Guantanamo, would fly from. Calais Marck Airport is far too small to take international flights and that means that the deportees would either have to be transported by boat to England, for a flight from there, or they would have to travel via French soil to a French Airport, which would cause legal problems for the French and defeat the whole object of the exercise. Of course they could always put them on a slow boat to Aghanistan or Iraq!

Another interesting recent development have been the reports from migrant support workers in Calais of what appear to be either UK police or UKBA officers on patrol with the French Border Police. If true, this is significant in that it indicates that the UK influence on French soil seems to be expanding even further and beyond the legal limits of the Calais port fence.


[1] France had already fallen foul of the European Declaration on Human Rights when they tried to hold a mass deportation back to Afghanistan last November, and most migrants detained in the North West of France have no papers and their countries of origin cannot accurately be ascertained.
[2] This Act also enables these "persons other than immigration officer", the UKBA's equivalent of Police Community Support Officers, to detain people up to a maximum of three hours in order to escort them to an immigration officer. It also provides for the taking and retention of fingerprints under Sections 141 and 143 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
[3] Not strictly true as the UKBA operate visa controls at Paris, Brussels, Lille and Calais Frethun rail stations, as well as on Eurostar trains.

Entente Not So Cordiale

It seems that Phil Woolas has put his foot in in/run off at the mouth/jumped the gun/got hold of the wrong end of the stick/spilt the beans/made a fopar/made a faux pas* yet again when he announced the 'plans' for the building of a internment camp for migrants in the Calais area. (see Wednesday's post)

In response to his pronouncements, there have been what can only be politely labelled as mixed signals coming from France. These range from a rather strange version of 'No Comment' from Eric Besson, where he denied that they were plans to build a new Sangatte(!), to an out right "Not in my backyard" by an unnamed French official.

It seems that, despite courting publicity in the first days after his appointment (see 28 January post), Besson now wants to avoid being associated with the controversy that Woolas' comments have sparked in France.

Of course some of this new reticence may be linked to the publicity surrounding Besson's reaction to the release of Philippe Lioret's film 'Welcome', which makes a direct comparison between the ordeal experienced by many migrants in France and the plight of Jews in Nazi-occupied France during the Second World War. Besson claimed that Lioret has "crossed a red line" using such a comparison, which he claimed was used only in an effort to generate publicity for the film. However the French public don't seem to see it that way, and the film itself has sparked a country-wide debate over the fate of the Calais migrants, as well as being a box-office hit.


*delete as non-applicable.

Brook House Opens As Tinsley House Goes On Hunger Strike

Yesterday Jacqui Smith ceremonially opened Brook House, the latest privately run (G4S in this case) Immigration Prison to be built in the UK. The 426 bed Category B style building brings the UK detention estate up to 3,038 places, with a further 1300 in the pipeline.

Yet all is not going smoothly in G4S's latest venture. All the inmates at Tinsley House, 750m up the South Perimeter Road at Gatwick Airport, have been on hunger strike for 2 days due to changes in the meal system introduced since Brook House became operational. Their meals are now cooked in the kitchens of Brook House to save G4S a few quid and help maximise their profits.

This has resulted in the Tinsley inmates having to order their meals 48 hours in advance and the food is cold and they receive much smaller portions than they had previously (more cost cutting?). Still, atleast Jacqui Smith can sleep happier in her nice comfortable bed (see BBC news clip for a look inside a Brook House cell - sorry 'room' as the UKBA newspeak labels them) knowing that all those 'foreign criminals' will be getting reduced portions of their just desserts.