It's time again for yet another instalment of our occasional service debunking migration stories in the Daily Mail, self-styled 'Last Bulwark Against The Tide Of Filth That Is Threatening To Engulf Civilisation'™
Why is it that the Daily Mail has a total lack of understanding of migration issues? Their latest migration-related piece - 'Labour relaxes the rules to let 40,000 asylum seekers stay' [09/10/09] - continues the odious career of the paper's barely comprehensible rants about all things foreign, especially when they are foreigners here in good old Blighty.
The 40,000 figure actually relates to 40,000 files for various types of migrants and visitors who were told by the Home Office prior to 2003 that they no longer had a right to stay in the UK. So that is people on work permits, already granted temporary leave to remain, on student visas and visitor visas who were all subsequently turned down for extensions to their stay. NOT ONE SINGLE ASYLUM SEEKER amongst them.
The details come from a leaked memo, entitled 'Restricted – Policy. Completion of the legacy exercise', from Matthew Coats, the head of immigration at the UK Border Agency, to Home Secretary Alan Johnson and Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister detailing changes in guidelines designed to grant indefinite leave to remain for the 40,000. And the reason why the guidelines were being changed was because the UKBA have no way of telling if any of the 40.000 had remained in the UK, as up until recently no checks were made on who was leaving the country, and would be almost impossible to locate all those who had remained.
Yet one would be hard pressed to work that out from the Mail's version of events. The reason they give is that "it would be virtually impossible to send many of them back as they were from countries with poor human rights records such as Zimbabwe, Somalia, Iran and China." i.e. blame it on the Human Rights Act again (though to give them their due, they don't actually say that this time).
And to top it all, what do we have but yet another photograph of Calais migrants queuing for "food handouts" (not charity from French humanitarian volunteers - 'bloody spongers' being the obvious subtext here) illustrating a story about historic migrants from pre-2003!
Friday, 9 October 2009
Words From Afghanistan
The cancelling of France's participation in the Afghan deportation flight on 6 October may well have been the victory for refugee and migrant rights groups, who carried out protests such as the one at Lille's Lesquin Airport on Wednesday night, as the Institute of Race Relations and others rightly claim it to be. But many of us know that it is inevitable that the UK and French governments will try again, despite the growing evidence that the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse despite the pretence at countrywide elections.
This has been starkly illustrated by the testimony of Wahid Nawabi, the president of the Association Ensemble Pour l’Afghanistan (EPA). He and his colleagues, who work closely witht he associations in calais and cooperated with Medicins du Monde in the recent scabies treatment programme, have just returned from a mission to Kabul to evaluate a 7 year programme of development aid. This programme has allowed their organisation to establish a network of contacts with detailed knowledge of the political, economic, social and security of the country, and their conclusion paint a picture of a country "in a creeping total war and there is not a secure square kilometre in Afghanistan, including Kabul, and many areas, such as East and South, are strongly dominated by the presence of Taliban. The ex-pats are forbidden to leave town and live in complete 'bunkerisation'.
"In a country plagued by narcotics trafficking, the mafia and corruption there is no embryo of a state law or the ability to ensure public safety. This failing is particularly pronounced in regions of eastern and southern Afghanistan, mostly Pashtun, from which originate most migrants in Calais. These are also areas of conflict where the most violent civilian deaths in the thousands over the last 3-4 years: victims of NATO strikes, the Taliban, warlords and traffickers of all kinds."
"During my recent visit to Kabul, I made informal contacts with two UN staff, including one from the UNHCR, about the risk faced by Afghans who were forcibly returned by the EU countries. According to these sources, the antenna of the IOM in Kabul has information on multiple cases of former migrants who have been executed on their return home. While not belonging to the IOM they reported 2 cases of murder, one of which recently took place in Paghman (25 km from Kabul), domain of the 'warlord' Rasoul Sayyaf. According to these people, the grounds for execution are either as a collaborator [many who flee Afghanistan have been translators for NATO] or having been label as being on a particular side in the conflict or through the inability to repay loans ($15-25000) contracted with the traffickers.
"In short, migrants fleeing poverty to build a better future are now also exposed to death for political reasons. In these circumstances the European states like Britain which proceed with forced returns or those who are consider doing so like France, beyond the fact that they violate the right of asylum, bear a direct criminal responsibility for each case Migrant murdered or subjected to violence to return to Afghanistan.
"The NATO countries now recognize their total failure both on the security front and on reconstruction, but they refuse to admit that these migrants are the sad result of a faulty strategy deployed during the past eight years. It is for this reason that we are totally responsible for those migrants who are on our soil and that we must protect.
"It is interesting to note the striking contrast in the treatment of Afghan refugees from the period of Soviet occupation and now. During the Russian-led war in Afghanistan, the West welcomed the Afghan migrants (400-300,000) with open arms. When Afghans fleeing war and violence with NATO in command of military operations, we tell them they are undesirable and that the security situation is good enough at home for them to return there.
"The destruction of the 'jungle' was broadcast in Kabul on 2 occasions and the man in the street has retained the violent intervention of the French state. The words of a taxi driver summed up pretty well felt locally: 1) Kabul = Calais, we suffer the same treatment and experience the misery and violence, 2) for migrants only seeking Eldorado, the bigwigs traffickers are in the highest echelons of the Afghan state and the Western diplomats and generals meet them daily. If they really want to send a message to the traffickers, do not blame the victims and punish them a second time, neutralize the leaders, 3) stop the war and that will give hope of life and dignity to this country and the problem of migration will disappear.
"The complexity and the increasing migration from South to North, which is on political or economic grounds, requires a comprehensive, humane and accountable approach. We do not address one of the challenges of the 21st century by brutality and media events, contrary to our republican and democratic values, and barricading themselves behind the Treaty of Dublin."
This has been starkly illustrated by the testimony of Wahid Nawabi, the president of the Association Ensemble Pour l’Afghanistan (EPA). He and his colleagues, who work closely witht he associations in calais and cooperated with Medicins du Monde in the recent scabies treatment programme, have just returned from a mission to Kabul to evaluate a 7 year programme of development aid. This programme has allowed their organisation to establish a network of contacts with detailed knowledge of the political, economic, social and security of the country, and their conclusion paint a picture of a country "in a creeping total war and there is not a secure square kilometre in Afghanistan, including Kabul, and many areas, such as East and South, are strongly dominated by the presence of Taliban. The ex-pats are forbidden to leave town and live in complete 'bunkerisation'.
"In a country plagued by narcotics trafficking, the mafia and corruption there is no embryo of a state law or the ability to ensure public safety. This failing is particularly pronounced in regions of eastern and southern Afghanistan, mostly Pashtun, from which originate most migrants in Calais. These are also areas of conflict where the most violent civilian deaths in the thousands over the last 3-4 years: victims of NATO strikes, the Taliban, warlords and traffickers of all kinds."
"During my recent visit to Kabul, I made informal contacts with two UN staff, including one from the UNHCR, about the risk faced by Afghans who were forcibly returned by the EU countries. According to these sources, the antenna of the IOM in Kabul has information on multiple cases of former migrants who have been executed on their return home. While not belonging to the IOM they reported 2 cases of murder, one of which recently took place in Paghman (25 km from Kabul), domain of the 'warlord' Rasoul Sayyaf. According to these people, the grounds for execution are either as a collaborator [many who flee Afghanistan have been translators for NATO] or having been label as being on a particular side in the conflict or through the inability to repay loans ($15-25000) contracted with the traffickers.
"In short, migrants fleeing poverty to build a better future are now also exposed to death for political reasons. In these circumstances the European states like Britain which proceed with forced returns or those who are consider doing so like France, beyond the fact that they violate the right of asylum, bear a direct criminal responsibility for each case Migrant murdered or subjected to violence to return to Afghanistan.
"The NATO countries now recognize their total failure both on the security front and on reconstruction, but they refuse to admit that these migrants are the sad result of a faulty strategy deployed during the past eight years. It is for this reason that we are totally responsible for those migrants who are on our soil and that we must protect.
"It is interesting to note the striking contrast in the treatment of Afghan refugees from the period of Soviet occupation and now. During the Russian-led war in Afghanistan, the West welcomed the Afghan migrants (400-300,000) with open arms. When Afghans fleeing war and violence with NATO in command of military operations, we tell them they are undesirable and that the security situation is good enough at home for them to return there.
"The destruction of the 'jungle' was broadcast in Kabul on 2 occasions and the man in the street has retained the violent intervention of the French state. The words of a taxi driver summed up pretty well felt locally: 1) Kabul = Calais, we suffer the same treatment and experience the misery and violence, 2) for migrants only seeking Eldorado, the bigwigs traffickers are in the highest echelons of the Afghan state and the Western diplomats and generals meet them daily. If they really want to send a message to the traffickers, do not blame the victims and punish them a second time, neutralize the leaders, 3) stop the war and that will give hope of life and dignity to this country and the problem of migration will disappear.
"The complexity and the increasing migration from South to North, which is on political or economic grounds, requires a comprehensive, humane and accountable approach. We do not address one of the challenges of the 21st century by brutality and media events, contrary to our republican and democratic values, and barricading themselves behind the Treaty of Dublin."
UKBA DNA & Isotope Testing Suspended
The UK Borders Agency announced yesterday in a circular that their DNA and isotope testing project had been 'temporarily' suspended - "The nationality swapping - Isotope analysis and DNA testing process has been has been temporarily suspended and the instruction withdrawn. Officers will be notified when the process resumes."
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Another Raid In Calais
Press Release from Lille No Borders:
This morning at 8.15am at the Paul Devot Dock more than 15 CRS vans surrounded the squats of the various communities that found solace there. Some 50 police then arrested over 30 migrants who were unable to leave as the police had blockaded the front exit with their vans and a new fence had been placed in the back exit the night previously which left them caged in from all sides. A No Borders activist was there at the time also and attempted to videotape the arrests but she was evicted from the premises. The Chamber of Commerce then had two large blue containers deposited for the migrants' belongings and then with the use of tractors the destruction of the sleeping bags, mattresses, clothes and homes of the migrants could begin.
For years, this place has served as a shelter for these communities and activists have visited on a nightly basis to monitor the activities of the police due to reports of beatings and the use of CS gas on the members of the communities there. Although the people there were on private property - a property open to everyone, which didn't seem to disturb anyone - it is difficult to see how that justifies the destruction of their private belongings. For the time being, we have no idea where the arrested migrants are; we hope they will be released shortly, they will in any case be released at some point, and then their battle to find a place to sleep will occur once more, in the rain, the wind and the cold.
After having refused to give these people the freedom of movement which most European citizens enjoy, after having placed them in this artificial and useless destitution, the state has found it useful to worsen the poverty with this new destruction, in the sick hope that it would push them to abandon that which they have an inalienable right to.
The state has destroyed much but the migrants are still there, and so are we.
SOLIDARITE AVEC LES SANS PAPIERS.
This morning at 8.15am at the Paul Devot Dock more than 15 CRS vans surrounded the squats of the various communities that found solace there. Some 50 police then arrested over 30 migrants who were unable to leave as the police had blockaded the front exit with their vans and a new fence had been placed in the back exit the night previously which left them caged in from all sides. A No Borders activist was there at the time also and attempted to videotape the arrests but she was evicted from the premises. The Chamber of Commerce then had two large blue containers deposited for the migrants' belongings and then with the use of tractors the destruction of the sleeping bags, mattresses, clothes and homes of the migrants could begin.
For years, this place has served as a shelter for these communities and activists have visited on a nightly basis to monitor the activities of the police due to reports of beatings and the use of CS gas on the members of the communities there. Although the people there were on private property - a property open to everyone, which didn't seem to disturb anyone - it is difficult to see how that justifies the destruction of their private belongings. For the time being, we have no idea where the arrested migrants are; we hope they will be released shortly, they will in any case be released at some point, and then their battle to find a place to sleep will occur once more, in the rain, the wind and the cold.
After having refused to give these people the freedom of movement which most European citizens enjoy, after having placed them in this artificial and useless destitution, the state has found it useful to worsen the poverty with this new destruction, in the sick hope that it would push them to abandon that which they have an inalienable right to.
The state has destroyed much but the migrants are still there, and so are we.
SOLIDARITE AVEC LES SANS PAPIERS.
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Joint Anglo-French Deportation Flight Today: The Facts!
Today has seen a flurry of reactionary tabloid tat about the proposed joint UK-France deportation flight to Afghanistan and the so-called 'Global Calais Scheme'. Here are the facts:
In his Telegraph article yesterday he quotes Pierre de Bousquet (who he helpfully identifies as "state Prefect for the Pas-de-Calais, is the most powerful politician in the region" even though he is merely a government official) back in July as saying that the cash "will smooth their passage in their home country and enable each and every one of them to realise their ambitions. Organisations are present in their country of origin who will assure they're looked after." [Surely he can't mean the Taliban here?]
Allen then goes on to say that: "The "Global Calais Scheme" is to be partly paid for by British taxpayers and will be offered to those sleeping rough around the French port as they try to board ferries and trains bound for England.Under the scheme, migrants will be offered a plane ride home as well as resettlement assistance and retraining when they get there. The French government is also offering 2,000 euros (£1,724) in cash." - Are you beginning to see the pattern?
He also got paid for the following version: The controversial plan was announced by French politician Pierre de Bousquet, who said: “Each person will receive the sum of €2,000. This amount will smooth their passage to their home country and enable each and every one of them to realise their ambitions.” - Daily Star
Strangely enough he didn't quote de Bousquet in his Mail version of the article but the de Bousquet quotes were recycled elsewhere. Which brings us back to the current version, which first appeared yesterday as 'Calais migrants to get flight home and £1,900' in the Telegraph under Allen's byline. In an article that is basically a rehash of his original 28 July piece (check out the use of the same photograph with the same caption: 'Migrants in Calais to be offered £1,700 cash and a free flight home') he compounds his original 'mistake' (we'll be diplomatic and call it a mistake, though given the history of the papers that he writes for and whom we understand consider him to be a 'senior and well-trained journalist' it would appear to be one mistake too many to be considered a mere coincidence) by adding the "guaranteed place on the plane worth around £500" to the cost.**
He then goes on to say that " intended to be the first of many flights which will cost millions of pounds, split between France and Britain", and outrage of outrage "there will be nothing to prevent any of them travelling all the way back to France the moment they get to Afghanistan", ignoring the legal basis of the agreement. However, the crowning glory of the article is, (cue roll of drums): "The dramatic development followed last month's clearing of "The Jungle"(!), followed by a rehash of the de Bousquet stuff from the original article, thus disproving that the development is neither dramatic nor that it follows last month's clearance of the 'Jungle'. Again he also gets paid for the same tosh twice when he gets a version in the Mail today, which also surprisingly leaving out any reference to de Bousquet considering the Mail's love of all things French.
The only light at the end of this tunnel is that none of the other tabloids seem to have decided to recycle his tat, as they all seem to do, though the right wing blogosphere have taken to it like a shiver of sharks around a bait ball.
* Interestingly we have come across no French media coverage of this €2,000 in hand cash nor can we find the original public statement by de Bousquet.
**Maybe it was him that also wrote the piece 'Failed asylum seekers living in Britain receive 'resettlement grants' worth thousands' back on 28 July under the 'by Daily Mail Reporter' byline, recycling the same story but from a UK perspective with such wonderful nuggets as: "Ministers insist it provides good value as the total cost of forcibly removing a bogus refugee can be as much as £11,000."; "But the programme has cost the taxpayer well in excess of £30million. In part, this is down to the nature of the businesses opened by its beneficiaries" and "A 35-year-old Iranian was given money to open an ostrich farm, an Albanian was given cash to open a vineyard while a Zimbabwean was paid hundreds of pounds to open a beauty salon."?
UPDATE:
The Frecnh leg of the flight was apparently cancelled by Besson either because of lack of landing permission in Baku (according to Besson himself) or because of the public pressure placed upon him (according to everyone else).
- There are regular weekly deportation flights from the UK to Afghanistan under the 'Operation Ravel' banner.
- The flight will now stop at Lille airport tonight at 23:30 French time to pick up French migrant detainees.
- These will NOT be from the destruction of the Pashtun 'Jungle' on 22 September, as French activists, including GISTI (Group Information and support for immigrants) who visit migrants in French detention centres, estimate that 139 of the 140 adult migrants arrested in the clearance have been released.
- These include 7 Afghans released from detention in Rouen after the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which is exactly what happen last November, the last time the UK and France tried to organise a joint deportation flight.
- The so-called 'Global Calais Scheme', despite what the tabloid press have been saying, does not entitle the returned migrants to £1,900 cash in hand* (they can't even get the exchange conversion from €2,000 right, which is equivalent to £1,845) and guaranteed retraining if they return home voluntarily. This is in fact yet another version of the International Organisation of Migration's voluntary repatriation scheme (seen in this country under the name Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programme) which has been running for years. With this, the migrant must sign a contract agreeing to return 'voluntarily' (except if they don't they'll get forcibly returned anyway) to their country of origin and not to return to where they are being removed from for 10 years. In return €2,000 (or whatever the going rate is) will be paid to a third party to either provide education and training courses or to supply equipment for a new business start-up. It does NOT go directly to the migrants despite the rubbish contained in the tabloid press.
In his Telegraph article yesterday he quotes Pierre de Bousquet (who he helpfully identifies as "state Prefect for the Pas-de-Calais, is the most powerful politician in the region" even though he is merely a government official) back in July as saying that the cash "will smooth their passage in their home country and enable each and every one of them to realise their ambitions. Organisations are present in their country of origin who will assure they're looked after." [Surely he can't mean the Taliban here?]
Allen then goes on to say that: "The "Global Calais Scheme" is to be partly paid for by British taxpayers and will be offered to those sleeping rough around the French port as they try to board ferries and trains bound for England.Under the scheme, migrants will be offered a plane ride home as well as resettlement assistance and retraining when they get there. The French government is also offering 2,000 euros (£1,724) in cash." - Are you beginning to see the pattern?
He also got paid for the following version: The controversial plan was announced by French politician Pierre de Bousquet, who said: “Each person will receive the sum of €2,000. This amount will smooth their passage to their home country and enable each and every one of them to realise their ambitions.” - Daily Star
Strangely enough he didn't quote de Bousquet in his Mail version of the article but the de Bousquet quotes were recycled elsewhere. Which brings us back to the current version, which first appeared yesterday as 'Calais migrants to get flight home and £1,900' in the Telegraph under Allen's byline. In an article that is basically a rehash of his original 28 July piece (check out the use of the same photograph with the same caption: 'Migrants in Calais to be offered £1,700 cash and a free flight home') he compounds his original 'mistake' (we'll be diplomatic and call it a mistake, though given the history of the papers that he writes for and whom we understand consider him to be a 'senior and well-trained journalist' it would appear to be one mistake too many to be considered a mere coincidence) by adding the "guaranteed place on the plane worth around £500" to the cost.**
He then goes on to say that " intended to be the first of many flights which will cost millions of pounds, split between France and Britain", and outrage of outrage "there will be nothing to prevent any of them travelling all the way back to France the moment they get to Afghanistan", ignoring the legal basis of the agreement. However, the crowning glory of the article is, (cue roll of drums): "The dramatic development followed last month's clearing of "The Jungle"(!), followed by a rehash of the de Bousquet stuff from the original article, thus disproving that the development is neither dramatic nor that it follows last month's clearance of the 'Jungle'. Again he also gets paid for the same tosh twice when he gets a version in the Mail today, which also surprisingly leaving out any reference to de Bousquet considering the Mail's love of all things French.
The only light at the end of this tunnel is that none of the other tabloids seem to have decided to recycle his tat, as they all seem to do, though the right wing blogosphere have taken to it like a shiver of sharks around a bait ball.
* Interestingly we have come across no French media coverage of this €2,000 in hand cash nor can we find the original public statement by de Bousquet.
**Maybe it was him that also wrote the piece 'Failed asylum seekers living in Britain receive 'resettlement grants' worth thousands' back on 28 July under the 'by Daily Mail Reporter' byline, recycling the same story but from a UK perspective with such wonderful nuggets as: "Ministers insist it provides good value as the total cost of forcibly removing a bogus refugee can be as much as £11,000."; "But the programme has cost the taxpayer well in excess of £30million. In part, this is down to the nature of the businesses opened by its beneficiaries" and "A 35-year-old Iranian was given money to open an ostrich farm, an Albanian was given cash to open a vineyard while a Zimbabwean was paid hundreds of pounds to open a beauty salon."?
UPDATE:
The Frecnh leg of the flight was apparently cancelled by Besson either because of lack of landing permission in Baku (according to Besson himself) or because of the public pressure placed upon him (according to everyone else).
Arora International Hotel Occupied
Anti-detention campaigners are currently holding a protest inside the Arora International Hotel near Heathrow airport against what they described as the hotel company's "cynical, profit-driven opportunism." Armed with a banner and leaflets, they are demanding that Arora drops its plans to turn one of its hotels into an immigration prison.
Driven by what appears to be a decline in business, Arora Management Services Ltd has applied to the Crawley Borough Council for permission to turn its four-star hotel at Gatwick airport, Mercure, into an immigration detention centre. If the planning permission is granted, the hotel will be converted into a secure, prison and the 245 bedrooms into single and family cells.
Like other private companies that run privatised detention centres across the country, Arora is trying to sell its plan by arguing that locating detention centres at airports would make deportations easier and less costly for the government.
The Crawley Borough Council's Local Plan 2000 states that planning permission "will not be granted for development within the airport boundary which is not clearly required in this location for [the airports] operational, functional, safety or security reasons."
Gatwick airport already has two detention centres: Tinsley House, which can hold 125 male and female detainees, and the newly opened Brook House, which can hold 426. Both are run by private security company G4S.
Eight out of the UK's 11 immigration detention centres are run by private companies. Four are located inside or near airports.
Campaigners argue that locating detention centres inside airports also serves to keep detention and deportations out of the public gaze as airports are subject to special bylaws and accessing them, for example by visitors and campaigners, is much harder.
One of the protesters, who preferred to keep anonymous, said: "This is just another example of cynical, profit-driven opportunism of big companies wanting a slice of the lucrative detention market. Thousands of innocent migrants are locked up in immigration prisons across the country or prolonged periods of time pending their forcible deportation. With no right to automatic bail and no access to adequate legal representation, they are treated like criminals when their only 'crime' is seeking safety or a better life. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to argue that it is profit-driven companies like Arora and G4S that drive such draconian policies."
For any further enquiries, please contact:
Email: noborderslondon@riseup.net
Tel: 075 3400 8380
Photos available on request.
Background newspaper stories: 1, 2, 3.
Driven by what appears to be a decline in business, Arora Management Services Ltd has applied to the Crawley Borough Council for permission to turn its four-star hotel at Gatwick airport, Mercure, into an immigration detention centre. If the planning permission is granted, the hotel will be converted into a secure, prison and the 245 bedrooms into single and family cells.
Like other private companies that run privatised detention centres across the country, Arora is trying to sell its plan by arguing that locating detention centres at airports would make deportations easier and less costly for the government.
The Crawley Borough Council's Local Plan 2000 states that planning permission "will not be granted for development within the airport boundary which is not clearly required in this location for [the airports] operational, functional, safety or security reasons."
Gatwick airport already has two detention centres: Tinsley House, which can hold 125 male and female detainees, and the newly opened Brook House, which can hold 426. Both are run by private security company G4S.
Eight out of the UK's 11 immigration detention centres are run by private companies. Four are located inside or near airports.
Campaigners argue that locating detention centres inside airports also serves to keep detention and deportations out of the public gaze as airports are subject to special bylaws and accessing them, for example by visitors and campaigners, is much harder.
One of the protesters, who preferred to keep anonymous, said: "This is just another example of cynical, profit-driven opportunism of big companies wanting a slice of the lucrative detention market. Thousands of innocent migrants are locked up in immigration prisons across the country or prolonged periods of time pending their forcible deportation. With no right to automatic bail and no access to adequate legal representation, they are treated like criminals when their only 'crime' is seeking safety or a better life. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to argue that it is profit-driven companies like Arora and G4S that drive such draconian policies."
For any further enquiries, please contact:
Email: noborderslondon@riseup.net
Tel: 075 3400 8380
Photos available on request.
Background newspaper stories: 1, 2, 3.
Monday, 5 October 2009
A Hint To The UKBA - DNA Stands For 'Does Not Apply'
Has anyone notice how little comment has made its way into the mainstream media about the UK Borders Agency's bizarre 'Human Prevalence Pilot Project', a sort of modern day version of phrenology? The plan for the 'pilot scheme' is to take "forensic samples provided on a voluntary basis from those suspected of abusing the asylum system". The initial target seems to be Kenyans 'passing themselves off as Somalis'.
According to the Guardian, "At first it will be used only on those who fail language analysis testing, which has been used for years to determine the country of origin, but is open to legal dispute." The article went on to quote Sandy Buchan, of Refugee Action: "Many of those who seek asylum are two or even three generations removed from the country of origin of their parents and grandparents, and are fleeing areas other than the nation of their birth. A Zimbabwean farmer fleeing persecution may possess the DNA of British relatives; would they be denied asylum on that basis?"
Nobody it seems in the UK, apart from the Institute of Race Relations, seems to have picked up on the story. The IRR claim the scheme "involves UKBA staff taking samples of hair and nails - on a purely voluntary basis" according to the UKBA, to test the isotope configuration of the tissue, presumably to test against some 'standard' set of isotope signatures to identify the country the person was born or grew up in. Additionally, "staff will be seeking mitochondrial (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA." *
Mouth swabs will also be used to test whether children brought in by an asylum claimant are the asylum seeker's children or unrelated. Now part of that is understandable, despite the continued misuse of the probability calculations involved in DNA fingerprinting during criminal trials, DNA parental analysis is fairly straight forward. It is the DNA analysis of the non-related children and the analysis of the adult samples for mtDNA and Y chromosomal DNA that is the big problem.
The bottom line is that DNA does not respect borders and can show absolutely nothing about what passport one does or doesn't carry. On top of that the basic science is extremely floored and it has taken an American science blog, Science Indsider,* to examine it and blow the UKBA's scientists assumptions out of the water. This prompted a large number of scientist from around the world to also post comments on the site supporting the negative take on the UKBA science.
On the isotope analysis Professor James R. Ehleringer od Utah University, an expert in such analysis commented: "Hydrogen and oxygen isotopes of hair reveal recent regional geographic patterns. Assuming that hair grows at about 1 cm per month, a 10-cm hair length might record the last 10 months of that person's travel…this 10-month period is not necessarily synonymous with where that person may have originated from."
Mark Thomas, Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Genetic Anthropology at University College London also commented on the mtDAN analysis: "This is horrifying. mtDNA will never have the resolution to specify a country of origin. Many DNA ancestry testing companies have sprung up over the last 10 years, often based on mtDNA, but what they are selling is little better than genetic astrology."
Interestingly, the UKBA's own analysis of their case, 'Nationality Swapping - Isotope Analysis And DNA Testing', includes the 2001 murder case of the 'Adam torso' as part of their proof. The UKBA claims that through the use of isotope analysis, “the child’s body was traced to a small Nigerian town in an area about 100 x 50 km wide.” Yet the analysis was done on bones (as the UKBA document admits), not hair and teeth, which is "like adding 2 and 2 and getting 3 ½,” according to Dr Jessica A Pearson, Lecturer in Bioarchaeology at the University of Liverpool, who uses isotope signatures from fossils to examine the diet of ancient humans. She also points out that the forensic methods used in the Adam Torso case are impossible to evaluate because they still haven’t been described in any scientific publication.
Another interesting side note to this is that the French government, who were considering bringing in simple familial DNA analysis (and had in fact adopted the legal provisions for it) but Eric Besson decided to drop the idea early in September as French consulates "were not staffed with doctors" and that the controversy had already "harmed France's image abroad". Now this the British paper did cover, though it has to be said again that it was only in the guise of our old friend Peter Allen (he definitely seems to have it in for those 'damned fuzzy wuzzies') in the Telegraph and Mail.
* We are limited in space to go too deeply into a fuller account of the science involved and suggest that you read the relevant articles for that and an expanded dissection of the UKBA's 'voodoo science'.
** And the follow up article 'U.K. Border Agency Docs and Expanded Reactions'.
According to the Guardian, "At first it will be used only on those who fail language analysis testing, which has been used for years to determine the country of origin, but is open to legal dispute." The article went on to quote Sandy Buchan, of Refugee Action: "Many of those who seek asylum are two or even three generations removed from the country of origin of their parents and grandparents, and are fleeing areas other than the nation of their birth. A Zimbabwean farmer fleeing persecution may possess the DNA of British relatives; would they be denied asylum on that basis?"
Nobody it seems in the UK, apart from the Institute of Race Relations, seems to have picked up on the story. The IRR claim the scheme "involves UKBA staff taking samples of hair and nails - on a purely voluntary basis" according to the UKBA, to test the isotope configuration of the tissue, presumably to test against some 'standard' set of isotope signatures to identify the country the person was born or grew up in. Additionally, "staff will be seeking mitochondrial (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA." *
Mouth swabs will also be used to test whether children brought in by an asylum claimant are the asylum seeker's children or unrelated. Now part of that is understandable, despite the continued misuse of the probability calculations involved in DNA fingerprinting during criminal trials, DNA parental analysis is fairly straight forward. It is the DNA analysis of the non-related children and the analysis of the adult samples for mtDNA and Y chromosomal DNA that is the big problem.
The bottom line is that DNA does not respect borders and can show absolutely nothing about what passport one does or doesn't carry. On top of that the basic science is extremely floored and it has taken an American science blog, Science Indsider,* to examine it and blow the UKBA's scientists assumptions out of the water. This prompted a large number of scientist from around the world to also post comments on the site supporting the negative take on the UKBA science.
On the isotope analysis Professor James R. Ehleringer od Utah University, an expert in such analysis commented: "Hydrogen and oxygen isotopes of hair reveal recent regional geographic patterns. Assuming that hair grows at about 1 cm per month, a 10-cm hair length might record the last 10 months of that person's travel…this 10-month period is not necessarily synonymous with where that person may have originated from."
Mark Thomas, Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Genetic Anthropology at University College London also commented on the mtDAN analysis: "This is horrifying. mtDNA will never have the resolution to specify a country of origin. Many DNA ancestry testing companies have sprung up over the last 10 years, often based on mtDNA, but what they are selling is little better than genetic astrology."
Interestingly, the UKBA's own analysis of their case, 'Nationality Swapping - Isotope Analysis And DNA Testing', includes the 2001 murder case of the 'Adam torso' as part of their proof. The UKBA claims that through the use of isotope analysis, “the child’s body was traced to a small Nigerian town in an area about 100 x 50 km wide.” Yet the analysis was done on bones (as the UKBA document admits), not hair and teeth, which is "like adding 2 and 2 and getting 3 ½,” according to Dr Jessica A Pearson, Lecturer in Bioarchaeology at the University of Liverpool, who uses isotope signatures from fossils to examine the diet of ancient humans. She also points out that the forensic methods used in the Adam Torso case are impossible to evaluate because they still haven’t been described in any scientific publication.
Another interesting side note to this is that the French government, who were considering bringing in simple familial DNA analysis (and had in fact adopted the legal provisions for it) but Eric Besson decided to drop the idea early in September as French consulates "were not staffed with doctors" and that the controversy had already "harmed France's image abroad". Now this the British paper did cover, though it has to be said again that it was only in the guise of our old friend Peter Allen (he definitely seems to have it in for those 'damned fuzzy wuzzies') in the Telegraph and Mail.
* We are limited in space to go too deeply into a fuller account of the science involved and suggest that you read the relevant articles for that and an expanded dissection of the UKBA's 'voodoo science'.
** And the follow up article 'U.K. Border Agency Docs and Expanded Reactions'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)