Not only has the 2010 election campaign started in earnest, but the yellow press has also started a 'press ganging' campaign to try and push immigration to the top of the agenda, to force Dave™ to drop his 'oh-so-liberal' stance on social issue and emulate their hero Thatcher's barely concealed contempt for non-white foreigners.
On New Year's Day the thermal gloves came off with avengeance, kicked off needless to say by the Daily Hate, the self-styled 'Last Bulwark Against The Tide Of Filth That Is Threatening To Engulf Civilisation'™, in league with what now appears to be its front organisation, MigrationBotch [see below]. The piece, widely covered by the usual suspects in the paper's wake, was entitled 'Foreigners' visa appeals are costing us £1m every week, says report'. Based on a MigrationBotch 'report' Family Visitor Appeals (actually one of their numerous 'briefing papers'), it ended up conflating the so-called think tank's (really a one-man vanity effort) hyperbole into the usual Mail flight of immigration fancy.
For example, the report's summary contained a typical MigrationBotch-ism: "The definition of family visitor is so wide that it could include as many as 120 relatives of a middle aged person in Britain."(??!) In the mind of James Slack (by name, slack by nature), well known to readers of this blog, this became: "According to a report by Migrationwatch, there are as many as 120 relatives – including first cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, and nieces – who can claim the right to visit and then appeal if refused." Outstanding! And just in case you missed it, later in the article we had: "The report claims that the definition of a family member is so wide that someone from a country where families often have four or five children could have between 80 and 120 relatives who could apply to visit."
The crux of MigrationBotch's argument seems to be that "The number of family visitor appeals has increased eight fold, to over a thousand a week, since charges were abolished in 2002." [Remember these figures.] This is because "In October 2000, following disquiet, particularly in the Asian and Black communities, that family members were being refused visit visas without appropriate remedy, the Right of Appeal against refusal of visitors visas for "family visitors" was re-instated under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Fees were originally set at 500 (sic) for an oral hearing or 150 (sic) for an appeal without a hearing. In January 2001 these fees were reduced to 125 (sic) and 50 (sic) but in May 2002 the fees were abolished entirely."
So this means (and we apologise for repeating ourselves as the Mail and Alan Green also do on this particular issue) that (in the words of MigrationBotch i.e. Alan Green) "This definition of family visitor is so widely drawn that somebody from a third world country where the number of children per family is often four or five, could sponsor somewhere between 80 and 120 people under this scheme." [our emphasis] Therefore there are too many foreigners costing 'us' too much money because they are taking advantage of a free 'service' to appeal against what often (to them) seem like arbitrary refusals to be allowed to visit family members.
So is the Mail, MigrationBotch and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all saying that:
1] there should be no appeal unless you are willing to pay an exorbitant fee; or that
2] if you come from a large family you should only be allowed to see a strictly limited number of them or maybe none at all?
Of course they are, "the definition of family visitor should be substantially tightened, at least until embarkation controls are in place. In particular, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces and first cousins should no longer be included." [1] "Fees should be re-instated at the original levels. There is no reason why the British tax payer should pay the costs of appeals by foreign visitors."
So, examining the figures given for the increase in appeals [2] we find that there was an increase of 32 times in the number of appeals in the year between 2000 and 2001 when the fee was initially cut. [3] This of course could be down to the fact that the large reduction in fees brought the option of appealing a decision into many more people's financial capabilities. Comparisons based around the subsequent abolition in mid 2002 are more difficult, as the figures are yearly and the reduction occurred mid-year. However, lets assume that the numbers of appeal in the first half of 2002 was the same as the average for 2001 (2183), then 5814 people possibly appealed during the second half of the year. Then for the next couple of years there is a rough doubling of numbers year-on-year until 2006/7 when the trend is bucked and numbers decrease only to show what amounts to a 10% increase in 2007/8 on the 2006/7 figures. So there was hardly a sudden mad rush to take advantage of the new situation.
Clearly the figure have increased over time and so many factors can have played their part in causing this increase, including the ease of appeal but also there has been a worldwide increase in mobility, especially via cheap air fairs. People have also lost to a certain extent their tugging-the-forelock attitude to authority and are not content with accepting what some faceless bureaucrat tells them. But what the real agenda here appears to be is one where 'these people' , rather than having their families coming over here where the lure of over-staying is too strong for people who are currently only too willing to take advantage of 'our generosity', they should be going to visit their family in their home countries. ("Given that there is no recording of visitors as they arrive and depart, there is no way of knowing whether those originally admitted as "family visitors" have left the UK." What about e-Borders?)
Interestingly this 'report' was not press released until the following day (2 Jan), when the usual suspects, the Telegraph and the Express, picked up on it and published their own takes on this vital piece of research. The Telegraph's take on the report included the following argument: "The number of appeals made by visitors refused entry to the UK on a “family visa” has increased eight-fold since 2002. Pressure group (sic) Migrationwatch disclosed that part of the reason for the rise is that the definition of a “family visitor” is so wide that it can include as many as 120 relatives of an average middle-aged immigrant in Britain – including first cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces." Except that the changes that allegedly resulted in the increase in the number of appeals were due to the fees not changes in the definition of who is and who is not a 'family member'.
The Telegraph also had their own Green quotes, including: “Obviously, family members should be able to visit relatives in Britain but such visits need to be properly regulated. There is a clear risk that, once here, some of these visitors will stay on illegally knowing that the chance of being removed is remote." Just a very select and limited number of those family members. "Furthermore, in current financial circumstances, it is no longer acceptable that taxpayers should pay the appeal costs for foreign nationals wishing to visit Britain." So the UK could afford it in the past, it is only just due to the downturn that the charges have to be reintroduced?
In the Express piece we have yet another re-jig of the same tired rhetoric: "In the current recession it is no longer acceptable that taxpayers should pay the appeal costs for foreign nationals wishing to visit Britain. The definition of a family visitor is so wide that it could include as many as 120 relatives of a middle-aged person. The definition should be narrowed and charges which the Government abolished in 2002 should be re-introduced."
The Express the same day also have a comment piece 'Labour is Still Shamefully Lax On Immigration Laws' pointing up that the government's claim that its 'points-based' system "will sort out Britain’s immigration chaos is already being shown up as a sham" and tying in student visas to the family visa situation.
"Ever since then the Government has facilitated so-called “chain migration” with the result that many young British Asians who would prefer to integrate are put under massive pressure to marry non-English speakers from the sub-continent. This has led to ghettoisation, fostered extremism and deprived many young women of self-determination and freedom of expression. With the population of Britain heading towards 70 million and precious little that can be done to stop immigration from within the EU, it is absolutely essential that all routes of entry from outside it are strictly controlled. Otherwise Britain will continue on the path to becoming the most overcrowded and Balkanised society in the free world." Utter bollox. Devious bollox mind you, tying forced marriage into the immigration issue, 'ghettoisation', 'extremism', the myth of the 70 million and the old canard of becoming "the most overcrowded and Balkanised (!?) society in the free world." So that obviously doesn't include China, but what about India?
The same day the Mail once again led the line with fresh attack. 'Jobs for illegals at Home Office as dozens of NHS and public bodies ignore immigration laws' bellowed the particularly nonsensical title of a Mail piece covering the results of their latest immigration-dirt digging Freedom of Information Act application. [4] Apparently the Mail on Sunday had contacted every Government department, council and hospital in Britain for details of their employees since 2006 who had subsequently been found to be 'illegal' immigrants. The on-line version was also helpfully accompanied by a full listing of all 349 admitted cases. Top of the list came the Home Office which the Mail claimed "admitted employing a dozen illegal foreign staff over the past four years - 11 Nigerians and a Ghanaian."
"Ten of them secured cleaning jobs at Becket House, the headquarters of the UK Border Agency, which vets immigrants. The building in Croydon, South London, also serves as an immigration detention centre, holding up to 270 people awaiting deportation. Two other illegal immigrants worked at the Whitehall headquarters of the Home Office, which houses the office of Home Secretary Alan Johnson. One was a chef in the canteen, while the other worked as a security guard on the front door for 19 months."
Then, just in case you had not fully grasped the shocking implications of this, they helpfully stated "The Home Office headquarters is regarded as one of Britain's most high-profile terrorist targets and receives round-the-clock police protection."
Other juicy quotes from this drivel were: "Three Government departments, 34 local authorities and 54 NHS trusts admitted hiring a total of 349 unlawful (sic) foreign workers. The list featured 37 nationalities, including migrants from Kazakhstan, Zambia and Venezuela." And "The Mail on Sunday asked each of the 91 public bodies who admitted employing illegal foreign workers (sic) to provide details of any penalties they received. Not one of them had received a fine, which can be as high as £10,000."
The latter served as a drum-roll to introduce Chris Grayling, Tory [5] Home Secretary-in-waiting: "This is an absolute scandal. The Government has taken tough action against private companies over the employment of illegal immigrants, yet on this evidence it is quite clear the public sector has taken on bogus workers and escaped any form of censure." "We have Ministers constantly telling us they have got to grips with the chaos in our immigration system, yet the Home Office itself has been employing illegal workers. It is completely unacceptable and we need an urgent explanation from Ministers," he blustered further.
However our favourite piece of outrage is the "It is breathtaking that procedures and checks at the Home Office are so lax that an illegal immigrant could cook food for the Home Secretary himself. This is a huge security breach. We cannot go on like this" quote. Obviously he'll be bringing his own chef with him come June.
So what did the Home Office have to say about this, as even the Mail could not get away without giving them the 'right' to reply? Tucked away at the bottom of the piece (before it went on to lay into the Attorney General Patricia Scotland yet again and after Alan Green's two sentences [6]) a spokesman is quoted as saying: "The 12 illegal workers identified were all sub-contractors. None of them were directly employed by the Home Office. It was our checks and the strict regime we operate on illegal working in the UK that brought these cases to light. We are doing more than ever before to crack down on illegal working, with raids taking place up and down the country every week and thousands of rule-breakers deported."
The Telegraph and Express also chipped in with their own rehashes of the Mail's story in the following days.
Next up we have a Telegraph article that shows just how far the yellow press fears the Tories have moved away from the reactionary and racist 'middle ground', 'Conservatives accuse Labour of raising immigration issue in marginal constituencies'. "Senior Conservatives have accused Nu Labour of a "below the radar" campaign to raise the issue of immigration in marginal constituencies, especially where the BNP is eating into its core vote." Obviously piqued that New Labour got there ahead of them and in particular that Labour's "double standards by raising the issue in constituencies whilst avoiding debate on it at Westminster."
The paper then goes on to detail a whole list of Nu Labour hypocrisy, including Margaret Hodge, facing an election challenge from BNP fuhrer Nick Griffin, who told a constituent that the change from her Barking seat being a "predominantly white area populated with traditional East End families" had been "very unsettling for many people" and that she respected their "concerns about the pace of change". Er, yes? Clearly she IS a politician and a such she was just stating the bleedin' obvious without saying she agreed with his concerns. Ed Balls apparently also put out a letter to constituents headed "Let's talk about immigration. An opportunity to let me know what you think." Wow. And the list goes on. A particularly good example of a non-story this one.
The same day we had the News of the World (can a paper ever have had a less apt title than that?) with 'Good Dole Blighty' - "Migrants who flock in ‘to work’ collect benefits costing millions." "TENS of thousands of immigrants are claiming the DOLE - just months after arriving in Britain supposedly to WORK," screamed the following line.
Basically the piece seeks to paint a picture of 'hoards' of scrounging foreigners coming 'over here' to 'ponce off the country', completely ignoring the fact that access to benefits in the UK is severely restricted and not all migrants to the UK are here to WORK. The two groups that are able to claim Job Seekers Allowance (JSA), which is what we understand they mean when they claim that "In the last six years a staggering 169,000 immigrant workers claimed unemployment benefit within six months of getting a National Insurance number", are EEA national exercising Treaty rights and person with indefinite leave to enter / remain in the country. [See: Benefits for non-UK nationals]
The first group are covered by reciprocal EU welfare benefits legislation which we're sure even the NoW would not decry. The second are those people given asylum under international treaties and must therfore also be given the right to the full protection of UK law (something which the NoW doesn't appear to agree with however given the editorial line followed in this and other articles about anything to do with things foreign). All other groups including third country national (nationals of a non-EU country) with limited leave to remain and those so-called A8 and A2 nationals (unless registered under the Worker Registration and Worker Authorisation Schemes respectively and have been in 1 year continuous employment) are not eligible for JSA.
MigrationBotch of course got a quote in this too: "This is appalling. The government should explain who these people are and why they're able to claim benefits without having paid a penny into the system." Er, but there are numerous people who claim benefits without ever having worked. Child benefit is paid to parents on behalf of their children, the physically and mentally 'disabled' who may have never worked in their life of course are also entitled to state benefits. Yet then again, the reactionary 'libertarian' minimal state right wish people to stand (or fall) on their own with little or no state aid. Survival of the fittest and all that (completely misunderstanding Darwin).
Addition: We forgot to include another James Slack (by name, slack by nature) piece from 1 Jan entitled 'Foreign workers take 22,000 jobs amid recession', which covered the Mail's favourite current Tory shadow minister, Damien Green, attempting to prove that "Gordon Brown's promise to deliver 'British jobs for British workers' was a sham" by playing up the numbers of non-EEA workers in the UK.
"The number of foreign-born workers has rocketed by 22,000 during the worst recession on record. At the same time, the number of British-born employees slumped by 625,000."
"It found that while the number of British-born workers slumped to 25,104,000 in the year to June, those born outside the UK increased to 3,730,000. This was fuelled in part by a 12,000 leap in number of Eastern Europeans, to 518,000."
So this means that 2.4% of 'British-born' workers lost their jobs, whilst at the same time the number of non-EEA workers increased by 0.27%, equivalent to 3.5% of those 'British-born' workers who lost their jobs. Hardly a breath-taking set of statistics Mr Slack.
[1] Help is at hand for those of you slightly confused by how tightening the definition of who is and who isn't family would help: "In particular, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces and first cousins should no longer be included. This would reduce the number of eligible relatives by up to 68." But that's not even a 50% reduction.
[2] In 2000 there were 137 appeals, 2001 4,366, 2002 7,997. Then there was a change in counting procedure; 2003/4 16,884, 2004/5 30,643, 2005/6 58,495, 2006/7 50,065 & 2007/8 64,669.
[3] Remember the claim earlier that since the abolition in 2002 the figure had increased 8 times i.e. in 8 years, equivalent to a doubling year-on-year.
[4] The piece of course came replete with the compulsory photograph of Calais migrants, with the accompanying legend "Alert: These illegal immigrants were caught by police at Calais but some of those who have reached Britain have worked for official bodies" just in case you hadn't noticed the reference, and a particularly scarey picture of MigrationBotch's Alan Green looking like an extremely constipated frog.
[5] Interestingly, the Mail do not appear particularly happy with New Tory Dave and his gang, especially when it comes to the immigration issue, and are not banging the Tory Party drum too forcefully. Add to that the fact that almost every person on their on-line readers' comment pages sounds like either a UKIP or BNP voter, it is not hard to understand why.
[6] One of which was repeated almost verbatim beneath his constipated frog photo. The other was a repeat of his tired old claim that there are nearly one million 'illegal' immigrants in the UK.
Monday, 4 January 2010
Sunday, 3 January 2010
The Shame-Faced Lie About Immigration
pace 'The two-faced truth about immigration'.
As part on the New Year's onslaught by the yellow press against immigration, in this case the Labour government's immigration policy and practice, in its Sunday edition the Mail, the self-styled 'Last Bulwark Against The Tide Of Filth That Is Threatening To Engulf Civilisation'™, published an opinion piece laying out some of its twisted take said immigration policy.
Claiming that Labour has two immigration policies, the public one - "supposedly tough restrictions, raids on employers of illegal workers, expulsions of those with no right to stay here" - (which it doesn't actually come out and claim is a lies) and the 'real' one - mass immigration as social engineering, courtesy of Andrew Neather, former speech writer for Tony Blair and adviser to Jack Straw and currently working for the Evening Standard ('nuff siad).
So far, so very Daily Mail.
Then we get a very revealing statement: "This is accompanied by a widespread belief among the new elite that immigration – which provides them with cheap childcare and a great variety of restaurants – is an unmixed blessing." So now we know where the Mail is really coming from - lost privilege and power. And not just for those "others" that "see a different aspect", such as "familiar neighbourhoods changed out of all recognition". Ah nostalgia for a lost time when those that run the Daily Mail believed their view of the world was THE view, pre-decimalisation, even pre-war (WWII), before the Black Shirt went out of 'fashion' and when Herr Hitler was doing 'wonders for unemployment' in Germany.
Oh, and definitely pre-EU: "Thanks to our membership of the European Union, it can in any case only control migration from outside the EU." More Mail-ite fantasy. The reality is that the UK has more opt-outs that the U.S. Direct Marketing Association's Mail Preference Service, and they include the Schengen Agreement, large chunks of the ECHR and European Immigration law, including the recent Lisbon Treaty.
Let's face it, the Mail exists in a fantasy world where Queen Victoria is still on the throne aged 180 and men run around with red flags in front of cars that travel at 2 mph in built-up areas. Where there was still a British Empire and where shooting 'fuzzy-wuzzies' was still considered a sport.
"What is needed is for the elite [there we go again] to acknowledge openly that the existing policy is wrong and damaging to our society and that opposition to mass immigration is reasonable and civilised [or any form of racism come to think of it]."
"Then it can devise rules that have real force behind them, and ensure that in future those rules will be efficiently and energetically enforced." Sounds exactly like the sort of thing coming out of the pages of the Mail in the 30's when it was singing the praises of the new 'German social experiment'!
As part on the New Year's onslaught by the yellow press against immigration, in this case the Labour government's immigration policy and practice, in its Sunday edition the Mail, the self-styled 'Last Bulwark Against The Tide Of Filth That Is Threatening To Engulf Civilisation'™, published an opinion piece laying out some of its twisted take said immigration policy.
Claiming that Labour has two immigration policies, the public one - "supposedly tough restrictions, raids on employers of illegal workers, expulsions of those with no right to stay here" - (which it doesn't actually come out and claim is a lies) and the 'real' one - mass immigration as social engineering, courtesy of Andrew Neather, former speech writer for Tony Blair and adviser to Jack Straw and currently working for the Evening Standard ('nuff siad).
So far, so very Daily Mail.
Then we get a very revealing statement: "This is accompanied by a widespread belief among the new elite that immigration – which provides them with cheap childcare and a great variety of restaurants – is an unmixed blessing." So now we know where the Mail is really coming from - lost privilege and power. And not just for those "others" that "see a different aspect", such as "familiar neighbourhoods changed out of all recognition". Ah nostalgia for a lost time when those that run the Daily Mail believed their view of the world was THE view, pre-decimalisation, even pre-war (WWII), before the Black Shirt went out of 'fashion' and when Herr Hitler was doing 'wonders for unemployment' in Germany.
Oh, and definitely pre-EU: "Thanks to our membership of the European Union, it can in any case only control migration from outside the EU." More Mail-ite fantasy. The reality is that the UK has more opt-outs that the U.S. Direct Marketing Association's Mail Preference Service, and they include the Schengen Agreement, large chunks of the ECHR and European Immigration law, including the recent Lisbon Treaty.
Let's face it, the Mail exists in a fantasy world where Queen Victoria is still on the throne aged 180 and men run around with red flags in front of cars that travel at 2 mph in built-up areas. Where there was still a British Empire and where shooting 'fuzzy-wuzzies' was still considered a sport.
"What is needed is for the elite [there we go again] to acknowledge openly that the existing policy is wrong and damaging to our society and that opposition to mass immigration is reasonable and civilised [or any form of racism come to think of it]."
"Then it can devise rules that have real force behind them, and ensure that in future those rules will be efficiently and energetically enforced." Sounds exactly like the sort of thing coming out of the pages of the Mail in the 30's when it was singing the praises of the new 'German social experiment'!
Friday, 1 January 2010
Thatcher: What We Always Knew
Well, the tabloids and the rest of the yellow press have had a field day, singing Thatcher's praises (as a cover for their own racism) as her preference for white Rhodesians over the Vietnamese 'boat people' is revealed in newly released Cabinet papers from 30 years ago. [see: 1, 2, 3]
In one breath she was lecturing Kosygin, the then Soviet Premier, over his criticism of the 'boat people' as "drug-takers or criminals", claiming they were "hard-working people" fleeing Communism, then claiming that there would be riots in the streets if the Vietnamese were given council housing ahead of "white citizens".
At the time thousands of the Vietnamese refugees were living in squalid camps in Hong Kong and the then Foreign Secretary, Peter Carrington, who had already visited the camps, had suggested that it was Britain's duty to take 10,000 of them over two years, much to Thatcher's horror.*
Her response was to claim, just as people have done since Malthus that there were too many people in the UK and instead she approached the Australian prime minister at the time, Malcolm Fraser, asking for his country's help in buying an island in Indonesia or the Philippines to house the 'boat people'. All this after Britain had up till then accepted only a handful of Vietnamese for resettlement in the UK!
* Australia became home to about 220,000 Vietnamese, Canada took slightly more, the US more than a million and France about 90,000. In contrast the UK accepted only 22,500 Vietnamese displaced persons between 1979-92. As for figures for individual years, 1974 saw 32 Vietnamese 'boat people' accepted into the UK, 1975 (the year of the fall of Saigon) 300, and 1976 just three. We have been unable to find figures for 1977-79.
In one breath she was lecturing Kosygin, the then Soviet Premier, over his criticism of the 'boat people' as "drug-takers or criminals", claiming they were "hard-working people" fleeing Communism, then claiming that there would be riots in the streets if the Vietnamese were given council housing ahead of "white citizens".
At the time thousands of the Vietnamese refugees were living in squalid camps in Hong Kong and the then Foreign Secretary, Peter Carrington, who had already visited the camps, had suggested that it was Britain's duty to take 10,000 of them over two years, much to Thatcher's horror.*
Her response was to claim, just as people have done since Malthus that there were too many people in the UK and instead she approached the Australian prime minister at the time, Malcolm Fraser, asking for his country's help in buying an island in Indonesia or the Philippines to house the 'boat people'. All this after Britain had up till then accepted only a handful of Vietnamese for resettlement in the UK!
* Australia became home to about 220,000 Vietnamese, Canada took slightly more, the US more than a million and France about 90,000. In contrast the UK accepted only 22,500 Vietnamese displaced persons between 1979-92. As for figures for individual years, 1974 saw 32 Vietnamese 'boat people' accepted into the UK, 1975 (the year of the fall of Saigon) 300, and 1976 just three. We have been unable to find figures for 1977-79.
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Weasel Words Of UK Border Agency
It is not very often that we reprint a story in full from a newspaper but Eric Allison's piece in yesterday's Guardian could almost have come straight out of this blog (except of course for the background research he has obviously put in). Nice one Eric!
Consider these words, spoken by the head of criminality and detention at the UK Border Agency (UKBA), in response to allegations that the nine-year old son of an asylum seeker had been mistreated by UKBA staff:
"Whenever we take decisions involving children, their welfare comes first and we will always seek to act in the best interests of the child. That's why we have transformed our children's policy, enshrining in law a commitment to protect youngsters and keep them safe from harm. Treating children with care and compassion is a priority for the UKBA."
Now compare those words with an account of the arrest and detention of that nine-year old along with his mother and elder brother. The family are fighting removal to Iran, where they fear persecution after police found copies of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses at their home. The account was given by the boy himself, speaking through an interpreter:
"I was taking a picture of my stuff for school. Suddenly I saw the officers from the kitchen window, and I said to Mum: 'They are coming to our home'. After that, they came through, about eight people I think, and they said: 'You are going somewhere that you have been before.' They meant detention. I understood that we had to go back to detention."
The boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is known as child M, and the arrest came in Manchester last month as he was preparing for school. He knew the visit meant detention because he had been there before, to Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre, where he and his family had been held for a month in 2008. Teachers at his school describe him as a bright, very likable boy, who was recovering from the physical and mental effects of his previous incarceration when the officers called again.
Back to Child M's account:
"Then two of them brought me upstairs and told me to hurry and pack my stuff. I started to be terrified."
The boy was not to see his mother again for several hours. While he was upstairs, his mother fell ill and eventually the officers sent for an ambulance. The last time the boy had seen his father was when he was taken in an ambulance after a road accident in Iraq and subsequently died. "When they wanted to take my mum to ambulance I wanted to see her, but they didn't let me," said Child M.
In the absence of his mother and brother, who travelled to hospital with the sick woman, Child M was questioned about the whereabouts of his sister, who had been staying with friends. Their questions concerned him: "I still thought they wanted to go and arrest her and I was very worried."
Eventually, the boy was taken to the hospital, but not to see his mother. He was detained in a vehicle outside. He thinks it was for seven hours, the UKBA says it was just under three. In their response, the agency said Child M was "relaxed and comfortable throughout and provided with food and drink". The boy saw it differently:
"After that, they keep me for seven hours in the van and they didn't even let me to come out for fresh air. Sometimes they asked me things and they talked to me, but I was frightened because they were so big, like a monster, and I wanted to run away from them. I have never been so lonely in my life, without my friends and family. I was scared of these strangers and wanted to cry, but I couldn't. Suddenly they brought my mum in a wheelchair and they took us to detention. I was so happy to see my mum and my brother again."
Remember the words of the UKBA? "Whenever we take decisions involving children, their welfare comes first and we will always seek to act in the best interests of the child". Was it in this child's best interest to keep him separated from his mother and brother for several hours? Or to question him about the whereabouts of his sister? Remember, this is a nine-year-old. The police would not be allowed to question a child of that age without an "appropriate adult" being present; in his case, two adults held dear to him had gone and he was alone with strangers.
Is it in the best interests of this, or any other child, to be held in custody; for the crime of being born to those who seek a safer life in this country? It happens to hundreds of children every year. It makes me sick and angry and ashamed of this United Kingdom, which mistreats such children in our name.
While researching this story, I tried to contact Phil Woolas, the borders and immigration minister. I was told by his constituency office that he was "having a family day". Good for him, families are important; but I wonder if the minister ever stops to consider the effect the policy and practice he endorses have on asylum seekers and their families? Professionals who know of Child M's ordeal are in no doubt: Sir Al Aynsley-Green, the children's commissioner for England said:
Children in these stressful circumstances should never be separated from their parents, but if there is an exceptional reason why a parent cannot be with their child, then that child should be looked after by a responsible adult who they can trust and relate to. Children should also not be interviewed alone by officials. Children in immigration removal centres have told me about the distress and anxiety they feel during the arrest process and while in detention, therefore any period of separation from loved ones will only make them feel much worse. When a child is deprived of his or her liberty, particular care must be taken to ensure that they are treated with humanity and respect.
Katy Rosario is a teacher at Child M's school and also the safeguarding officer, responsible for children's welfare. She said: "I am deeply concerned that a nine-year-old child was left with strangers for a number of hours while separated from his mother. As teachers, we would not be allowed to do that. The officers concerned should have contacted the school or social services."
The weasel words of UKBA are far removed from their deeds. The agency and its political masters ought to be ashamed of themselves and all right-thinking people should protest at their actions.
Consider these words, spoken by the head of criminality and detention at the UK Border Agency (UKBA), in response to allegations that the nine-year old son of an asylum seeker had been mistreated by UKBA staff:
"Whenever we take decisions involving children, their welfare comes first and we will always seek to act in the best interests of the child. That's why we have transformed our children's policy, enshrining in law a commitment to protect youngsters and keep them safe from harm. Treating children with care and compassion is a priority for the UKBA."
Now compare those words with an account of the arrest and detention of that nine-year old along with his mother and elder brother. The family are fighting removal to Iran, where they fear persecution after police found copies of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses at their home. The account was given by the boy himself, speaking through an interpreter:
"I was taking a picture of my stuff for school. Suddenly I saw the officers from the kitchen window, and I said to Mum: 'They are coming to our home'. After that, they came through, about eight people I think, and they said: 'You are going somewhere that you have been before.' They meant detention. I understood that we had to go back to detention."
The boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is known as child M, and the arrest came in Manchester last month as he was preparing for school. He knew the visit meant detention because he had been there before, to Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre, where he and his family had been held for a month in 2008. Teachers at his school describe him as a bright, very likable boy, who was recovering from the physical and mental effects of his previous incarceration when the officers called again.
Back to Child M's account:
"Then two of them brought me upstairs and told me to hurry and pack my stuff. I started to be terrified."
The boy was not to see his mother again for several hours. While he was upstairs, his mother fell ill and eventually the officers sent for an ambulance. The last time the boy had seen his father was when he was taken in an ambulance after a road accident in Iraq and subsequently died. "When they wanted to take my mum to ambulance I wanted to see her, but they didn't let me," said Child M.
In the absence of his mother and brother, who travelled to hospital with the sick woman, Child M was questioned about the whereabouts of his sister, who had been staying with friends. Their questions concerned him: "I still thought they wanted to go and arrest her and I was very worried."
Eventually, the boy was taken to the hospital, but not to see his mother. He was detained in a vehicle outside. He thinks it was for seven hours, the UKBA says it was just under three. In their response, the agency said Child M was "relaxed and comfortable throughout and provided with food and drink". The boy saw it differently:
"After that, they keep me for seven hours in the van and they didn't even let me to come out for fresh air. Sometimes they asked me things and they talked to me, but I was frightened because they were so big, like a monster, and I wanted to run away from them. I have never been so lonely in my life, without my friends and family. I was scared of these strangers and wanted to cry, but I couldn't. Suddenly they brought my mum in a wheelchair and they took us to detention. I was so happy to see my mum and my brother again."
Remember the words of the UKBA? "Whenever we take decisions involving children, their welfare comes first and we will always seek to act in the best interests of the child". Was it in this child's best interest to keep him separated from his mother and brother for several hours? Or to question him about the whereabouts of his sister? Remember, this is a nine-year-old. The police would not be allowed to question a child of that age without an "appropriate adult" being present; in his case, two adults held dear to him had gone and he was alone with strangers.
Is it in the best interests of this, or any other child, to be held in custody; for the crime of being born to those who seek a safer life in this country? It happens to hundreds of children every year. It makes me sick and angry and ashamed of this United Kingdom, which mistreats such children in our name.
While researching this story, I tried to contact Phil Woolas, the borders and immigration minister. I was told by his constituency office that he was "having a family day". Good for him, families are important; but I wonder if the minister ever stops to consider the effect the policy and practice he endorses have on asylum seekers and their families? Professionals who know of Child M's ordeal are in no doubt: Sir Al Aynsley-Green, the children's commissioner for England said:
Children in these stressful circumstances should never be separated from their parents, but if there is an exceptional reason why a parent cannot be with their child, then that child should be looked after by a responsible adult who they can trust and relate to. Children should also not be interviewed alone by officials. Children in immigration removal centres have told me about the distress and anxiety they feel during the arrest process and while in detention, therefore any period of separation from loved ones will only make them feel much worse. When a child is deprived of his or her liberty, particular care must be taken to ensure that they are treated with humanity and respect.
Katy Rosario is a teacher at Child M's school and also the safeguarding officer, responsible for children's welfare. She said: "I am deeply concerned that a nine-year-old child was left with strangers for a number of hours while separated from his mother. As teachers, we would not be allowed to do that. The officers concerned should have contacted the school or social services."
The weasel words of UKBA are far removed from their deeds. The agency and its political masters ought to be ashamed of themselves and all right-thinking people should protest at their actions.
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
Child Abuse?
Given the government's continued claim that children in detention in the UK are treated with care and respect despite all evidence to the contrary, the fact that a nine-year-old boy was kept locked up in a UK Borders Agency van with a number of strange people in uniforms outside the hospital that his mother had been taken to after she collapsed during an immigration raid.
According to David Wood, head of 'criminality' and detention for the UK Border Agency, the boy spent less than three hours in an unlocked people carrier with a female immigration officer. "Our immigration officers, who are specially trained to deal with families with children, considered this would be a less stressful environment for the child. He was relaxed and comfortable throughout, and provided with food and drink." He also added that the child was attended to by a qualified nurse after vomiting blood and later seen by a doctor.
But according to his family, he in fact repeatedly asked to see his mother and was terrified during the incarceration. His and his family were then taken to Yarl's Wood detention centre, told they would be deported the following day only to be released nearly 4 weeks later after their lawyers forced a review of their case.
According to David Wood, head of 'criminality' and detention for the UK Border Agency, the boy spent less than three hours in an unlocked people carrier with a female immigration officer. "Our immigration officers, who are specially trained to deal with families with children, considered this would be a less stressful environment for the child. He was relaxed and comfortable throughout, and provided with food and drink." He also added that the child was attended to by a qualified nurse after vomiting blood and later seen by a doctor.
But according to his family, he in fact repeatedly asked to see his mother and was terrified during the incarceration. His and his family were then taken to Yarl's Wood detention centre, told they would be deported the following day only to be released nearly 4 weeks later after their lawyers forced a review of their case.
Oceanic Viking Tamils On The Move/Merak Update
After a period of uncertainty and delay, the bulk of the Oceanic Viking Tamils have been moved out of the Tanjung Pinang detention centre in Indonesia prior to their resettlement. So far 15 have been processed, with 13 going to Canada and 2 to Australia. Now 47 more are due to fly to their final destinations today, although there is some confusion in the press over who is going where. We understand that there are 2 groups of 16 and 31, who are either going to be flown to Australia or to Romania, for onward settlement in Canada and the US. The Indonesian media claim that the larger group are destined for Australia whilst the Australian media say it is the smaller group. Time will tell which is right.
Meanwhile the Merak stand-off continues. Following the death of one of the refugees last week from what is believed to have been complications from a stomach ulcer, the pressure on the Indonesian authorities to come up with a solution has intensified. The Indonesians at the weekend are understood to have again discussed the possibility of using force to end the situation. At the same time are pressuring the Australians to help them out of their predicament, calling on them to to stick to the spirit of the negotiations over the Oceanic Viking asylum seekers and help deal with the Merak refugees: "The Sri Lankans in Merak, they have some expectations, whether that expectation can be met or not," a Foreign Ministry spokesman is quoted as saying. However, Australia is sticking to their line that it is Indonesia's problem.
The Indonesian government are also refusing to involve the UNHCR in the process until the Merak Tamils let them on board their boat, something that the Tamils are refusing to allow, especially given Indonesia's intransigence involving food and medical aid and the military's previous attempts at intimidating them into leaving the boat (see previous posts). Additionally, the 11 Tamils who have already voluntarily left the Jaya Lestari in October are being held in a single crowded cell in the Jakarta immigration headquarters, despite assurances that they would be held in an International Organisation for Migration hostel, not in detention.
Representatives of the Australian Tamil Congress, who organised a support demonstration yesterday outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, have visited the detained men and confirm that they spent the first 2 week after leaving the boat in the IOM hostel but were then detained by the Indonesian authorities in "inhumane" conditions.
Meanwhile the Merak stand-off continues. Following the death of one of the refugees last week from what is believed to have been complications from a stomach ulcer, the pressure on the Indonesian authorities to come up with a solution has intensified. The Indonesians at the weekend are understood to have again discussed the possibility of using force to end the situation. At the same time are pressuring the Australians to help them out of their predicament, calling on them to to stick to the spirit of the negotiations over the Oceanic Viking asylum seekers and help deal with the Merak refugees: "The Sri Lankans in Merak, they have some expectations, whether that expectation can be met or not," a Foreign Ministry spokesman is quoted as saying. However, Australia is sticking to their line that it is Indonesia's problem.
The Indonesian government are also refusing to involve the UNHCR in the process until the Merak Tamils let them on board their boat, something that the Tamils are refusing to allow, especially given Indonesia's intransigence involving food and medical aid and the military's previous attempts at intimidating them into leaving the boat (see previous posts). Additionally, the 11 Tamils who have already voluntarily left the Jaya Lestari in October are being held in a single crowded cell in the Jakarta immigration headquarters, despite assurances that they would be held in an International Organisation for Migration hostel, not in detention.
Representatives of the Australian Tamil Congress, who organised a support demonstration yesterday outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, have visited the detained men and confirm that they spent the first 2 week after leaving the boat in the IOM hostel but were then detained by the Indonesian authorities in "inhumane" conditions.
Monday, 28 December 2009
Libya: More Oil, Less Migrants
We recommend a recent article 'Libya: More Oil, Less Migrants' by Emanuela Paoletti at AllAfrica.com on the Italy-Libya push-back policy and the changes in Libyan migration policy in recent years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)