Apparently not, as even the Tories own research has shown.
We also know that there are lies, damned lies and statistics and you can tailor a poll to get you the answer you want to prove your point. Well, MigrationBotch are past masters at this, even if they get respectable polling organisations like YouGov to do it for them. And they did it again with their latest poll, the results of which were released at the weekend.
Important stuff Alan Green clearly thinks as he headed his press release 'Immigration curbs could have a decisive impact on the election result Second only to the economy in key marginals.' [17 January] Except, the results almost exactly mirror those found for the Tory party in the run up to the last general election and Michael Ashcroft's exhaustive study of public opinion 'Smell The Coffee: A Wake-Up Call For The Conservative Party' found that in the end the Tories' singling out of immigration as a key issue had little positive effect:
"The issue that dominated the Conservative campaign, immigration, was never important enough to voters to determine how large numbers of them would cast their votes, however strongly they agreed with the Tory position";
and may in fact have had a negative effect:
"In fact there is evidence that the Conservatives’ focus on immigration actually cost them support. As Mary Ann Sieghart observed in The Times in March, the people the Conservatives need to woo back if they are to win an election “are not socially conservative, elderly or working class folk, but younger,more urban, middle classes” who were actively put off by the Conservative campaign."
In fact the extensive championing of immigration in the 2005 election did absolutely nothing to increase the level of support for them on the issue as polling had shown in the previous year.
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Prioritising U.S. Interests
At the same time as the US authorities and their military are being widely accused of screwing up the aid effort in Haiti by their inept management of the airport, bringing in too many military flights at the expense of food, medicines and rescue equipment; being too reticent to venture out into the city itself because they 'might get shot at'; and some even saying that their whole operation looks like a start of a military occupation; their efforts to prevent refugees from reaching their shores appear excessive.
First off, they have at least one plane flying and broadcasting radio messages five hours a day over Haiti, saying (in Creole) "Listen, don't rush on boats to leave the country. If you do that, we'll all have even worse problems. Because, I'll be honest with you: If you think you will reach the U.S. and all the doors will be wide open to you, that's not at all the case. And they will intercept you right on the water and send you back home where you came from."
Admittedly, last week the Obama administration's also decided to grant temporary protected status to Haitians in the U.S. before the earthquake, either as 'illegal' migrants or as so-called 'foreign-national' prisoners due for deportation after serving a prison sentence. They will be free to stay in the States for the next 18 months but that offer does not extend to those attempting to enter the U.S. after the 12 January.
Instead, the Department of Homeland Security has activated the Operation Vigilant Sentry task force to review plans on how to respond to a mass migration from Haiti. Their first move was to transfer between 250 and 400 immigration detainees from South Florida's main detention centre to clear space for any Haitians who manage to reach US shores. That of course does not apply to those who already have family in the States and can still afford the US visas and airfares, the middle class Haitians replete with suitcases seen on TV News pictures today boarding flights to the States.
The US has also taken the opportunity to ease restrictions on adoption, making it easier for Haitian orphans to be adopted by Americans. This removes an important barrier to plans by the Catholic Church in Miami, dubbed 'Pierre Pan' (sic) for the mass transportation of orphans to the States. They certainly seem to have their priorities in order.
First off, they have at least one plane flying and broadcasting radio messages five hours a day over Haiti, saying (in Creole) "Listen, don't rush on boats to leave the country. If you do that, we'll all have even worse problems. Because, I'll be honest with you: If you think you will reach the U.S. and all the doors will be wide open to you, that's not at all the case. And they will intercept you right on the water and send you back home where you came from."
Admittedly, last week the Obama administration's also decided to grant temporary protected status to Haitians in the U.S. before the earthquake, either as 'illegal' migrants or as so-called 'foreign-national' prisoners due for deportation after serving a prison sentence. They will be free to stay in the States for the next 18 months but that offer does not extend to those attempting to enter the U.S. after the 12 January.
Instead, the Department of Homeland Security has activated the Operation Vigilant Sentry task force to review plans on how to respond to a mass migration from Haiti. Their first move was to transfer between 250 and 400 immigration detainees from South Florida's main detention centre to clear space for any Haitians who manage to reach US shores. That of course does not apply to those who already have family in the States and can still afford the US visas and airfares, the middle class Haitians replete with suitcases seen on TV News pictures today boarding flights to the States.
The US has also taken the opportunity to ease restrictions on adoption, making it easier for Haitian orphans to be adopted by Americans. This removes an important barrier to plans by the Catholic Church in Miami, dubbed 'Pierre Pan' (sic) for the mass transportation of orphans to the States. They certainly seem to have their priorities in order.
One Law For The Rich...
It has always been the case that if you have enough money you are free to go anywhere you please more or less, and that immigration controls, as well as being instruments of racism, are aimed at the poor. Now the UK government have yet again made this principal abundantly clear with the announcement of a £15,000 "premium service" fast-track UK visa renewals to "avoid delays".
And what was Phil Woolas' justification for this? According to the Guardian he claimed that it was only fair that those who benefited from using the immigration system should help fund it!
And what was Phil Woolas' justification for this? According to the Guardian he claimed that it was only fair that those who benefited from using the immigration system should help fund it!
Playing The Immigration Card
Monday saw yet another article in the Guardian by MigrationBotch front-man Alan Green, ostensibly in response to an Observer editorial, 'We're still a long way from an honest debate about immigration', the day before. However, it was really prompted by the criticism of Dave™'s, and consequently his and the right-wing anti-immigration press', peddling of the myth of the 70 million.
His little ditty 'How to tackle immigration', with its disingenuous subheading "With rising concern over immigration to the UK, it is important to examine its sources – and how we can limit them", merely rehearsed his tired rhetoric and showed up his lack of grasp of the concepts and terminology involved in the statistics, which he tries to wield in support of his bigotry.
The Observer editorial commenced with a typically liberal sentiment, "It is now generally recognised in British politics that expressing concern about the scale of recent immigration into the country is not necessarily a sign of racism." Unfortunately that is incorrect, as the corollary to it is that the situation that is causing that concern is the 'fault' of the 'excess' of migrants i.e. it is the migrants that are driving down wages (as the Daily Mail claims referencing the recent Equalities and Human Rights Commission report, 'The UK's New Europeans'), causing the lack of social housing, placing a 'burden' on the NHS, etc., etc. It is not the migrants driving down the wages, it is the employers who are willing to pay lower wages in order to maximise their profits. This is exactly the same process that has seen the industrial base in the UK exported to countries where the wages are lower and we do not seem to blame the workers in those countries for being willing to accept lower wages that the good old British worker, do we? It's capitalism stupid! [1]
In a similar fashion, it is every government since Thatcher's (along with every 'aspirational' council tenant who bought their council house) that are to blame for the lack of available social housing, the sort of council houses that were passed down the generations within families just as many manufacturing jobs had been before they moved abroad or disappeared otherwise. And as for the NHS, there would not be one if it had not been for the migrants in the 50's and 60's who kept it staffed and in existence, and it still only just gets by because of the 'imperialistic' drain on the skill base of the rest of the world.
That the Observer then uses the EHRC report, which flatly contradicts an Institute for Public Policy Research report 'The Economic Impacts of Migration on the UK Labour Market' from February last year, as evidence that "There is no doubting the impact of recent, sustained high levels of immigration" is bizarre. The paper erroneously claims that "One predictable effect, the study found, was to hold down wages for skilled and semi-skilled workers in Britain." The report does not even mention any effect on the wages of skilled workers (and the Observer article the same day 'Eastern European immigration 'has hit low-paid Britons'' also does not mention this 'phenomenon'). If they cannot get this simple 'fact' right, then clearly we are "still a long way from an honest debate about immigration."
One thing that this Observer editorial does not mention (though is hinted at in its article on the report, and is needless to say totally ignored in the Mail piece) is that "In many cases the new migrants have precarious employment and housing arrangements, are vulnerable to exploitation, or lack support networks and access to information." In fact, most are stuck in dead-end jobs with little or no prospects of moving up the 'job ladder'.
The Observer editorial ends: "Immigration will feature in the election campaign and rightly so. [2] Parties must explain their policies on a matter of concern to so many voters. But they must explain them honestly. Sadly, there is little chance of that happening. Labour and the Tories may have become freer in their discussion of immigration, but they show no sign of really wanting to dispel the fog of ignorance and prejudice that still shrouds debate on the issue." Obviously this a "fog of ignorance and prejudice" that the paper's editor also appears to suffer from.
Which brings us neatly to Alan Green's (never ending) contribution to the "fog of ignorance and prejudice". Here we have a man who, in his very comfortable retirement, has decided to ride his hobby-horse into the ground. He has become what he clearly appears to believe is a self-taught expert on immigration (we use the term immigration rather than migration because his interest in the subject is specifically that). Except that he constantly lets his ignorance slip. Sometimes it is simple things, such as claiming that "Over the past 50 years, their [the Office of National Statistics] projections at the 20-year range have been accurate to about 2.5% (sic). This actually means nothing. 2.5% of what? What he in fact means is that the estimates are accurate to within 2.5%. A small point, but a very telling one when he cannot even get the terminology right (just as Cameron did when he talked about 'net immigration').
Green follows this faux pas up with the claim that the ONS "have confirmed [in a recent parliamentary answer] that most of last year's fall in immigration has already been factored in to the latest projections." [our emphasis] This is blatantly NOT true. If you read the parliamentary answer and the methodology (which the article helpfully gives links to): "The assumptions for the 2008-based projections are based upon final estimates of long-term international migration up to the end of 2007, plus provisional International Passenger Survey (IPS) estimates of long-term international migration for the year ending December 2008. Thus the calculation of the assumptions took into account the decline in long-term international net migration indicated by the provisional IPS estimates published by ONS on 27 August 2009."
So, despite the fact that the figures were published in October last year and that "the 2008-based projections assume annual net migration from [A8 & A2 EU member states] declining from +25,000 for 2009-10 to zero for 2014-15 onwards," it actually says nothing about factoring in the 2008-09 figures as Green states. Nor does it say what estimates for the decline from a net migration figure of 163,000 in 2008 they used. [3]
In a recent blog we pointed out, as others have done, Green's claim that immigration is the major factor for future population growth. Here he repeats it again: "Nor it is correct to say that the birth rate is more crucial than net migration in determining population growth. If you take account of the children of future immigrants, then immigration accounts for 68% of population growth." The big problem is that he wants to have his cake and eat it. You cannot count the same figures twice. In population statistics, migration is migration and natural population growth (births minus deaths) is natural population growth.
Yes, future migrants will be younger and more fertile than the existing ageing UK population but that is totally irrelevant for these statistics. If future immigrants were all older and less fertile that the current population no doubt he would be using that as a stick to beat them with.
He then claims that: "The public are increasingly conscious of this – which is why 85% express concern that our population is projected to hit 70 million in 2029." [4] Yet a similar survey he frequently quotes from also found that 36% wanted a population of less than 50 million, whilst 40% did not know what the optimum population size for the UK should be. Lies, damned lies and statistics, eh! And it is 84% by the way.
He then goes on to give his options for cutting immigration: "The first thing is to exclude asylum from this discussion. Asylum seekers account for only 10% of net foreign immigration and only one-third of those are granted protection. [5] The rest face the quite different problem of removal," listing EU migrants (he hopes wont be too much of a 'problem' in the future); students (must leave after study unless they "entered a genuine marriage" or got a work permit); spouses and fiancées (reduce non-"genuine marriages by British citizens") but his big answer is a cap on economic migration at 20,000.
We are too bored with all this to examine his 'thoughts' any further, short to say his is the sort of discourse, despite his denials elsewhere, that Roland Schilling, the UK representative of the Office of the United Nation’s High Commissioner for Refugees, no doubt meant when he warned that the current disgraceful level of debate risked being hijacked by dangerous anti-immigrant groups [MigrationBotch, surely not?] and would push potential refugees further into the "shadowy world dominated by gangsters and people smugglers."
[1] "The recent migration may have reduced wages slightly at the bottom end of the labour market, especially for certain groups of vulnerable workers, and there is a risk that it could contribute to a ‘low-skill equilibrium’ in some economically depressed local areas." This is all based on "A relatively limited evidence base [that] suggests that eastern European immigration has brought economic benefits, including greater labour market efficiency and potential increases in average wages." [both quotes 'The UK's New Europeans']
[2] Just how much immigration will feature in the coming election rests largely on how the Tories approach the subject and, given that their own analysis showed that their attempts to exploit the immigration card backfired, they may have learnt their lesson and largely steer clear of the issue. The BNP, UKIP and Alan Green will however have something to say on the subject.
[3] Unfortunately, Green's Observer article gives a link to Population Trends No. 128, with figures only up to 2006, as a link to illustrate "last year's fall in immigration". About as useful as the proverbial chocolate teapot. In fact, in the first 3 months of 2009 there were 23,000 work permit applications from E8 workers (down from down from 48,755 in the same period in 2008) and 26,150 in the second quarter (down from 46,070 the year before).
[4] Not surprising really when the question "How would you feel about a population of this size?" Gave as answer options: Delighted / Wouldn’t mind / Slightly worried / Very worried / Don’t know.
[5] And of course asylum applications have been severely cut back on over the years, so it would be too obvious to hit them yet again. Though you could always increase the refusal rate.
His little ditty 'How to tackle immigration', with its disingenuous subheading "With rising concern over immigration to the UK, it is important to examine its sources – and how we can limit them", merely rehearsed his tired rhetoric and showed up his lack of grasp of the concepts and terminology involved in the statistics, which he tries to wield in support of his bigotry.
The Observer editorial commenced with a typically liberal sentiment, "It is now generally recognised in British politics that expressing concern about the scale of recent immigration into the country is not necessarily a sign of racism." Unfortunately that is incorrect, as the corollary to it is that the situation that is causing that concern is the 'fault' of the 'excess' of migrants i.e. it is the migrants that are driving down wages (as the Daily Mail claims referencing the recent Equalities and Human Rights Commission report, 'The UK's New Europeans'), causing the lack of social housing, placing a 'burden' on the NHS, etc., etc. It is not the migrants driving down the wages, it is the employers who are willing to pay lower wages in order to maximise their profits. This is exactly the same process that has seen the industrial base in the UK exported to countries where the wages are lower and we do not seem to blame the workers in those countries for being willing to accept lower wages that the good old British worker, do we? It's capitalism stupid! [1]
In a similar fashion, it is every government since Thatcher's (along with every 'aspirational' council tenant who bought their council house) that are to blame for the lack of available social housing, the sort of council houses that were passed down the generations within families just as many manufacturing jobs had been before they moved abroad or disappeared otherwise. And as for the NHS, there would not be one if it had not been for the migrants in the 50's and 60's who kept it staffed and in existence, and it still only just gets by because of the 'imperialistic' drain on the skill base of the rest of the world.
That the Observer then uses the EHRC report, which flatly contradicts an Institute for Public Policy Research report 'The Economic Impacts of Migration on the UK Labour Market' from February last year, as evidence that "There is no doubting the impact of recent, sustained high levels of immigration" is bizarre. The paper erroneously claims that "One predictable effect, the study found, was to hold down wages for skilled and semi-skilled workers in Britain." The report does not even mention any effect on the wages of skilled workers (and the Observer article the same day 'Eastern European immigration 'has hit low-paid Britons'' also does not mention this 'phenomenon'). If they cannot get this simple 'fact' right, then clearly we are "still a long way from an honest debate about immigration."
One thing that this Observer editorial does not mention (though is hinted at in its article on the report, and is needless to say totally ignored in the Mail piece) is that "In many cases the new migrants have precarious employment and housing arrangements, are vulnerable to exploitation, or lack support networks and access to information." In fact, most are stuck in dead-end jobs with little or no prospects of moving up the 'job ladder'.
The Observer editorial ends: "Immigration will feature in the election campaign and rightly so. [2] Parties must explain their policies on a matter of concern to so many voters. But they must explain them honestly. Sadly, there is little chance of that happening. Labour and the Tories may have become freer in their discussion of immigration, but they show no sign of really wanting to dispel the fog of ignorance and prejudice that still shrouds debate on the issue." Obviously this a "fog of ignorance and prejudice" that the paper's editor also appears to suffer from.
Which brings us neatly to Alan Green's (never ending) contribution to the "fog of ignorance and prejudice". Here we have a man who, in his very comfortable retirement, has decided to ride his hobby-horse into the ground. He has become what he clearly appears to believe is a self-taught expert on immigration (we use the term immigration rather than migration because his interest in the subject is specifically that). Except that he constantly lets his ignorance slip. Sometimes it is simple things, such as claiming that "Over the past 50 years, their [the Office of National Statistics] projections at the 20-year range have been accurate to about 2.5% (sic). This actually means nothing. 2.5% of what? What he in fact means is that the estimates are accurate to within 2.5%. A small point, but a very telling one when he cannot even get the terminology right (just as Cameron did when he talked about 'net immigration').
Green follows this faux pas up with the claim that the ONS "have confirmed [in a recent parliamentary answer] that most of last year's fall in immigration has already been factored in to the latest projections." [our emphasis] This is blatantly NOT true. If you read the parliamentary answer and the methodology (which the article helpfully gives links to): "The assumptions for the 2008-based projections are based upon final estimates of long-term international migration up to the end of 2007, plus provisional International Passenger Survey (IPS) estimates of long-term international migration for the year ending December 2008. Thus the calculation of the assumptions took into account the decline in long-term international net migration indicated by the provisional IPS estimates published by ONS on 27 August 2009."
So, despite the fact that the figures were published in October last year and that "the 2008-based projections assume annual net migration from [A8 & A2 EU member states] declining from +25,000 for 2009-10 to zero for 2014-15 onwards," it actually says nothing about factoring in the 2008-09 figures as Green states. Nor does it say what estimates for the decline from a net migration figure of 163,000 in 2008 they used. [3]
In a recent blog we pointed out, as others have done, Green's claim that immigration is the major factor for future population growth. Here he repeats it again: "Nor it is correct to say that the birth rate is more crucial than net migration in determining population growth. If you take account of the children of future immigrants, then immigration accounts for 68% of population growth." The big problem is that he wants to have his cake and eat it. You cannot count the same figures twice. In population statistics, migration is migration and natural population growth (births minus deaths) is natural population growth.
Yes, future migrants will be younger and more fertile than the existing ageing UK population but that is totally irrelevant for these statistics. If future immigrants were all older and less fertile that the current population no doubt he would be using that as a stick to beat them with.
He then claims that: "The public are increasingly conscious of this – which is why 85% express concern that our population is projected to hit 70 million in 2029." [4] Yet a similar survey he frequently quotes from also found that 36% wanted a population of less than 50 million, whilst 40% did not know what the optimum population size for the UK should be. Lies, damned lies and statistics, eh! And it is 84% by the way.
He then goes on to give his options for cutting immigration: "The first thing is to exclude asylum from this discussion. Asylum seekers account for only 10% of net foreign immigration and only one-third of those are granted protection. [5] The rest face the quite different problem of removal," listing EU migrants (he hopes wont be too much of a 'problem' in the future); students (must leave after study unless they "entered a genuine marriage" or got a work permit); spouses and fiancées (reduce non-"genuine marriages by British citizens") but his big answer is a cap on economic migration at 20,000.
We are too bored with all this to examine his 'thoughts' any further, short to say his is the sort of discourse, despite his denials elsewhere, that Roland Schilling, the UK representative of the Office of the United Nation’s High Commissioner for Refugees, no doubt meant when he warned that the current disgraceful level of debate risked being hijacked by dangerous anti-immigrant groups [MigrationBotch, surely not?] and would push potential refugees further into the "shadowy world dominated by gangsters and people smugglers."
[1] "The recent migration may have reduced wages slightly at the bottom end of the labour market, especially for certain groups of vulnerable workers, and there is a risk that it could contribute to a ‘low-skill equilibrium’ in some economically depressed local areas." This is all based on "A relatively limited evidence base [that] suggests that eastern European immigration has brought economic benefits, including greater labour market efficiency and potential increases in average wages." [both quotes 'The UK's New Europeans']
[2] Just how much immigration will feature in the coming election rests largely on how the Tories approach the subject and, given that their own analysis showed that their attempts to exploit the immigration card backfired, they may have learnt their lesson and largely steer clear of the issue. The BNP, UKIP and Alan Green will however have something to say on the subject.
[3] Unfortunately, Green's Observer article gives a link to Population Trends No. 128, with figures only up to 2006, as a link to illustrate "last year's fall in immigration". About as useful as the proverbial chocolate teapot. In fact, in the first 3 months of 2009 there were 23,000 work permit applications from E8 workers (down from down from 48,755 in the same period in 2008) and 26,150 in the second quarter (down from 46,070 the year before).
[4] Not surprising really when the question "How would you feel about a population of this size?" Gave as answer options: Delighted / Wouldn’t mind / Slightly worried / Very worried / Don’t know.
[5] And of course asylum applications have been severely cut back on over the years, so it would be too obvious to hit them yet again. Though you could always increase the refusal rate.
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Prolonged Immigration Detention Can Seriously Damage Your Health
The largest study yet carried out into the health records of people held in detention in Australian immigration prisons*, and published in the latest issue of the Medical Journal of Australia, shows that the length of time in detention and the reasons for that detention had a significant effect on the rate of new mental health problems among detainees.
The evidence appears to show that the longer the period of detention, the higher the rate of mental health problems. Those eventually designated as asylum seekers also displayed similar higher rates of mental health problems. Amongst those held for more than a year, mental health, social and musculoskeletal problems were common against the more common dental and respiratory conditions, and lacerations found amongst shorter-term detainees.
According to Prof Kathy Eagar, Professor of Health Services Research and Director of the Centre for Health Service Development at the University of Wollongong, "The health of people in immigration detention has attracted considerable attention. In particular, there is almost universal criticism of the policy of detaining asylum seekers, particularly in terms of the mental health implications."
In an accompanying editorial in the MJA, Dr Christine Phillips, Senior Lecturer in General Practice and Community Health at the Australian National University, writes: "The evidence is growing that asylum seekers are likely to be those most psychologically damaged by immigration detention, and that their children are particularly vulnerable."
"There is a good case to be made on health grounds that immigration detention should be used in very limited ways for asylum seekers, and never for children."
* 720 detainees' heath records from the 2005-06 financial year were used.
The evidence appears to show that the longer the period of detention, the higher the rate of mental health problems. Those eventually designated as asylum seekers also displayed similar higher rates of mental health problems. Amongst those held for more than a year, mental health, social and musculoskeletal problems were common against the more common dental and respiratory conditions, and lacerations found amongst shorter-term detainees.
According to Prof Kathy Eagar, Professor of Health Services Research and Director of the Centre for Health Service Development at the University of Wollongong, "The health of people in immigration detention has attracted considerable attention. In particular, there is almost universal criticism of the policy of detaining asylum seekers, particularly in terms of the mental health implications."
In an accompanying editorial in the MJA, Dr Christine Phillips, Senior Lecturer in General Practice and Community Health at the Australian National University, writes: "The evidence is growing that asylum seekers are likely to be those most psychologically damaged by immigration detention, and that their children are particularly vulnerable."
"There is a good case to be made on health grounds that immigration detention should be used in very limited ways for asylum seekers, and never for children."
* 720 detainees' heath records from the 2005-06 financial year were used.
Monday, 18 January 2010
Statement In Opposition To Arora International Hotels Ltd. Planning Application No. CR/2009/0421/COU
The following statement has been sent to all 37 Crawley Borough councillors and to the local Crawley MP Laura Moffet in advance of next Monday's council planning committee meeting. Copies, together with a press statement have been sent to local and national press.
The Arora International Hotels chain wishes to convert the 254-bed Mercure Hotel in Povey Cross Road, Crawley into an Immigration Removal Centre. Due to the nature of the existing building and the site it occupies, it could only be converted into a detention centre to house families and children.
The detention of children in immigration prisons has long been condemned by authorities around the globe for the adverse physical and psychological effects it has on them. In this country these have included the Children's Commissioner for England Sir Alan Aynsley-Green, Refugee and Migrant Justice (formerly the Refugee Legal Centre) and the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee to name but a few.
Just this month (December 2009), the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Royal College of General Practitioners and the Faculty of Public Health (and endorsed by the Royal College of Nursing) published a briefing paper entitled 'Significant Harm - the effects of administrative detention on the health of children, young people and their families', which declared that the administrative detention of children is unacceptable and should cease without delay.
Gatwick is already the site of two Immigration Removal Centres, Tinsley House and Brook House, both the source of recent criticism. In particular, Tinsley House is the subject of a highly critical report by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Dame Anne Owers, regarding an unannounced short follow-up inspection on 13–15 July 2009, published on 18 December. The report described the arrangements for children at Tinsley House as "wholly unacceptable" and criticised the "prison-like culture" and the "limited access to fresh air" of the children imprisoned there.
We the undersigned call on Arora International Hotels to unconditionally withdraw their application for change of use of Mercure Hotel and, failing that, for Crawley Borough Council to reject the application at the earliest opportunity. Imprisoning children for the 'crime' of being a migrant is totally unacceptable and nobody should encourage others to profit from the activity, whatever the situation.
signatures:
Dr Caroline Lucas - Green Party MEP for SE England
Ben Duncan Brighton and Hove City Councillor, Green Party parliamentary candidate & member of Sussex Police Authority
Tony Greenstein - Brighton & Hove Unemployed Workers Centre
Helen M. Hintjens - Senior Lecturer in Development and Social Justice, International Institute of Social Studies, University of Rotterdam
No Borders Brighton
London No Borders
Manchester No Borders
No Borders South Wales
No One Is Illegal
Barbed Wire Britain Network to End Refugee and Migrant Detention
Communities Of Resistance (CoRe)
Fight Racism Fight Imperialism
Detainee Solidarity London
Stop Deportations Network
Kent Refugee Help
Migrant English Project (Brighton)
Long Journey Home
Ethnic Arts Group
Cardiff Refugee & Asylum Seeker Welcome
Cardiff STAR
Cardiff People & Planet
Cardiff University Green Party
SERTUC (South East and Eastern Region TUC)
The Arora International Hotels chain wishes to convert the 254-bed Mercure Hotel in Povey Cross Road, Crawley into an Immigration Removal Centre. Due to the nature of the existing building and the site it occupies, it could only be converted into a detention centre to house families and children.
The detention of children in immigration prisons has long been condemned by authorities around the globe for the adverse physical and psychological effects it has on them. In this country these have included the Children's Commissioner for England Sir Alan Aynsley-Green, Refugee and Migrant Justice (formerly the Refugee Legal Centre) and the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee to name but a few.
Just this month (December 2009), the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Royal College of General Practitioners and the Faculty of Public Health (and endorsed by the Royal College of Nursing) published a briefing paper entitled 'Significant Harm - the effects of administrative detention on the health of children, young people and their families', which declared that the administrative detention of children is unacceptable and should cease without delay.
Gatwick is already the site of two Immigration Removal Centres, Tinsley House and Brook House, both the source of recent criticism. In particular, Tinsley House is the subject of a highly critical report by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Dame Anne Owers, regarding an unannounced short follow-up inspection on 13–15 July 2009, published on 18 December. The report described the arrangements for children at Tinsley House as "wholly unacceptable" and criticised the "prison-like culture" and the "limited access to fresh air" of the children imprisoned there.
We the undersigned call on Arora International Hotels to unconditionally withdraw their application for change of use of Mercure Hotel and, failing that, for Crawley Borough Council to reject the application at the earliest opportunity. Imprisoning children for the 'crime' of being a migrant is totally unacceptable and nobody should encourage others to profit from the activity, whatever the situation.
signatures:
Dr Caroline Lucas - Green Party MEP for SE England
Ben Duncan Brighton and Hove City Councillor, Green Party parliamentary candidate & member of Sussex Police Authority
Tony Greenstein - Brighton & Hove Unemployed Workers Centre
Helen M. Hintjens - Senior Lecturer in Development and Social Justice, International Institute of Social Studies, University of Rotterdam
No Borders Brighton
London No Borders
Manchester No Borders
No Borders South Wales
No One Is Illegal
Barbed Wire Britain Network to End Refugee and Migrant Detention
Communities Of Resistance (CoRe)
Fight Racism Fight Imperialism
Detainee Solidarity London
Stop Deportations Network
Kent Refugee Help
Migrant English Project (Brighton)
Long Journey Home
Ethnic Arts Group
Cardiff Refugee & Asylum Seeker Welcome
Cardiff STAR
Cardiff People & Planet
Cardiff University Green Party
SERTUC (South East and Eastern Region TUC)
International Protests In Support Of The Merak Tamils
[Geordie accent] It is day one hundred in the Merak Harbour boat and things are not looking too good for the ship mates...
...no it's not a TV reality show, but it might have been better if it was somehow, as the world would be paying it a bit more attention than it currently appears to be.
Yes, today sees the 100th day since the Jaya Lestari was intercepted by the Indonesian navy, at Australia's request. The boat and its 254 Tamil refugee passengers was then towed into West Javan port of Merak to commence a 3 month plus stand-off with the Indonesian authorities. The Tamils have survived monsoons, typhoons, dysentry, an attempted armed raid and the death of one of their number from complications involving a stomach ulcer. They need international pressure to be put on the Australian Government to take responsibility for the situation and provide shelter for the refugees in accord with international treaties.
The worldwide Tamil community have put out an international call to action to hold protest vigils, such as those already organised across Australia and outside Australian consulates in Auckland, Toronto, Washington, London and Malaysia. The London protest will be held at 4:00 pm today at:
Australian High Commission
Strand,
London
WC2B 4LA
(corner of the Aldwych and the Strand. Nearest Tube station: Temple)
In recent days the Indonesian government have repeated their threats to end the stand-off with a 'gun-point evacuation' and to send all the Tamils back to Sri Lanka, in direct contravention of international treaties against refoulement. The Indonesians swiftly back-tracked when the threat was made public, even though the Tamils themselves have said they will no longer resist such an attempt.
To see the conditions of the Tamil asylum seekers are being forced to live in, follow the link to a CNN video.
...no it's not a TV reality show, but it might have been better if it was somehow, as the world would be paying it a bit more attention than it currently appears to be.
Yes, today sees the 100th day since the Jaya Lestari was intercepted by the Indonesian navy, at Australia's request. The boat and its 254 Tamil refugee passengers was then towed into West Javan port of Merak to commence a 3 month plus stand-off with the Indonesian authorities. The Tamils have survived monsoons, typhoons, dysentry, an attempted armed raid and the death of one of their number from complications involving a stomach ulcer. They need international pressure to be put on the Australian Government to take responsibility for the situation and provide shelter for the refugees in accord with international treaties.
The worldwide Tamil community have put out an international call to action to hold protest vigils, such as those already organised across Australia and outside Australian consulates in Auckland, Toronto, Washington, London and Malaysia. The London protest will be held at 4:00 pm today at:
Australian High Commission
Strand,
London
WC2B 4LA
(corner of the Aldwych and the Strand. Nearest Tube station: Temple)
In recent days the Indonesian government have repeated their threats to end the stand-off with a 'gun-point evacuation' and to send all the Tamils back to Sri Lanka, in direct contravention of international treaties against refoulement. The Indonesians swiftly back-tracked when the threat was made public, even though the Tamils themselves have said they will no longer resist such an attempt.
To see the conditions of the Tamil asylum seekers are being forced to live in, follow the link to a CNN video.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)