If The Cap Doesn't Fit

It was highly amusing yesterday listening to the leopardskin-print be-pumped new Home Secretary Teresa May as she squirmed during a BBC radio interview. In time-honoured politician mode, she sought to outline the latest policy, this time on the new LibCon temporary immigration 'cap', whilst studiously avoiding actually talking directly about it or answering any of the questions put to her by Sarah Montague, the interviewer.

Needless to say she repeated the arch Tory hypocrisy of their seeking to curb Labour's 'uncontrolled' immigration policy whilst in the same breath saying that they would seek to tighten immigration controls on people coming into the country to marry, controls that obviously were in place when Labour were in power. May also refused to address the question as to how the government would manage to limit immigration in the light of existing rates of migration from existing EU-accession countries, something which they can have little or no control over, short of leaving the EU. Instead she talked about controlling migration from future accession countries and, rather irrelevantly, constantly referring to the introduction of "a cap on non-EU 'economic migrants'" and trying to learn from how non-EU countries control immigration during the planned 12-week consultation on the implementation of the full 'cap'.

This errant bollox is a typical politician's PR effort designed to cover up the simple fact that the Tories' pre-election promise of returning net migration rates to the tens of thousands of the halcyon days of Thatcher, down from Labour's supposedly 'uncontrolled' hundreds of thousands, is unachievable. Why, and what about this temporary 'cap'?

On the 'cap' front*, what Mark Easton called a "tiny tweak" that's "not even a knotted handkerchief"**, the government plan for a maximum of 24,100 non-EU workers tol be allowed into Britain up till April next year, down by 1,300 on 2009 or a mere 5% reduction. The Financial Times went as far as labelling this temporary 'cap' a "shabby policy". Going on to say, "Labour’s points-based system was already limiting non-EU migration to high flyers or people working in professions with skills gaps. Indeed, if the coalition had left well alone, the number of arrivals would feasibly have fallen further than its interim cap."***

As to the efficacy of returning net migration rates to the '90s, we need to look at some current figures:

Year ending September 2009 net UK migration was 142,000 [503,000 people coming to live and work minus 361,000 leaving].
Of the 503,000, 270,000 (53%) were non-EU citizens; 183,000 were here to study, 176,000 to work and 80,000 were either accompanying someone here to work or study or were arriving to join someone already in the country.
In the first 3 months of 2010, 406,455 visas were issued.
367,145 were for temporary residence (temporary employment, student visas, visitors, etc.).
Less than 10% (39,310) were for permanent settlement or residence.
Only 6,685 of these were Tier 1 (highly skilled workers, leading to settlement) and 16,915 Tier 2 (skilled workers) visas.
In the same quarter, 2.25m (7.84%) of the UK workforce were non-UK nationals, of which 1.235m or 55% were non-EU nationals.
In 2006 the IPPR estimated that 5.5m Britons were living and working abroad, equivalent to 9% of the current UK population. Of these, 40% (2.2m) were classified as professional/managerial. [See also]
The estimated population of non-UK nationals in Britain (Oct 08 - Sept 09) was 4.3m (7.1%). [ONS]

So, whilst its interesting to note that there are many more UK citizens living abroad than non-UK citizen living in the UK, that doesn't concern us here. What does is where this cut from 142,000 to under 100,000 could be achieved, if at all, given that only half of all in-migration can be targeted. Labour's points based system is already severely squeezing visas for non-EU professionals (though not the endless stream of useless overpaid Premier League footballers), so extending the temporary 'cap' is a non-starter, especially as the business world is up in arms about it. For example, one of the largest non-EU groups to be hit further would be Indian nationals, whose lack of new visas (along with those for other subcontinent nationals) has already hit the curry restaurant business, rasing fears of a country-wide biryani-shortage.

One possible area has already been flagged up - foreign national spouses, with the newly proposed covertly-racist language tests.**** Overseas students are the next and most obvious large target (273,610 last year). However, cutting numbers back here could have a drastic economic effect. The income from foreign students (estimated to be £12bn) subsidises further education provision for UK students and cutting foreign student numbers would inevitably force universities and colleges to close, in addition to the obviously vulnerable foreign languages schools. Yet many universities and colleges will already be suffering from the loss of foreign lecturers due to the cap.

Yet, all these potential areas for cuts do not look capable of producing the tens of thousands needed to get back to Cameron's idyllic 1990's figure of 50,000. Sadly, all this anti-immigration bluster may well be exactly what it appears to be - window dressing to get them elected and to keep the Right Whingers onboard. In fact, net migration may well have ended up at less than 100,000 anyway, with little or no help from the government, largely through the effect of the global recession and the ending of the transition arrangements for A8 states brought in by EU countries such as Germany.


* The peak? Though that depends on which way round one wears it.
**"The tiny tweak to the immigration rules announced [yesterday] by the Home Office is not a cap. It's not even a knotted handkerchief." Mark Easton is usually eminently readable on migration matters and invariably cuts through all the spin and bullshit.
*** For example, in the last 9 months there has been a 15% fall in applications by skilled migrants from outside the EU anyway. Plus, the limit is on a 'first come, first served basis' and the 'cap' might be reached after only a few months with pressure from the private sector leading to the government increasing the limit, and the cap does not apply to 'intracompany transfers' leaving open another back door for entry.
**** Mark Easton suggests that "The real issue here is not integration or removing cultural barriers, it might be argued. It is about trying to reduce the economic impact of a legacy of British colonial rule." We somehow doubt whether your average Tory really bothers that much about "the economic impact of a legacy of British colonial rule."

Plans For Bullingdon Detention Centre Dropped

Plans to build the largest immigration detention centre in Europe on the Bullingdon site near Bicester have been dropped. The long mooted plan for the 800 place Category C-standard immigration prison to be built on ex-military land close to HMP Bullingdon are victims of the new government's massive cutbacks. No doubt the new LibCon immigration minister Damian 'The Omen' Green found this particularly galling news to have to announce that "the construction of the centre is currently unaffordable under current plans". Nevertheless, he can comfort himself that there are plans afoot to convert Category D HMP Morton Hall, and possibly part or all of the rebuilt HMP Ashwell, into detention centres, the decisions on which will probably be announced in the run up to the new governmental spending review this autumn.

Battle To Save RMJ Fails

Refugee and Migrant Justice administration update:

Refugee and Migrant Justice is saddened to announced that a last-minute rescue plan to save the organisation has not succeeded.

After launching an emergency appeal for funds, £76,525 was pledged by members of the public within a 24 hour period and a number of charitable trusts and organisations offered significant support. However, talks with the Legal Services Commission, RMJ's main funder, were unsuccessful.

The administrators BDO are now in the process of winding down the organisation.

People who kindly pledged money to RMJ are being informed and their money will be returned.

Caroline Slocock, chief executive of Refugee and Migrant Justice said: "During this period, RMJ has received the most amazing support from supporters and we were overwhelmed and touched by the offers of financial help in response to our campaign. We would like to thank everyone who has tried to save RMJ and very much regret that it has not been possible."

Are The PCC & NUJ Doing Enough To Stop Racist Press?

Given the amount of ongoing racism in the UK press, maybe it is time to remind the Press Complaints Commission and the National Union of Journalists, who ostensibly have strict rules against ‘prejudicial’ and ‘pejorative’ reporting, that they are not doing their job properly.

Clause 12 of the Press Complaints Commission’s Editors’ Code of Practice relates to discrimination and suggests that prejudicial or pejorative remarks about race and other personal traits and social groupings should be avoided.

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual’s race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Similarly, Clause 10 of the National Union of Journalists’ Code of Conduct, by which all NUJ members are expected to abide, states that:

A journalist… produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.

In addition, the union’s Black Members Council has produced Guidelines on Race Reporting, which many (white) members have clearly breached over the years.

So are the journalists and editors, whom this blog was set to expose, abiding by these rules? Clearly not. And are the PCC and NUJ doing enough to stop them? Clearly not.

If you would like to remind them of that, perhaps with a few recent examples, here are their contact details:

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Online complaint form: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html
Email: complaints@pcc.org.uk

The NUJ
Headland House
308-312 Gray’s Inn Road
London
WC1X 8DP
Email: info@nuj.org.uk
Ethics Council: ethics@nuj.org.uk
Equality Council: lenac@nuj.org.uk


Press Action

It Wasn't Us Guv, Honest

The UK Border Agency and G4S, whose staff were confirmed as being involved in the forced removals, have categorically denied that any force was used during the flight to Baghdad on Wednesday. David Wood, Strategic Director of Criminality (sic) and Detention, is quoted as saying: "We reject all allegations that Iraqi returnees removed from the UK were mistreated by our staff." However, Matthew Coats, head of Immigration at the UKBA, declined to comment about the claims, though he did repeat the usual homilies about "only ever return[ing] those who both the agency and the courts are satisfied do not need our protection."

For their part, G4S stated: "We reject all allegations that Iraqi returnees were mistreated by G4S employees. Our officers are highly trained to ensure the safety of both returnees and staff and will only restrain returnees as a last resort, and then only in line with policies and procedures set out by the UKBA. We can confirm a small number of returnees did not want to disembark in Baghdad; but after Iraqi officials came on the plane and spoke to them, they left the aircraft calmly and without incident. At no time was any kind of force used against this small group."

The Guardian, which has carried most of the coverage of the flight, reported that up to 25 of 42 deported Iraqis and Kurds were still under detention at Baghdad airport yesterday, despite being screened in advance by Iraqi officials in the UK. One refugee claimed, "We've been in Iraqi since 4.30am [Thursday] but we have been locked up since. Twenty-five people in one small cell – we can't breathe. Some are seriously ill because of the hunger and the heat."

Another of the deportees, a Kurd named Abdullah [though not the same person we quoted yesterday] claimed that ""During the flight I took my seat belt off [and] the officers jumped on me and grabbed me by the neck so I couldn't breathe. Baghdad is dangerous for Kurds; people hunt Kurds for kidnapping or to kill them. When we landed Iraqi officials came on to the plane and said that if anybody did not come out [voluntarily] 'we will kick you and beat you'. Some were scared and went out. Then the [British security] officials and Iraqi officers started beating us, saying: 'This is your country. Go back.'"

Forcible Returns And Deportation

"Administrative or forced removals are carried out when someone is sent out of a country under immigration laws, e.g. having asylum claim refused, overstaying a visa. Deportations on the other hand are reviewed by a court and are personally endorsed by the Home Secretary, e.g. following a conviction or on public security grounds. However, despite the legal distinction, the word 'deportation' is often used by campaigns/groups to cover both." - An A-Z of Borders: Perspectives from the UK No Borders network [AK Press]

Forced deportations are much in the news today (with the emphasis on force) as news of the brutalisation of Iraqis on Wednesday's flight has leaked out, the second since the resumption of deportations direct to the Iraqi capital following last October's debacle*. Last week a flight to Baghdad also left, flying via the Netherlands and Sweden to pick up other Iraqi deportees, carrying 11 refused asylum seekers.

The reason why Wednesday's flight has become so newsworthy however are not because of the fact that the government (in the guise of the Treasury Solicitor's Department) warned the judiciary (in a letter to the High Court) not to interfere ("disrupt or delay") in the smooth running of the flights by accepting any (perfectly legal) last-minute applications for judicial reviews: "Because of the complexities, practicalities and costs involved in arranging charter flights, it is essential that these removals are not disrupted or delayed by large numbers of last-minute claims for permission to seek judicial review."

Nor were the flights particularly newsworthy because of calls by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (and Amnesty International) that such flights ignore UN guidelines about forced returns of Iraqis from the central provinces of Iraq (Ninewa [Mosul], Kirkuk, Diyala, Salah al-Din and Baghdad) that the UNHCR officially consider unsafe, and who therefore continue to warrant international asylum protection. However, the ConDem government, in their desperation to be seen to 'tough on immigration and tough on the means of immigration' and to cut costs, decided that they knew better than the UNHCR and totally ignored them, going ahead with the flights.

Unfortunately for them, this appears to have backfired on them, in the publicity stakes at least, with news that UK Borders Agency staff beat a number of the Iraqis not only to get them off the plane a Baghdad airport itself but also to get them on the plane at Heathrow in the first place. Of the 42 on the flight, 16 were still being held at Baghdad airport 24 hours after having arrived**, and of the 14 deportees that UNHCR lawyers had spoken to, all claimed to have been beaten and forced to get on the plane in London. Six of those that the UNHCR had talked to directly showed officials fresh bruising, supporting their claims.

One of those injured, a Kurd named Sherwan Abdullah, who had lived in England for eight years, told the BBC of his and others treatment at the hands of the UKBA personnel who force him off the plane in Baghdad: "They were grabbing us, they told us if you don't come down, we're going to beat you badly, and we're going to take you out... If somebody wasn't willing to come out, they grabbed them, they grabbed the neck, they nearly killed them, these people could not breathe." Mr Abdullah also claimed that Iraqi police at the airport stole all his money.

In response, the UNHCR plan to investigate the refugees' claims. The UKBA refused to respond other than issuing the standard denial that "a minimum use of force is an absolute last resort, and would only ever be used when an individual becomes disruptive or refuses to comply. Even then, force is only carried out by highly trained officers, and should be carefully monitored, proportionate, and used for the shortest possible period to ensure compliance." However, we only have their word for this as these flights take place in absolute secrecy and independent witnesses are hard to come by. For example, we do not even know if all the personnel involve were UKBA officers or if, as seems likely, some of them were in fact hired thugs private security guards from the likes of G4S.


* Armed Iraqi officials boarded the plane and refused to accept 34 'returned' Kurdish refugees.
** Those deported on the 9 June flight were held for a full week at the airport whilst their papers where 'checked'.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Charter flights have recently become most EU government's weapon of choice for forced removals. Previously forced removals and deportations were carried out on scheduled flights, mainly because it was far more cheaper - the government did not have to pay for landing rights or for the hire of aircraft. However, there are two problems with using charter flights - they only allow for removals in small numbers, regular paying customers taking up most of the other seats, but also those regular customers have also become recognised as being a 'weak link'. This is because the sight of someone being dragged onto a plane in shackles has often proved too much for some passengers and they have carried out spontaneous protests, often ending in the deportee being removed from the plane before they allowed it to take off.

Detainee support groups and protesters have recognised this and have successfully sought to exploit this, forcing a number of carriers to pull-out of hosting such deportations, and severely limiting the ability of UKBA to use commercial flights for removals. So much so in fact, that the representative of one private security firm responsible for escorting deportations in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee during an enquiry on deportations that if it was not for British Airways, the number of those deported on scheduled flights would be "virtually nil".

The advantage of using charter flights for deportations are in the numbers of refused asylum seekers that can be removed in one go and, most of all, the secrecy - there's no one around to see what goes on as most of those being removed are not going voluntarily in any sense of the word. Plus the very fact that it is a mass removal increases the chance of resistance by the deportees.

The disadvantages are the exorbitant costs: hiring the aircraft and pilots (tens of thousands of pounds) to fly; fuel for the 8,000km round trip; insurance cover for the trip to a war zone; landing fees; paying for 2-4 security guards per prisoner; etc. Not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. These high costs have forced this government, as it did the previous one, to go against its better judgement and get involved in negotiating EU-wide co-opertaion on joint deportation flights under the auspices of Frontex, thereby spreading out the costs and PR risks. However, this leaves the flights open to interference by the more 'liberal' EU politicians seeking more oversight of the deportation flights, even going as far as having human rights monitors on beard, no doubt something that will be strongly resisted by individual European governments.


See: Corporate Watch's Anti-Deportation Campaign Spotlight.

Just Who Is Responsible For UK's Worsening Treatment Of Migrants?

It looks like the Tories claims that Nu Labour's mythical 'open door' immigration policy and their supposed attempts at mass social engineering (read as eugenics) via a policy encouraging 'mass immigration', not to mention the creation of the 'multicultural society' (read as 'diluting our precious bodily fluids'), was as restrictive and mean spirited as the Tories themselves hope to be.

The evidence for this has been coming in in droves recently. Just today we have had the news that Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ), the charity that provides legal support to thousands of asylum seekers across England and Wales have been forced into administration because of the changes brought in by Nu Labour to the way that Legal Aid fees are paid. Paul Gray, the chair of RMJ: "It is with great sadness that RMJ's trustees took the decision . . . we are very concerned about the position of our 10,000 clients, and of our dedicated and highly professional staff."

Instead of being paid hourly rates with fixed fees for most cases , the previous government decided that it would be a good idea to save money by only paying the fees when cases were exhausted. The net result is that only law firms with large financial backing can afford to take on Legal Aid-funded cases and charities or small firms that fight social justice issues that do not have that backing have either to face going to the wall or give up on Legal Aid-funded cases altogether, especially those firms specialising in asylum cases. Paul Gray again: "This situation is caused by late payment of legal aid by up to two years, not inefficiency or even lack of income . . . Late payment has an unequal impact on charities because they cannot get bank loans to finance the cash gap."

So that was a good outcome for any government seeking to halt, in their eyes, vexatious claims from refused asylum seekers who might dare to seek full legal redress and use the courts to fully pursue their rights under the law to seek, just like anyone else is free to do, as long as they can afford 'justice'. So, despite extensive lobbying of the new government from across the political spectrum, RMJ have been forced to call it a day, leaving over 10,000 clients, including 900 lone children, in legal limbo and more vulnerable than ever of being fed through the Borders Agency mincer and on to the next deportation flight.

The Ministry of Justice's response when then possibility of RMJ having to close its was first announced: "If RMJ fails, we accept that there will be some disruption while their clients look for help from another adviser. However, [the Legal Services Commission] believe that capacity will not be adversely affected as clients and caseworkers will be able to transfer to other organisations, as has happened in similar situations." Except that they wont be specialists in immigration law and their potential clients wont get the best legal advice possible. Still, they will be cheaper. One up to Nu Labour.

Then there was the Tory-Whig Alliance's announcements both of the resumption of deportations of Iraqi asylum seekers directly back to Baghdad, a scheme that had failed miserably last time it was tried, and the plan to send Afghan children back to Afghanistan in direct contravention of any number of international laws and conventions (this was more of a leak than a planned announcement), a move that was roundly condemned by everyone from the UNHCR though the Refugee Council to Human Rights Watch. The tender for the £4m "reintegration centre" in Afghanistan designed to 'process' 120 adults and 12 boys aged under 18 who had been forcibly returned from the UK. Up to 150 teenagers would be sent back in its first year of operation.

The British plans forms part of a wider European move to plan the return of unaccompanied migrant children to Afghanistan. Norway wants to open their own reception centre in Kabul, whilst Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands are to follow suit soon. All this is as the direct result of Nu Labour circulated a policy paper on unaccompanied minors in February during a Brussels workshop that called for an "EU-wide presumption" that a child's best interest was to return. It also argued that formal safeguards such as guardianship were "immensely expensive to put in place", emphasising the cost cutting basis of the plan.

According to the Home Office, there are currently 4,200 unaccompanied child refugees in the country and a fair portion of these have had their asylum applications refused by the Home Office on the basis that they are lying about their true age, never mind actually accepting their reasons for fleeing persecution. However, child protection laws guarantee that they will not be left destitute and homeless and many of these children are currently living in care homes across the UK.

Amongst those who are highly critical of the plan is Kamena Dorling, legal and policy officer for the Migrant Children's Project at the Children's Legal Centre: "If a child has no family to whom they can be returned safely, then it is difficult to see how returning them alone to Kabul will be in line with the UK Border Agency's duty, under the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, to ‘safeguard and promote the welfare' of that child."

However the government's main interest is solely in presenting a picture of the UK as not being a 'soft touch', hence Damian 'The Omen' Green repeating the same tired old clichés focusing on the 'pull factors', such as they are, rather than the 'push factors': "No one should be encouraging children to make dangerous journeys across the world." Just how trite can one get?

We, and numerous others, have worked with these children who (along with their families) have been so desperate to escape their circumstances that they have spent months (if not years) travelling halfway around the world; often walking hundreds of miles through all weathers; risking life and limb; often being beaten, robbed or raped; often trusting their lives to people traffickers (sometimes paid by their families selling everything they own); all in the hope of reaching the relative safety of a land they have only ever seen on the TV or heard of on the radio. That Green should denigrate them with this tosh would be outrageous if it weren't totally to be expected.

The UNHCR also objected to the forced return of Iraqi asylum seekers that the UK and other EU countries have jointly carried out in the past 2 weeks whilst all that well-known snake oil salesman David Cameron could come up with was praise for "our brave servicemen and women fought and died" in Iraq. Yet the war that those troops have pursued in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is the very reason why many of these people were forced to become refugees. Strikes two and three for Nu Labour.

Days later the UNHCR released a report entitled 'Trees Only Move In The Wind' which further reinforce the general dangers that unaccompanied child migrants face, not only on their journeys to the EU, but also when they reach here. It makes for salutary reading.

On top of all this this week saw a report entitled 'Not Gone But Forgotten' from the Red Cross criticising the government's asylum system as "shameful" and "inhumane", and laying into the 'section 4' hardship provision. A survey carried out by the organisation suggested that 87% of the 11,000 plus destitute refused asylum seekers that it helped last year often lived on one meal a day.* Not particularly good PR for the government but no doubt of more concern to them is news from their own newly created Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) of another report that effectively torpedoes the government's plans to cap migration.

The OBR's message is that the demographic time bomb of a falling birth rate and an increasing elderly population coupled with a massive cut in non-EU migration, the cutbacks, a weakening pound and a slowing economy will lead to a further decrease in migration. The net result will be even less of a tax intake to pay for the growing pensions bill and fewer people to fill the low paid carers jobs in the dwindling public and outsourced private sector care providers. Strikes four and five to Nu Labour but the last one is all down to the Tory-Whig Alliance, and from now on the buck will have to stop with them.


* See also the Guardian article 'The asylum seekers who survive on £10 a week'.