Gill Baden (Barbed Wire Britain - Network to end refugee and migrant detention) 
A personal view. 7/3/2002

These categorisations of people coming to the UK wanting to live and work here in the short or long term have been unhelpful. The language has focused on ‘economic’ cf ‘political’, ‘bogus’ cf ‘genuine’. In reality these boundaries are far from clear cut.

An opinion poll taken in the UK in July 2000 showed that apart from gypsies and travellers, refugees and asylum seekers are the least popular group in our society.

*80% of those responding felt that refugees come to Britain because the state is soft on them

*65% thought that too much is done to help immigrants

*Nearly 50% thought we should stop taking asylum seekers

Results showed that people feel that refugees are a burden on the country. There are no attempts by the government to educate the public by giving out data on the positive contribution of refugees and migrants to this country. Nor do they inform the public about the realities of why people are migrating - the political and economic disruption they are escaping from, the root causes of their plight and our responsibilities.

Instead the press feeds racist attitudes with stories of criminal offences, scrounging, housing and employment difficulties, most of which have little or no substance but create a hardening of public opinion. The reality is that people do not uproot from home, family, culture and society, lightly, to face the unknown; choice is not an issue in many cases.

The public in the UK is generally unaware of the very small part we play, particularly as one of the wealthiest countries in the world, in the global situation of refugees and migrants. The overwhelming majority of the world’s refugees are in its least developed countries.

Tony Blair: 3/5/00, House of Commons, "The total cost of asylum is less than one fifth of one % of government spending. It is a problem, we are dealing with it, but we should not, any of us, exploit it."

The UK hosts about 3% of total no. of refugees in Europe, about 1.3% of the world total. We rank 7th in Europe for applications for asylum / 1000 of the population and 78th in the world.

(The top 10 refugee producing countries to the UK in 2001 were:- Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Iran, FR Yugoslavia, Pakistan, China, Former USSR.)

The contradiction which has arisen is that according to UN statistics we will need 83,000 more workers in a year just to keep up the level of working age people, while the government is setting ever higher targets (30,000 in 2001) for deporting so-called ‘illegals’. These are generally young, educated, skilled people who are motivated and organised. We have about one million unfilled jobs and an unemployment rate of 3.9%, the lowest in Europe. Shortages are worst in catering, farming, IT, hospitals, schools and manual industries. It is known that undocumented migrants are doing low-skilled jobs in construction, cleaning, security and clothing industries, mostly in urban situations. Asylum seekers are banned by law from working for at least 6 months after arrival so anyone who works within that time does so illegally and risks immediate deportation.

Last Autumn the Immigration Service increased its targets for ‘snatch squads’ operating mainly in London, catching failed asylum seekers and illegal workers. They hope to increase arrests from 10 per day to 80-100 per day. These people, many of whom have families here, are then sent to detention centres prior to their cases being resolved, often by deportation. There have been a number of reports of death and injury in attempts to avoid arrest.

Detention is a major plank in UK immigration policy, apparently used as a deterrent.The UK detains more foreign nationals (particularly asylum seekers) without time limit and with less scrutiny than any other European country. Over 9,000 are detained every year, about 2,000 currently at any one time with plans to increase this number to 4,000 by the end of this year. This is the highest it has ever been in the UK and is the worst record in Europe.

Detention centres are run by private security firms (Group 4, Wakenhut, Sodhexo) for profit. For some years the government has also used spaces in prisons to house asylum seekers, often more were in prisons than in detention centres. Detainees have been subject to prison regimes, designed to punish criminals. This practice stopped officially in January 2002 as new detention centres have come on line. However in the last few weeks significant numbers of asylum seekers deemed to have histories of violence or disruptive behaviour have been moved back to prisons. The UN has condemned this jailing of asylum seekers without charge.

The official line is that detention is for economic migrants and criminals.

Colin Harbin -when he was Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate - putting over the official line said:- "Most - about 95% - of ‘illegals’ are economic migrants, about 5% are criminals. There are very few genuine cases in detention. An ‘illegal’ entrant is in breach of immigration laws, clandestine, gains entry by lying and deception. Anyone in a detention centre is awaiting removal, if we can’t remove, we can’t detain. "

Experience is very different to these official statements. Detention is an arbitrary process, often before a case has even been considered or an asylum seeker has had a chance to find a legal representative or lodge an appeal. Port applicants, in-country applicants, over stayers are detained with no proper explanation, time not determined, often held in limbo for months. They become traumatised and clinically depressed, with language difficulties in many cases.They feel criminalised; handcuffs are frequently used when detainees are taken to court or hospital. Many detainees eventually get exceptional leave to remain, indefinite leave to remain or asylum.

(In 2000, 31% of asylum cases were accepted on first examination and a further 18% upheld at appeal.)

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 brought in new arrangements which are in operation now. The new legislation would be "..faster, fairer, firmer." In practice it is only firmer.

The results:-

"It will now be almost impossible for asylum seekers to reach the UK lawfully and claim asylum - putting refugees fleeing persecution in even more danger. Even if they reach the UK they still face the danger of being charged with a criminal offence if they have been forced to use a false passport to get out of their own country." (Refugee Council.)

*Stricter regime and conditions for entry, vouchers instead of cash.

*Dispersal with no choice, criteria for dispersal largely ignored - only accommodation counts, no attempt to place with community support.

*Refusal on non-compliance grounds - purely technical reasons - without the merits of their cases even being looked at. (28,000 in 2001)

*Loss of appeal rights against safe third country removals.

*Escalating use of detention with new detention centre rules.

*Improved bail arrangements - never implemented - now to be repealed.

*Inadequate legal representation a major problem. New regulations for legal advisors limit available help and fail to cut out ‘cowboys’.

*Court arrangements not improved - continuing delays, incompetence on the part of the Home Office (average waiting time for single people about 14 months at the end of 2000).

*Exclusion of immigration officials from anti-racist laws after the Terrorism Act 2000.

*Health (particularly mental health) and welfare issues are of major concern.

On February 7th, a proposal "Secure Borders, Safe Haven" was put before parliament for major new changes to immigration and asylum laws. This was a real opportunity for improvements but sadly most aspects of it seem to be tougher and meaner. We are now in a consultation period but the legislation is likely to go through parliament in the near future without much change.

Proposals include:-

*A national network of induction, accommodation and removal centres to ensure swifter processing. People will be free to leave accommodation centres but if they do not stay there they will lose all support and their case may be jeopardized.

*Legal work routes for some economic migrants. A Highly Skilled Migrant Programme and a work permit system to deal with pressures in our economy due to skills shortages, are both based on purely selfish motivation. The proposed lack of human rights for people allowed to come in the second category is reprehensible.

*Resettlement programme for genuine refugees. No mention of how many.

*Requirement of a citizenship pledge and knowledge of English

*Access to appeals will be significantly reduced.

*Strengthening border controls

Controls are ineffective in stopping immigration, but create a jungle of legislation. ‘Racialised nationalism’ has become ingrained in government. Certain ‘racial’ groups are seen as a threat to the culture and finite resources of the nation. Regulations and myths pervade and promote racism. The need for controls is firmly embedded in our psyche. But who really benefit and who are harmed? Policies of our government and companies are keeping people poor and exploiting them. There has to be a better answer than a Barbed Wire Britain or Fortress Europe - a civilized and humane answer. "In a world of winners and and losers, the losers do not simply disappear, they seek somewhere else to go" Peter Stalker, ILO, "Workers without frontiers."

Across the UK there are many and increasing numbers of groups working to defend refugees, migrants and asylum seekers in all kinds of ways. We hope to be effective by linking together with conferences,demonstrations, lobbying, educating, making the arguments to change public opinion and government policies.