UN: Change inflammatory talk on migration

UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau, has urged the international community to embrace a new, balanced discourse on migration based on equal rights, non-discrimination and dignity, as well as on reality.

Read more

Source: www.foreignersinuk.co.uk

The government must stop spreading untruths about immigration

A Migration Observatory report published on Sunday, ‘thinking behind the numbers’ (pdf), shows that for all the government’s efforts to appease the public with a harsh stance on immigration – David Cameron’s calls last week for the public to ‘shop’ their illegal immigrant neighbours; tougher questions in the British citizenship test; and not to mention home secretary Theresa May’s infamous cat anecdote - they are hitting the wrong notes when it comes to tuning in to public opinion.

Full story

Source: Left Foot Forward

Politicians ‘can do little on migration fears’

Immigration policy may be stuck between a “rock and a hard place” in dealing with public concerns, says an Oxford University report.

The study of 1,000 found people were most concerned about immigrant groups politicians could do little to cut.

Full story

Source: BBC News

Tamil returns: ‘UKBA is not aware of any difficulties’

By Frances Webber| Institute of Race Relations

The deportation of up to fifty Tamil refused asylum seekers to Sri Lanka on a charter flight on 28 September once again focused attention on what happens to those returned to torturing states, and who monitors them.

The charter flight went ahead in the teeth of warnings of torture from organisations including the Sri Lanka Campaign, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Freedom from Torture (formerly the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture), and minus a number of passengers who had managed to secure injunctions to prevent their removal. Freedom from Torture has seen around 400 new Tamil patients in the two years since the LTTE’s defeat, many of whom bear scars of recent torture, and Human Rights Watch said, ‘The Sri Lankan government continues to show shocking disregard for the due process rights of anyone deemed linked to the Tamil Tigers. Those detained have been tortured and “disappeared”.’[1]

In a 2007 asylum case, the Tribunal observed that, for Tamils returned to Sri Lanka, coming from London (or another centre of fundraising for the Tamil Tigers), having made an asylum claim abroad, lack of an ID card and illegal departure from Sri Lanka were all factors which could give rise to suspicion of LTTE support and increased the risk of harsh interrogation and torture. In a 26 September letter sent to the High Court in order to pre-empt injunctions before the charter operation, the UK Border Agency (UKBA) claimed that up-to-date evidence about Sri Lanka indicated that these risks for refused asylum seekers had reduced. Strikingly, it did not claim that the risks had disappeared. According to a Guardian report, though, UKBA claimed that ‘arrangements to monitor the welfare of deportees’ had been sub-contracted to the International Organization for Migration (IOM). When the IOM denied that it would be monitoring returnees, the UKBA fell back on assurances given by Sri Lankan intelligence officers that they did not torture returned asylum seekers – the officers alleged that many Sri Lankans had inflicted wounds on themselves in order to support asylum claims. And in a letter to Freedom from Torture’s head Keith Best, UKBA said that deportees were given the contact details of the British High Commission in Colombo, ‘and may contact them if they require any assistance’.[2]

It is alarming that UKBA can quote, apparently uncritically, Sri Lankan intelligence officials’ accusations of self-mutilating Tamils in support of its claim that returned Tamils will be safe in their hands. The Agency clearly accepted that Tamils who were suspected of LTTE connections were being tortured in the past; how, then, can it give any credence at all to the assurances of the perpetrators that it never happened? And what is the use of the contact details for Our Man in Colombo – who has absolutely no power to intervene to stop the ill-treatment by a foreign state of one of its own nationals?

The dishonesty of these glib assurances is breathtaking. But it is not new; it is reminiscent of the experiences of Algerian national security deportees being returned to the jurisdiction of their brutal intelligence services under so-called diplomatic assurances which the Algerian government refused either to make official or to have independently monitored. Deportees and their relatives were given the contact details of the British Embassy in Algeria in case of difficulty. But when relatives rang, distraught, saying their sons were being held incommunicado, all the Embassy staff could do was to engage in polite fencing with Algerian diplomats. They had no right to enter the feared HQ of the security police where the men were held, much less visit or speak to them. And although the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) had said the assurances could be policed by groups like Amnesty International and by Algerian human rights lawyers, Amnesty’s reports of endemic torture were marginalised and the Algerian lawyers’ allegations of their clients’ torture rejected.

The Tamils being returned now do not even have the minimal protection of such diplomatic assurances. The stark reality brought home by these deportations is that the government is not interested in monitoring the welfare of deportees; it neither knows nor cares about the fate of those it returns to torturing states.

—-
FOOTNOTE

[1] Ian Cobain, ‘Torture charity calls on UK to halt deportation flight to Sri Lanka’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/27/torture-charity-call-sri-lanka-deportation), Guardian, 26 September 2011; Sri Lanka Campaign Newsletter 28 September 2011. [2] Ian Cobain, ‘UK not monitoring safety of Tamils deported to Sri Lanka’ ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/28/uk-not-monitoring-safety-tamils), Guardian, 29 September 2011.

Family Migration Proposals

Source: Free Movement

Damian Green’s speech on immigration on 15 September 2011 revealed various proposals which seem likely to become law. These build and elucidate on previous proposals, previously covered here on the blog.

The tone of the speech and the proposals is clear from the very first words:

The vast majority of people in this country believe that we need less immigration, and I agree.

The current Government certainly doesn’t beat around the bush! Green suggests that immigration figures have stabilised, but this may come back to haunt him. One quarter a trend does not make. The revelation that employers are not making full use of the Points Based System quota is interesting. I’d heard this on the grapevine and could have sworn I had blogged about it but can’t now find the post. I may now be imagining writing blog posts, which cannot be healthy.

Anyway, the proposals seem to be as follows:

• Ban on foreign spouses sponsoring another spouse within five years of entry
• Ban on sponsoring spouses for ten years following a conviction relating to sham marriages or bigamy
• Ban on sponsoring spouses following a conviction for domestic violence or being a respondent to a Forced Marriage Prevention Order (presumably a full order rather than an interim one)
• Curtailment of existing leave if involved in a sham marriage (the law already allows this anyway: see para 322(2) of the rules)
• Necessity to speak a common language and know ‘the most basic facts about each other’. This would appear to require interviews by immigration officials, which UKBA has all but eliminated in the last few years. It is difficult to see how this would work with the current ‘hub and spoke’ visa operation.
• An initial grant of only 12 months leave to enter where the relationship is less than 12 months old. The reference is to relationship rather than marriage. It is difficult to see how this would work in entry clearance cases – will letters, emails and evidence of telephone contact be required? Such evidence is usually presented anyway, although not covering a 12 month period. This proposal will certainly affect arranged marriage cases.
• Extend probationary period for spouses to five years. It was only a year under the last Tory Government, back in 1997, and was then increased to two years by David Blunkett.
• A new ‘attachment’ requirement is proposed, with reference to the requirements in Denmark. Those are that the sponsor has resided legally for 15 years and the spouse has visited at least twice. For spouses from relatively poor countries such a requirement would be very difficult to satisfy, particularly given the abysmal quality of decision making at some entry clearance posts. This proposal looks like a straw man, deliberately included for the specific purpose of jettisoning it after the consultation. In the mean time it attracts the most effort and ire from respondents to the consultation and it makes the Government look reasonable even though the other proposals are adopted wholesale.
• An allegation of sham marriage may be made a lawful impediment to marriage, causing a delay and postponement while such an allegation is investigated.
• Requests of social services departments to conduct an enquiry into the capacity to marry of any person with learning disabilities or belonging to another particularly vulnerable group. Depending on how it is done, this may amount to an unlawful interference with the right to marry. The courts have approached this subject with considerable sensitivity, but the same cannot be expected of the UK Border Agency nor even social workers unfamiliar with key legal authorities. See the case of In the matter of SA [2005] EWHC 2942 (Fam), [2006] 1 FLR 867.
• A new minimum income level in excess of the Income Support level. The (No) Migration Advisory Committee has been asked to advise. Apparently a figure of around £24,000 is being contemplated.
• Third party support to be scrapped (again) or limited to cases where there are compelling and compassionate circumstances.
• Some sort of change to the accommodation requirement, seemingly formalising the requirement to obtain confirmation from a local authority that accommodation will not be overcrowded where there is no formal mortgage or tenancy agreement.
• Outside the spouse route, the abolition of indefinite leave to enter for adult dependents.
• Imposition of English language requirements for children aged 16-17 and for adult dependents under the age of 65, with B1 being the required standard for adults.
• Family visit appeals to be scrapped (again). The idea that a new application to the ECOs at Islamabad or Dhaka is an adequate remedy is absurd. Judicial review is likely to burgeon.

There is a lot of emphasis on abuse in the speech. There is no mention at all of the positive benefits of immigration.

Lastly, the speech mentions the figure of 155 arrests in sham marriage cases in the last year. No figures are given for convictions. I am suspicious that these figures follow the pattern established in terrorism cases – lots of arrests, followed by no convictions and various claims for damages afterwards. I feel a Freedom of Information request coming on…

Further curbs on migration proposed

The government’s Migration Advisory Committee has proposed closing a further 70,000 jobs to skilled workers who are not from the EU.

Read more

Source: Independent

Home Office to ban poor people from bringing spouses

Guardian – British citizens who are making less than £5,000 a year or unemployed could be prevented from marrying the spouse of their choice if new family migration proposals become law.

Read more

Northampton researchers celebrate high profile funding success

Researchers from The University of Northampton’s School of The Arts are celebrating after winning a prestigious funding bid to explore the global issue of migration.

The three year research project – a collaboration between Northampton, Germany’s University of Münster, India’s University of Mumbai, Stockholm and two other UK universities, The School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and University of Oxford – has been given the green light thanks to a £3.2million grant from the Marie Curie Initial Training Networks fund.

Read more

Source: www.aboutmyarea.co.uk

Global Governance and International Migration

The purpose of this article is to explore the concept of “global governance” and the way it applies to the management of international migration by using trafficking of human beings as a case study. Globalization has altered the scene of world politics. A traditional State-centric view of the world order has been overshadowed by the increasing importance of other actors, including the United Nations, multi-national corporations and non-governmental organizations. Globalization has also altered the dynamics of rule making and their enforcement within the international system, in that not only States but also these non-State actors exercise enormous influence. The concept of global governance acknowledges this as it aims to include all the pertinent actors involved. To illustrate this further, the author will use trafficking of human beings as a case study. Two key principles of global governance are participation and accountability. This article will analyse how these principles are reflected and implemented in the regime dealing with the prevention and suppression of trafficking of human beings.

Read more

Source:Oxford Journals

Looking back, moving forward

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration met to debate the Coalition Government’s immigration policy of the past 12 months in a meeting entitled, ‘Immigration under the Coalition Government: looking back, moving forward’.

Speakers included the Chair of the APPG, Jack Dromey MP, the Shadow Immigration minister, Gerry Sutcliffe MP, co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Backbench Committee on Home Affairs, Tom Brake MP, human rights and civil liberties campaigner and Director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, and Dr Martin Ruhs from the Migration Advisory Committee. The Conservatives, Greens, Democratic Unionists and UK Independence Party also contributed to the meeting.

A briefing paper was published to inform the debate, providing a broad assessment of the past 12 months and the impact of the Coalition’s immigration policies, highlighting in particular the progress the Coalition has made on the proposed cap on numbers of migrants coming to the UK. The note from the meeting outlines key points raised by the panelists and participants at the meeting and the debate that emerged on public opinion, the effectiveness of the proposed cap, the overarching argument on human rightsand economic dimensions to the debate.

Please follow this link to access both briefing paper and note from the meeting: http://www.appgmigration.org.uk/reports

Next Page »