Wales and the politically difficult question of asylum

Source: Walesonline.com

LAST year more than 1,500 people sought refuge in Wales claiming they faced persecution. David James examines the politically difficult question of asylum.

IT is just one part of the controversial story of migration into Wales, yet one of the most politically difficult.

Every year, between 1,500 and 2,000 people ask for asylum in the UK and are housed in one of Wales’ four largest cities and towns.

RC welcomes Miliband’s tribute to refugee background

The Refugee Council today welcomed Ed Miliband’s comments that his core values came from his parents’ experiences as refugees from Nazi Europe, in his first speech as new Labour leader at the Labour party political conference today.

In response, Donna Covey, Chief Executive of the Refugee Council said:

“We are delighted that in Ed Miliband’s first speech as Labour leader he acknowledged his parents’ refugee background as having a significant influence on his values and strength of character. This is testament to the outstanding contribution refugees have brought to the UK over the years.

“Next year is the 60th anniversary of the UN Convention for Refugees – a timely reminder that refugees arriving in the UK today in need of safety have as much right to protection here as refugees, like Miliband’s parents, who arrived here from Europe all those years ago.

“This month, as the political parties debate immigration policy at their conferences, we urge them to remember the importance of refugee protection and to work together to develop an asylum system that ensures those fleeing unimaginable horrors in their own countries can have the protection they need here in the UK.”

The Refugee Council is holding a fringe meeting in conjunction with UNHCR at the Labour political party conference in Manchester entitled Ensuring refugee protection while building public trust in immigration, on Wednesday 29 September from 6-7.30pm at the Manchester Central Hotel, Central room 3.

Duplicity behind immigration cap

By Frances Webber

Electoral politics, rather than economic necessity, are behind the cap on non-EU economic immigration.

On 19 July, an ‘interim cap’ is to be imposed on non-EU economic migration to the UK, pending more permanent measures which will be introduced in March 2011. The cap will affect those seeking entry for work under the points-based system. The number of points required for admission under Tier 1 of the system as a highly skilled migrant (based on age, earnings and qualifications) goes up immediately, and the numbers admitted to find employment in this category between 19 July and the end of March 2011 are to be pegged at 2009 levels. The number of approvals under Tier 2 (for those coming to fill vacancies in shortage occupations, or which employers cannot fill from the resident labour force) will be cut by about six per cent from 2009 levels. This will mean a reduction of around 2,000 migrants admitted over a period of nearly nine months.

The March 2011 measures to cut non-EU economic migration are currently the subject of a consultation exercise, in which the government is asking employers and other interested parties to respond to questions about how the reduction should be achieved. The consultation asks whether the government should follow the Australian and New Zealand ‘pool’ system, which introduces competition among applicants who obtain the requisite number of points, or the American ‘first come first served’ system. Certain categories are to be exempt from capping in both the interim and the permanent scheme, such as entrepreneurs and investors, representatives of overseas companies, ‘elite’ sports people, religious ministers and the domestic servants of the very rich. And the consultation document asks respondents how more of the very wealthy can be attracted to the UK.

The measures reflect the pledge in the Conservative election manifesto, which promised that only those with most to offer the British economy would be allowed in – as part of a package to ‘mend Britain’s broken society’ and ‘restore a sense of national purpose’. The Liberal Democrats pledged ‘firm but fair’ immigration policies, including a regional points-based system to ensure that migrants can work only where they are needed. Their proposed amnesty for undocumented migrants was an early casualty of the coalition.

Very dubious rationale

In her announcement, home secretary, Theresa May paid tribute to the ‘contribution that migrants have brought … not just to the economy’. So what is the rationale for the cap? It is, she said, designed to tackle ‘unlimited migration’, which ‘places unacceptable pressure on public services, school places, and the provision of housing’.

The phrase ‘unlimited migration’ gives the impression of complete, anarchic lack of controls and of public services being overwhelmed by the numbers. When it comes to non-EU migrants, nothing could be further from the truth. Since 1973, when Britain joined the Common Market (the previous name for the EU), there has been a stark contrast between the free movement rights of EU nationals and the tight controls imposed on non-EU migrants, for whom obtaining a work permit is a tortuous, lengthy and rigorous process. The only unskilled occupation for which work permits are available – seasonal agricultural work – is reserved for workers from the new EU member states of Romania and Bulgaria (and even then, the number of permits is limited under provisions allowing member states to impose transitional controls on ‘accession state’ workers). As for workers from outside the EU, employers may only hire them to fill posts in ’shortage occupations’ (which are set out in a very precise, detailed and regularly updated list), or to fill posts for which no resident or EU worker can be found. According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), numbers of people migrating to the UK are on a downward curve – and non-EU migrants coming for work are a small fraction of those.

So migration for work from outside Europe is certainly not ‘unlimited’. What about ‘unacceptable pressure on public services, school places and the provision of housing’? Once again, this is misleading. While EU nationals generally have full access to all social benefits and housing on the same basis as British citizens (those from the central and eastern European accession states have to be in registered employment for a year first), the visas of non-EU economic migrants are issued subject to the condition of ‘no recourse to public funds’. That means no welfare benefits and no public housing. Only schools and NHS treatment are freely available to non-EU economic migrant workers and their families – but the small numbers involved mean that the impact is negligible. And in terms of social justice, why shouldn’t migrant workers be entitled to public services funded by their taxes and national insurance contributions?

But pressures on services result from a market approach to migration, whereby the benefits accrue to employers and to the economy, but the migrants themselves and local populations bear the burdens. Taking housing as an example, in the housing bubble of the last couple of decades, the social housing sector, ravaged by Thatcher’s policies of council house sales, was completely neglected, resulting in an acute and widespread shortage of low-cost housing. Local authorities could not even use revenues from the sales to replace the properties sold. Now, migrants are being blamed for ‘pressures’ on social housing caused by government policies.

The impact on the economy

The coalition says that migrants should only be brought in where every reasonable avenue to recruit a resident worker has been exhausted. This mantra echoes the Tory press’s tireless campaign against migration during the election campaign, with the Spectator claiming at one point that over ninety-eight per cent of new jobs were filled by migrants – a story repeated by the tabloids but found to be untrue by Left Foot Forward (http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/the-express-is-wrong-half-of-all-new-jobs-have-gone-to-uk-citizens/), which analysed the statistics. The argument also echoes Gordon Brown’s rash ‘British jobs for British workers’ soundbite. The consultation document suggests that employers should be given more responsibility for training local workers, to enable them to do the jobs currently filled by migrants. (Whether, after England’s abysmal showing in the World Cup, the training will include football, an area notoriously short of home-grown talent, is a moot point.)

Frank Field, cross-party enforcer and scourge of single fathers and migrants, recently proposed bringing in much harsher discipline to deal with what might be described as the recalcitrant unemployed who, he claims (at least in his Birkenhead constituency) don’t think it’s worth while to take jobs paying under £300 per week. He represents a school of thought apparently gaining ground within the coalition, which would use the recession to force unemployed people into low-wage jobs on pain of withdrawal of benefits and destitution. Capping migration would, they argue, feed into this strategy, not only returning British jobs to British workers but also disciplining the native unemployed.

But the argument that the cap will restore jobs to Britons ignores the fact that, as mentioned above, non-EU workers’ jobs tend to demand a high level of skills and qualifications, which native workers can’t be trained up to do at short notice. The argument also ignores research which shows that migration actually creates more jobs, rather than taking them from local people. These points were obliquely acknowledged by Theresa May, who in her speech introducing the cap, went out of her way to reassure business that the cap would not harm the economy. But employers’ organisations warned against measures which made it more difficult and expensive to hire workers with the skills they need. May’s cabinet colleagues Michael Gove and David Willetts, education and universities secretaries of state, were not convinced either. And the government’s impact assessment of the interim scheme accepted that ‘as fewer migrant workers will be available, there may be negative impacts in the short-term on businesses and the labour market, particularly in sectors where there are higher volumes of migrant workers [including] health, education, financial services, tourism and hospitality, business services, computer services, and public administration’. The only benefit listed is the decrease in UK Border Agency (UKBA) case-working costs – but even assuming that fewer people will apply for visas, which is by no means certain, any reduction in administrative costs would be more than offset by the loss of fee income from applications.

Electoral politics

There is no sound economic reason for limiting migration, which generally benefits employers and the local and national economy. The impact, in the short term at least, will be damaging to the economy. When the media is not being alarmist over immigration, it is bemoaning Britain’s ageing population and asking who will work to pay for all the extra pensions. But consistency has never been seen as a virtue in politics, and the cap satisfies the political need to appear to be doing something to allay voters’ tabloid-inflated ‘concerns’ about immigration. As May said in her announcement, ‘Controls … will provide the public with greater confidence in the system’. The government cannot limit migration from EU member states (except, temporarily, from the two newest accession states, Romania and Bulgaria) without leaving the European Union, which is not an option – at least at present, as it would probably destroy not just the coalition but the Conservative Party too.

The government has followed many of the suggestions of the anti-immigration organisation MigrationWatch, which has argued for an explicit cap on immigration, and for breaking the link between working in the UK and obtaining settlement. It was the Labour government which introduced the concept of ‘earned citizenship’ and provided for the expulsion of those who failed an integration test. The price for the coalition’s electoral politics will, as usual, be paid by migrants. The cap plays to and feeds the relentless popular racism of the tabloids, which blames poor ‘immigrants’ – whether from Africa, Asia or eastern Europe – for all of society’s ills, and which perpetuates the shocking rise in racial attacks recently documented (http://www.irr.org.uk/2010/june/ha000048.html) by the IRR.

RELATED LINKS

Guardian (28 June 2010): ‘Theresa May: immigration cap will not harm UK economy’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/28/theresa-may-immigration-cap-economy)

Left Foot Forward (8 April 2010): ‘The Express is wrong: Half of all new jobs have gone to UK citizens’ (http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/the-express-is-wrong-half-of-all-new-jobs-have-gone-to-uk-citizens/)

Guardian (26 June 2010): ‘Non-EU immigration to the UK: the statistics’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/26/non-eu-immigration-uk-statistics)

Spectator (7 April 2010): ‘British jobs for British workers…’ (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5895033/british-jobs-for-british-workers.thtml

Violence, abductions and torture: Zanu PF’s reliable political weapons

By Mbiriyashe Chiratidzo Mungaraza

Zimbabwe’s once popular political party ZANU PF, has undergone a major metamorphosis which has seen its political life hanging by a thin thread as the MDC emerged from the harmonised general elections in March 2008 as the dominant political force of new Millenium.

ZANU PF has mastered the art of political coercion to perfection. It has within its rank and file, a rag tag army rabble rousers who are trained to intimidate, torture, maim, injure, rape and kill with impunity. These hired mercenaries, easily amenable to manipulation, are mere pawns in a dangerous political game that has pushed a once promising country to the brink of anarchy.

MDC supporters, human rights activists, lawyers, teachers, journalists, and members of the general public branded enemies of the state, are subjected to all forms of degrading treatment. Thousands of Zimbabweans have fled the country to seek sanctuary in neighbouring countries and abroad, depriving a once prosperous nation of its much needed professionals.

ZANU PF’s onslaught on the people has a long and consistent history. It started soon after independence when the former guerrilla movement unleashed the North Korean trained fifth brigade to fight dissidents in the Matebeleland region. The fifth brigade was Mugabe’s personal army not accountable to the country’s central military command structure. The notorious fifth brigade was responsible for the death and disappearance of over 20000 civilians who were butchered with impunity. While the geriatric leader, Mugabe has acknowledged that this war on civilians was ‘a moment of madness’, he has never apologised for the senseless and merciless killings that continue to defy all logic.

It appears such a murderous campaign has hardened Mugabe’s resolve to the point of no return.  Regretably, he has come to accept violence as an important political tool, especially in situations where his political fortunes are threatened and appear doomed. In fact, for a long time now, Mugabe has relied heavily on coercion through violence in order to maintain a ruthless stranglehold on power.

Zimbabwe has never experienced free and fair elections because violence has been deployed reckless abandon and alarming regularity, since 1980. What is more shocking is ZANU PF’s willingness to use force whenever and wherever, with no due regard for its consequences. In fact, Mugabe and his mandarins are aware that they do not owe their political positions to the electorate. In their wisdom or none of it, political expedience is paramount, whatever the socio-economic ramifications of their heinous actions. At the core of their political survival strategy has been the systematic abduction, torture and murder of perceived political opponents. Such blatant human rights violations have persisted with no recourse to justice for the innocent victims. What made the situation worse was the arrival of a viable and vibrant political movement in the MDC, which offered hope for a realistic change of government as opposed to the token challenges offered by the previous one-off fly by night political parties.

The MDC’s political prospects shook ZANU PF’s fortunes to the very core. After successfully campaigning for a NO Vote in the referendum for a new but defective constitution in 2000, sponsored by Mugabe’s government intended to give him absolute power, the then young political party’s supporters were systematically targeted.  The fact that the MDC successfully campaigned against Mugabe’s preferred position and won, sent shock waves that shook the revolutionary party to the very core of its foundation. This marked the beginning of a systematic and well orchestrated violent campaign against a properly constituted and legitimate opposition.

In order to nip the growing popularity of an emerging workers union sponsored political party in the bud, ZANU PF deployed their preferred, trusted and reliable political weapon – violence. It has served them well since 1980 and has continued to serve them effectively since then.

As such, ZANU PF’s potent weapon of mass destruction’ was unleashed with calculated malice from 2000 onwards. Hundred were tortured, raped, injured, maimed and killed, all in the name of political expedience. Perpetrators of violence are given state protection and a stay from prosecution. They know they are untouchable and have maximum protection from state security agents.

The persecution of human right activists, teachers, journalists, political activists and ordinary supporters of the opposition MDC, intensified since 2000. MDC politicians, activists, members and supporters continue to endure arrests, torture, imprisonment and ill-treatment at the hands of state agents.

In recent years calculated and targeted attacks have been deliberately and carefully executed. Notable among the victims are prominent people within civil society who are being harassed and intimidated for obvious political reasons. Their only crime is their courage to challenge the political establishment to account.

Mugabe sees political enemies everywhere. He is even afraid of his shadow. Such paranoid has reached dangerous levels. To worsen, matters Mugabe is showing no signs of relinquishing power. He has clearly stated that he is available for re-election if his party nominates him for leadership.

What boggles the mind is that an 86 year old still wants to continue ruining a country that desperately needs a captain with fresh ideas that can steer this sinking ship from the murky waters. The Global Political Agreement which was supposed to usher a new political dispensation characterised by compromise, is being scuttled by a deep sense of selfishness from a government that claims to champion the people’s cause.

Tsvangirai, the MDC leader has tasted Mugabe’s ruthless violent machine when he was arrested at a legal rally and was tortured while in police custody. Right now as I write, there is widespread violence in rural areas. ZANU PF’s foot soldiers are disrupting, with the blessings of corrupt and power hungry ZANU PF leaders, the activities of the constitutional committe gathering people’s views regarding the new constitution.

The period between 2009 and 2010 has seen a marked increase in politically motivated abductions. Under a normal government that respects the rule of law, the natural course of justice is allowed to take its course. Natural justice dictates that you investigate in order to arrest. Yet in Zimbabwe one is arrested in order to investigate. ZANU PF is allergic to normalcy. Opposition politicians are arrested willy-nilly on trumped up charges. It is high time the seemingly toothless SADC grouping stood up to Mugabe to ensure sanity prevails.

Mbiriyashe Chiratidzo Mungaraza(left) is a Zimbabwean based in Leicester)

HAT News is precluded from expressing a corporate view: the opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

© HAT News 2010

Will Labour now become an anti-immigration party?

By Neil O’Brien

I am struck by the blandness of the Labour leadership debate so far. Almost all Labour commentators, from new Labour architect Anthony Giddens to the main leadership candidates David Miliband, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham have produced an almost identical analysis: “the voters thought we had lost touch… 10p tax… crime…not taking people for granted” etc etc. The only distinctive thing about any of them so far has been Andy Burnham’s intriguing 1980s website.

As James Forsyth has pointed out, so far no one has had the guts to tell the party anything very brave yet.  In fact the two big trends in the Labour leadership race are about what is not being said: the denial about debt, and confusion about immigration.

As Danny Finkelstein has noted, not one of the candidates has mentioned the deficit. With concern about the economy hitting an all time high this week (higher even than the 1980s or 1990s recessions) this is bizarre, but it reflects a party frozen by 13 years of chanting the “investment versus cuts” mantra.  A new approach is needed.

View full article

Lord Chief Justice reprimands judge for ‘immigration tirade’

By Ben Schofield

A LIVERPOOL judge who launched a tirade against the Government’s immigration policy was reprimanded yesterday. Read more

Immigration second most important issue

Read more

A NATION CRIPPLED BY TALKS

Leaders of Zimbabwe can not seem to reach decisions on issues crippling their country. On the contrary people of Zimbabwe are seemingly coming to one conscious agreement with no need of talks what have you. All agreeing that talks are leading the country nowhere. ,” Ncube is also reported as saying “Nothing is moving and it is useless for us to continue telling the nation that there is no progress while they are looking to us as Government to deliver” The MDC officials in Zimbabwe seem to notice that nothing is moving although they want to give the ZANU-PF the benefit of the doubt that they might change for the betterment of the nation, they are equally and slowly getting frustrated, as seen by the above quotation by Professor W. Ncube. 

 “Enough is enough” is a commonly used term by the Zimbabwean people, well who can blame them for saying so. These talks never seem to end. In my view there is only one thing that seems to be stopping the MDC for going the whole nine yards? calling for another fresh round of fair elections, its simply that they know that when dealing with Mugabe it can never be a free and fair elections. History is the only weapon the MDC can depend on and by now the Zimbabwean people and the international community should have learned that you can not share power with Mugabe. He has refused to Remove the now  Reserve bank of Zimbabwe governor G. Gono and has recently claimed that as long as he is alive Roy Benet will never became a Minister . Mugabe has managed to do this because he is hiding behind the on going talks.

 The Unity Accord of December 1987 between ZAPU and ZANU is another example whereby Zimbabweans used their collective efforts to solve their political challenge/divide. Almost two decades later Zimbabwe is under an Inclusive Government again ZANU-PF has tried to share power before with an opposition party only to consume and silence the opposition party; there are strong similarities in the GNU and the unity accord. Although this is evident  to the MDC they seem powerless to do anything against the calculative Mugabe and his party ZANU-PF. All Zimbabwe must hope for is that Mugabe is peacefully removed from power which he is holding on to. The MDC is trying to remove Mugabe peacefully with the help of SADC but removing Mugabe from power peaceful for the past 3 decades has proved to be difficult.  

By now Zimbabwe should be in a new dawn and should be moving on, the never ending talks have been the hurdle to the price, the price of true freedom to the people of Zimbabwe, true economic freedom. Mugabe seems to be clinging on to power and buying  time to yet again orchestrate another plan to oust The MDC, although the MDC have proven to be strong so far, they should never under estimate the mind of Mugabe who is seemingly driven onwards by a ghastly demonic impulse. Mugabe is holding the nation at Ransom for his benefit.

  The GNU has been praised for easing the Zimbabwean economy by the international communities but this can be a short lived solution if these talks go on. It is just a matter of time when the Zimbabwean people get tired of the talks and realize that if they go on it will once again cripple the country. It is time for Mugabe to realize that he needs to be a true patriot of Zimbabwe and give the power to the truly elected leader of Zimbabwe that is Prime Minister M. Tsvangirai for he can truly reform the economy of Zimbabwe and revive Zimbabwe to its former glory.

Zimbabwe is still on a halt only surviving on temporary solutions, by now these talks should have been over and the country should have been concentrating on the issues of relighting the already dead economy. Some might ague that what is happening now is going back the riches of the olden Zimbabwe, but for how long should Zimbabweans continue lying to themselves. Zimbabwe should learn from history?  ESAP an economic measure introduced by ZANU-PF was a short lived solution for the dying economy of Zimbabwe in the 90s and took the country to disastrous lows in terms of the economy. Now we have the dollarization in Zimbabwe this might ease the economy yes, but it will be short lived if the talks in Zimbabwe never end. Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC formation has since challenged its coalition partners to concede that the dialogue has failed and begin preparations for general elections. Of course Mugabe does not agree to this because he knows the true outcome of the general elections if at all they will be fair. Mugabe has a history of not playing fair so that he can remain in power. So what then will change this time? In my view once a devil always a devil especially when referring to Mugabe who is hiding behind the fact that talks are going on, and not wanting to relinquish power.

In conclusion Mugabe must realize that he has failed and must give up. These talks in Zimbabwe have the country crippled. Whenever one thinks there is a break through in the talks there is always something holding them back and that is Mugabe. It is time for the nation of Zimbabwe to be truly set free and be restored to its former glory.

 

By Tichaona Manomano – volunteer community reporter with HAT News

Who’s who in Somaliland politics

Since Somaliland unilaterally broke away from the rest of Somalia in 1991, it has prided itself on its relative peace and the development of democratic institutions, but political events in recent months have rocked its stability.

This article offers a brief overview of Somaliland’s political landscape.

Dahir Riyale Kahin, who leads the United People’s Democratic Party (UDUB), was elevated from Somaliland’s vice-president to president in 2002 on the death of Mohamed Ibrahim Egal. He very narrowly won a presidential election in 2003.

Riyale, who once served as a colonel in Somalia’s infamous National Security Service under the late president Mohamed Siad Barre, comes from Borama near the Ethiopian border and belongs the Gadobirsey clan. He used to enjoy considerable support from the Isak, Somaliland’s dominant clan, whose internal divisions made an outsider more appealing than conflict. This support has waned over the last few years.

He is now facing his biggest political challenge from two opposition parties who hold a majority in the lower house of parliament. “It is very hard to see how he can overcome this challenge. The numbers are against him,” said one political observer in Hargeysa, the capital.

Ahmed Mohamed Mahamoud, universally known as Silaanyo, leads the Development and Solidarity Party, or Kulmiye, and is considered the leader of the opposition. He lost by fewer than 100 votes to Riyale in 2003.

Silaanyo, in his 70s, served in different ministerial positions in the Somali government in the 1970s and 1980s before joining the armed opposition. He was one of the main leaders of the Somali National Movement, which helped oust Siyad Barre in 1991, and later served in the Somaliland government as a minister under Egal.

He belongs to the Habar Jelo, a subclan of the Isak, and hails from Burao, the second largest city in Somaliland. He is the man most likely to be the next president of Somaliland if he can unite the Isak vote.

Photo: Mohamed Amin Jibril/IRIN

Opposition supporters at a recent demonstration in Hargeisa. They were protesting a move by the government not to use voter registers during the presidential election, which as since been postponed indefinitely (file photo)

Faisal Ali Warabe, leader of the Justice and Welfare Party, or UCID, is an engineer by profession. He was a senior civil servant in the Somali government before the fall of Barre. He is a latecomer to Somaliland politics but is considered one of the most charismatic politicians in the region and one of the few to advocate the rights of marginalized communities. His party holds the third largest number of seats in the lower house. Warabe is from Hargeysa and is a member of the Isak subclan, Iidagale.

Suleiman Mahamud Aden is the leader of the upper house of parliament, or Guurti, and is one of the people publicly working for a peaceful solution to the current crisis. Suleiman Gaal, as he is better known, will be the main beneficiary if an impeachment process launched by the opposition against Riyale goes through. As leader of the Upper House, under the constitution, he will assume the presidency until elections are held.

Abdirahman Mohamed Abdillahi, widely known as Iro, is a member of UCID and close ally of Warabe’s. He is the speaker of the lower house of parliament and among those the government has accused of fomenting the current crisis by pushing for Riyale’s impeachment. Iro is seen as a likely candidate for interim vice-president should Suleiman Gaal assume the top job.

The Modern Making of Refugee Politics

In the center of Copenhagen, capital of the Scandinavian state revered for its welfare policies, wait thirty Iraqi refugees in Brorsons Church for the asylum fate most feared. Supported entirely by local donations and young Danish volunteers, they and two hundred more face forced repatriation following a decade of rejected asylum applications and a futile exhaustion of legal appeal. They have been living in the basement of the church for almost three months now, a room barren, canned food circumscribing a long wooden table with hospital beds and curtains mocking the synthetic privacy of those who suffered Iraq’s darkest era.

As Denmark honors scoring highest in the world index of satisfaction with life, they are now orchestrating repeated psychological traumas of refugees who only want a chance of a decent living. In reality, these families are asking for a chance at life if at all. If repatriated, these individuals face persecution, lack of financial security, bombings, terror, and ethnic and sectarian transformations, which must brand Denmark’s decision a humanitarian emergency.

A hundred and seventy five civilians died on the streets of Iraq only in the last two weeks, with many predictions of the start of a civil war. The aftermath of the 2003 invasion holds Denmark responsible as a participant, but it must also respect the welfare values it models on its veneer.

The nineteen Iraqis arrested last Wednesday, who fit the UN definition of a refugee, are outside the country of nationality and are unable or, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.

Putting the word unwilling aside, the Danish government’s decision to repatriate these Iraqis is life threatening. One man awaiting in the church is 72 years old and suffers a severe degree of dementia, an other woman is sick and needs medical attention of USD 1000 a week. A family of four faces repatriation of the mother and younger son, a family torn apart. Abu Maher -not his real name-, a charismatic father serving as the spokesperson of the group said last June, “If I return to Baghdad I will have to live on the streets, in a tent or a cardboard box.” A month later he was arrested with his two sons, the eldest a newly admitted student at the University of Copenhagen.

The deeper one delves into the issue, the more Iraqis face injustice and the more peculiar the case of the Danish government appears. Denmark was the first signatory state on the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The UNHCR and Amnesty International have stated that the situation is still unstable, especially in Mosul, Baghdad and Kirkuk, where majority of refugees come from. The Prime Minister of Iraq denies a deal to forcefully repatriate Iraqis and insisted that Iraq would only accept those who return by their own will.

There should be no doubt that these people’s lives are threatened, and the Danish administration seems to know this very well. The Foreign Ministry states that “All travel to Iraq, with the exception of travel to the three Kurdish provinces of Dohuk, Erbil and Sulemaniya is discouraged and Danes are urged to leave the country.” Furthermore the Board of Refugees delegation, those very people who persistently rejected the asylum application of the 282 refugees, hasn’t entered Iraq for security assessment, due to security reasons, since 2004. The Refugee Board’s website states that a country’s poor conditions, including civil war, does not justify protection status. If that is not a reason to grant asylum, as the Convention mentioned earlier stipulates, what is? In Sweden, 8 out of 10 asylum seekers from Iraq are granted asylum on the basis that they would be in danger if sent back. In Denmark, only one out of ten is granted asylum, even though Denmark is bound by the same conventions as Sweden. The typical reaction of Danish officials these days is that Denmark has still accepted asylum of 300 Iraqis last year. A deeper examination reveals that the majority are merely former interpreters to the Danish forces, and is the group most commonly willingly returning to Iraq only a few years after resettlement.

Copenhagen is losing its glow these days: only visible are the lit candles of a few thousand demonstrators and the clashing flashlights of policemen hushing the crowd, sometimes with pepper spray and truncheon beatings. The young voice of a volunteering Danish psychologist echoes through the church’s walls and up to the Alter. She helps the refugees deal with the inevitable fear, anxiety and depression. She maneuvers between the devastated refugees, trying to relieve a cry her discipline cannot contain. She looks at her city and shares a sentiment many have recently come to admit; they are ashamed of their government.

Yasmin Zaher and Saned Raouf are students at Yale University who investigated the psychosocial needs of Iraqi refugees during summer 2009.

Next Page »