UNHCR Profoundly Concerned by UK Asylum Bill

In its current form, the Bill compels the Home Secretary to deny access to the UK asylum system to those who arrive irregularly. Rather than being provided with protection, these asylum-seekers would instead be subject to detention in the UK, while arrangements are pursued to remove them to another country.

The legislation, if passed, would amount to an asylum ban – extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be, and with no consideration of their individual circumstances.

The effect of the bill (in this form) would be to deny protection to many asylum-seekers in need of safety and protection, and even deny them the opportunity to put forward their case. This would be a clear breach of the Refugee Convention and would undermine a longstanding, humanitarian tradition of which the British people are rightly proud.

Most people fleeing war and persecution are simply unable to access the required passports and visas. There are no safe and “legal” routes available to them. Denying them access to asylum on this basis undermines the very purpose for which the Refugee Convention was established. The Convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.

Read more: UNHCR, https://rb.gy/fy8cme

The scandal of asylum-seeking children going missing from Home Office hotels (Ministers resist terms such as ‘kidnapped’) is an extreme situation. But they are not the only children suffering at the hands of the UK’s migration policies. The Lords Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee has recently published All families matter: An inquiry into family migration.

One strand of our inquiry was the importance of families to society. “Strong, supportive families make for more stable communities”, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak remarked recently. We agreed. “We take the welfare of any child who comes into contact with the Home Office incredibly seriously; their well-being is of paramount importance”, Home Secretary Suella Braverman told our committee. Sadly this is not the law, nor does it reflect the experiences reported to us in evidence. Ten years after a major set of reforms, we set out to assess family migration policies. We found that they fail both families and society.

We were dismayed and upset by a number of clearly typical stories of families forced to live apart; of parents having to bring up children alone until they can be joined by their foreign partners, provided they earn enough. Of children growing up without a parent and of families who could not be joined in the UK by elderly parents from overseas for whom they are desperate to care (no visa was issued in 2021 to people in that situation). And of child refugees who cannot be joined by any relatives. Questioned by the committee, the Home Secretary defended the policy.

Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/e5lgab

Home Office Criticised for not Protecting Victims of Modern Slavery

Despite it being a legal requirement under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, has failed to fill the Commissioner’s post since Dame Sara Thornton resigned on April 30 2022. The Act tasks the Commissioner with encouraging ‘good practice in the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of slavery and human trafficking offences’. With this role unfilled there is no independent watchdog assessing the Government’s approach to issues of modern slavery.

Across 2022, the total number of potential victims of modern slavery referred to the Home Office was 16,938, a 33% increase on the previous year and the most since records began in 2009. The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael, speaking in January, said that ‘these record increases highlight the Conservatives’ absolute failure to get a grip on the real issues’. According to Carmichael, ‘what’s worse is that they have refused to appoint a new anti-slavery commissioner for nearly a year now. This heartless government is watching on while this crisis spirals out of control’.

Read more: Red Preston, Justice Gap, https://rb.gy/nanblz

High Court Considers How the Loss of Work May Engage Article 8

The treatment of a person’s job in human rights claims has been ambiguous and inconsistent in previous High Court decisions, but the judgment in Kulumbegov v Home Office [2023] EWHC 337 (KB) usefully corrals the decisions of Denisov v Ukraine (app. no. 76639/11), R (oao Atapattu) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 1388 (Admin), and Husson v SSHD [2020] EWCA Civ 329, to confirm two discrete routes in which the loss of work may engage article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The decision in this case was a claim for damages, however it also offers some useful pointers as to how these routes may be evidenced in practice.

Mr Kulumbegov’s application to extend his Tier 2 status was refused in 2018 under paragraph 322(5) of the immigration rules. Relying on his conviction, the Home Office said that his removal would be conducive to the public good. He was put on immigration bail with a condition that he could not work. The refusal was quashed following judicial review proceedings. Mr Kulumbegov had also asked for damages for the loss of earnings and a mandatory order compelling the Home Office to grant him indefinite leave to remain.

Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/yjds8c

Support all Asylum Seekers/Migrants: Resist Racism March and Rally London 18th March

This event will put thousands of anti-racists, trade unionists, students and campaigners on the streets to say #RefugeesWelcome and #NeverAgain.

Suella Braverman’s talk of an ‘invasion’ of Southern England, the Rwanda plan to deport asylum seekers and the Nationality and Borders Act (NABA) are all part of the brutal racist hostile environment for refugees and migrants. It is targeting the most vulnerable and costing many lives. In Britain the Rishi Sunak government is attempting to use racism to generate the politics of divide and rule in our communities and make ordinary people pay for the cost of living crisis. More deaths in the Channel have shown us once again the reality of these policies in practice.

The government denies the existence of institutional racism – despite massively disproportionate deaths in black communities during the pandemic, ongoing deaths in police custody, racist stop and search and discrimination across society.

Internationally we are seeing the growth of the racist and fascist right. Fascists such as Giorgia Meloni and her Brothers of Italy and the Sweden Democrats are in government. In the UK fascist groups, encouraged by the Tories statements, rioted in Knowsley and are intimidating asylum seekers in hotel accommodation across the UK. We need to mobilise the antiracist and anti-fascist majority.

Join us on the streets as part of an International Day of Action to mark UN anti-racism day.

Assemble 12 noon: Portland Place, London W1A 1AA - March off 1pm to Downing Street for rally

https://standuptoracism.org.uk/resist-racism/

UK’s Migrant Ban Will Trigger ‘Race to the Bottom’ on Human Rights

Rishi Sunak’s plans to bar migrants who enter the UK by small boats from claiming asylum could trigger a “race to the bottom” on refugee rights among other countries, MEPs have told openDemocracy. The Illegal Migration Bill, announced by the prime minister on Tuesday, would give the home secretary, Suella Braverman, powers to deport migrants who cross the Channel before their claims are heard. The United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees has said the proposal would be a “clear breach” of the Refugee Convention. The bill has alarmed politicians and human rights groups in Europe, who fear that it could embolden populist political parties seeking to dismantle the right to asylum.

“This proposed law is despicable and I do fear a snowball effect. As soon as one state tramples on the right to asylum, other states are quick to follow suit,” Damien Carême, a French Green MEP, told openDemocracy.

Read more: Adam Bychawski, Open Democracy, https://rb.gy/nanblz

‘Disregarding International Law is One Thing Ditching Democratic Rights Quite Another’

All of this has been said before. Everyone knows that the asylum-seekers and migrants crowding on the shores of Calais have bigger worries than whether Suella Braverman has made a statement denying the applicability of the ECHR, and that people-smugglers are more motivated by profit than deterred by fear. From here, it is easy, and perhaps correct, to assume that the legislation is not really intended to go anywhere. It is nothing more than bait for the red-tops and an easy way of dividing the Conservatives from Labour ahead of the next general election.

But if we take the government at its word, and accept that this is a piece of legislation genuinely intended to solve the crisis, it may be that the outcome the government expects in the courts is not the one that it will get. Judging from Suella Braverman’s comments before the House of Commons yesterday, she is fully aware that the legislation is incompatible with the UK’s international obligations. Despite the ‘brightest legal minds’ in the country (one must pity James Eadie KC, the advocate the government often turns to, if he is trying to construct a legal defence for this) considering the question, no positive answer has been forthcoming. Braverman has been left denying the legislation’s compatibility with rights in Parliament while doing the media rounds claiming its compatibility .

Read more: Nicholas Reed Langen, Justice Gap, https://is.gd/LHPf3W

Legal Challenges Against GPS Tagging for People on Immigration Bail

This post provides an update on legal challenges to the Home Office’s policy and practice of requiring people on immigration bail to wear Global Positioning System (GPS) devices. You can read more about the policy and the legal framework here and here. To summarise, in August 2021 the Home Office commenced provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 which provided for mandatory electronic monitoring of people on immigration bail who are liable to deportation. These provisions set out that such persons will not be subject to mandatory electronic monitoring if the Secretary of State considers that it would be impractical or contrary to the person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The department’s immigration bail policy provides further guidance on when tagging will breach a person’s ECHR rights and prioritisation criteria. People being released from detention were prioritised over people already in the community, although the latter would be considered for tagging in due course.

Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/zzkcjs