Use Your Right to Protest — Best Response to Tory Nationality and Borders Legislation

The Tories forced through a string of brutally repressive and racist measures into law on Wednesday 27th April. They have major implications for protesters, Gypsies, Roma and Travellers, refugees, migrants and black people. And in an outrageous symbol of its utterly ineffective opposition, Labour abstained on one of the final key votes over a government assault on refugee rights.

The Nationality and Borders Bill is a racist response to desperate people fleeing war and poverty. It will close even further any legal route to Britain and therefore push refugees into reliance on people smugglers. When there is no border, you don’t need a trafficker to move around. When there is a thicket of obstacles, you rely on gangs that overcome them for profit.

Just as the bill passed through the House of Lords, some peers tried to ensure that Britain would have to follow international regulations on asylum. The Labour Party told its members not to oppose the government. Labour lord Prem Sikka tweeted that in a vote of whether to force the government to comply with the Refugee Convention, “The vote was lost by 212-157. Labour abstained. I voted against the party whip. Today, the government abuses refugees, tomorrow it is you/me.”

The battle has to start SAP to defy the law, welcome refugees, block deportations—and repeal the new measures and all racist laws. Stand Up To Racism said, “Despite protests and campaigning, the bill is now law. We have to come together to resist its effects.”

Read more: Breakfast in Red https://rb.gy/bf9gfo

‘Guantánamo-on-Ouse’ Plans to Place 1,500 Asylum Seekers in Yorkshire Village

It has been described as Guantánamo-on-Ouse: a giant one-stop reception centre for asylum seekers due to open within weeks slap bang in the middle of a quiet, bucolic North Yorkshire village. “When we first heard about it they said 500 people and we thought that’s just about manageable,” said 67-year-old Taff Morgan. “Then last night we heard 1,500 and that might not be the maximum. It depends on how many they can fit in.”Morgan lives in Linton-on-Ouse and like most people in the village he is still digesting the enormity of the government’s New Plan for Immigration.

Most of the attention and controversy has been directed at the proposal to send people to Rwanda. Refugees not sent there will, the government said, go to a new reception centre at the former RAF base at Linton-on-Ouse where they will live while their claims are processed. The base is not close to Linton, it’s part of Linton.

“People keep saying there are 1,200 people living in the village,” said Morgan, a former squadron leader and pilot trainer at the base. “That was when the quarters were fully occupied and it was a fully running military base. Now there’s only about 500 of us. They want to quadruple the population. It just won’t work.”

Read more: Mark Brown, Guardian, https://rb.gy/bj6zwg

Briefing: Invalid Immigration Applications

For a UK immigration application to be considered at all, it must be valid. Whether an applicant meets the criteria is a moot point if this first, fundamental requirement isn’t met.

Validity is a bit like oxygen: all things being well, it is invisible and unnoticeable. You only notice it when it’s absent; and if that happens, your options become very limited very quickly. Someone who applies to extend their immigration permission but accidentally makes an invalid application can end up overstaying, which is often disastrous.

So what does it mean for an application to be “valid” or “invalid”?

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

Afghan Refugee Detained for 98 Days Wins High Court False Imprisonment Appeal

Ali v The Home Office [2022] EWHC 866 (QB) is a successful appeal against the Central London County Court’s decision to dismiss the false imprisonment claim of a recognised Afghan refugee, detained for 98 days under the Detained Fast Track process in 2015. Larry has previously covered the County Court decision, which was reported.

Mr Ali had been detained between December 2014 and March 2015 as a person liable to removal from the UK pursuant to Schedule 2, paragraph 16(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. After initially being refused asylum by the Home Office and on appeal, the case was reopened and Mr Ali granted asylum by a different immigration judge. His overall argument on unlawful detention was that

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

Telephone Reporting for People on Immigration Bail

From April 2022 the Home Office has moved to using telephone reporting as a mainstream reporting alternative. This follows on from changes implemented on an emergency basis during the pandemic lockdown and sustained lobbying by migrants rights groups. People who are given a telephone appointment slot will be notified of this decision and the process will be explained in writing, albeit only in English.

The upside for those given the new telephone reporting condition is that they do not have to travel on expensive and time-consuming journeys. It avoids the stress and anxiety caused by wasting time on “very brief exchanges that did not allow for meaningful interactions” (Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration 2021 inspection of reporting at Becket House).

The downside is that there is an element of unpredictability with telephone reporting. People who often have very limited financial resources will be at the mercy of digital technology they may struggle to afford. People without legal status may struggle to afford reliable mobile phones, to access indoor phone charging points or private spaces with good phone signal. Some people prefer the certainty of in-person contacts.

Read more: Freemovement, https://tinyurl.com/t93f9r6v

Take No Pride in Britain’s Brutal Immigration History

From allowing Jewish people to die at the hands of the Nazis to drownings in the Channel, Boris Johnson is wrong to claim that Britain has “a proud history” of welcoming people. The Tories have a long-term mission to scapegoat migrants for the problems in society. That’s ­particularly useful now as Johnson ­teeters on the edge of removal from Downing Street. As he announced the plans to deport refugees to Rwanda for “processing”, Johnson said, ­without a hint of irony, “Our Britain is a beacon of openness and generosity.”But the real record is saturated in blood. Around 400,000 Irish people ­settled in Britain in the 1840s after a famine that was a result of British colonialism. They were met with widespread anti-Irish prejudice from the top of society. Irish people were barred from housing and employment. But the prejudices also dripped down wards, resulting in racist attacks.

In the early 1900s Jewish people in eastern European were subject to pogroms and thousands saw their homes destroyed and family killed. But when they tried to escape to Britain, the ruling class branded them “criminals”. MPs brought in Britain’s first immigration controls—the Aliens Act 1905. It was specifically directed against Jews. It defined some migrants—mostly the poor and mentally ill—as “undesirable”. When the Nazis invaded Austria in 1932, and Jewish people there fled, more immigration controls were announced. Britain reluctantly accepted just 9,354 unaccompanied children as refugees. Tory prime minister Neville Chamberlain said, “I don’t care a damn about the Jews.” From 600,000 received visa applications, just 70,000 refugees were accepted. Italy declared war on Britain in June 1940 and Winston Churchill ordered police to “collar the lot”. That meant interning all Italians. Racist and sectarian groups ­followed his lead and attacked over 4,000 Italian migrants. The elite has only ever helped refugees when suits their interests or when pressured from below.

The British Nationality Act 1948 allowed all citizens of the British Empire to live and work in Britain without a visa. The intention was they would fill gaps in the labour market. Commonwealth migration rose from a trickle in the early 1950s to more than 100,000 a year by the early 1960s. But rather than being welcomed by the “mother country” they were met with official destain and widespread racism. Politicians of all parties used migrants as a scapegoat for poor housing and low pay. This rhetoric developed the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which forced some migrants to “return to their own countries”. Rabid racist, Enoch Powell incited violence against migrants. His Rivers of Blood speech in 1968 outlined the myth of what’s now “the great ­replacement” theory. By 1972 only those holding a work permit or with parents or grandparents born in Britain could enter. In mid-1970s the Wilson and Callaghan Labour government forced women from south Asia coming to Britain to marry to undergo virginity tests. Laws have continually been ­tightened to make it harder for people to move to Britain. The result today is people dying trying to escape war, poverty, ­climate change and hunger. There is nothing to celebrate about Britain’s immigration controls.

Read more: Socialist Worker, https://tinyurl.com/mr26dsua

Disaster Events and Extensive Economic Losses Wreaked Havoc in 2021

While the number of fatalities and people affected were below their 20-year averages, last year saw 432 disasters causing 10,492 deaths and approximately $252.1 billion in losses. In 2021, the Emergency Event Database (EM-DAT) recorded 432 disastrous events related to natural hazards worldwide. Overall, these accounted for 10,492 deaths, affected 101.8 million people and caused approximately 252.1 billion US$ of economic losses. As a continent, Asia was the most severely impacted, suffering 40% of all disaster events and accounting for 49% of the total number of deaths and 66% of the total number of people affected. Globally, whilst the number of deaths and the number of people affected were below their 20-year averages, 2021 was marked by an increase in the number of disaster events and extensive economic losses. Five of the top ten most economically costly disasters in 2021 occurred in the United States of America and resulted in a total economic cost of 112.5 billion US$.

In 2021, a total of 432 catastrophic events were recorded, which is considerably higher than the average of 357 annual catastrophic events for 2001-2020. Floods dominated these events, with 223 occurrences, up from an average of 163 annual flood occurrences recorded across the 2001-2020 period. During its monsoon season (June to September), India experienced a series of deadly floods that claimed 1,282 lives. In July, the Henan Flood in China was particularly severe, resulting in 352 deaths, 14.5 million people affected, and a cost of 16.5 billion US$. In the same month, the Nuristan Floods in Afghanistan resulted in 260 fatalities. In July, the Central European Floods and subsequent landslides resulted in 40 billion US$ of economic costs in Germany alone and stood as the second most costly disaster.

Read more: Relief Web, https://rb.gy/mayqns

Hotel Rwanda

The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 hit the statute books on the 28th April 2022. The Home Office says that the Act “puts into law that those who arrive illegally in the UK – who could have claimed asylum in another safe country – can be considered as ‘inadmissible’ to the UK asylum system”, and so removed to Rwanda under plans announced just before Easter.

In fact, inadmissibility rules authorising removal to Rwanda are already part of the Immigration Rules:

345C. When an application is treated as inadmissible, the Secretary of State will attempt to remove the applicant to the safe third country in which they were previously present or to which they have a connection, or to any other safe third country which may agree to their entry.

Putting these rules in the new Act does make it harder to challenge the Rwanda scheme in court. But Sonia Lenegan says lawyers are nothing daunted, with two crowdfunded legal challenges in the works. I understand that a third is underway in Northern Ireland, with a pre-action protocol letter already with the Home Office. Given the legal and logistical challenges, will refugees really end up on planes to Rwanda? And if they do, will it deter others from seeking asylum in the UK?

Read more: Freemovement, https://tinyurl.com/3ve7yart

What are the Duties of an Expert Witness in the Immigration Tribunal?

Expert reports are common in asylum and human rights cases. They usually address either the conditions in the applicant’s country of origin or their physical or mental health. The duties of an expert witness giving evidence in court are well established. Specific guidance for experts providing reports for cases in the immigration tribunals can be found at paragraph 10 of the relevant practice directions. Experts, and those instructing them, should read this paragraph of the directions in full.

In short, an expert’s paramount duty is to the tribunal. They are there to assist the tribunal to reach a decision by providing an objective, unbiased opinion on matters within their expertise. They are not there to advocate for either the appellant or the Home Office. Expert evidence should be the independent product of the expert, uninfluenced by the pressures of litigation.

An expert should consider all material facts, including those which might contradict their opinion. They should make it clear when an issue falls outside of their area of expertise or where they cannot reach a definite opinion (e.g. due to insufficient information). Their report should contain all of the information listed in paragraph 10.9 (qualifications, background facts, summary of conclusions etc.) and the statement of truth mentioned in paragraph 10.11.

Read more: Freemovement, https://tinyurl.com/yxnzp8ur