Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

no limit on child detention, no protection from modern slavery, prison ships for people charged with no crime in the UK

140 replies

orangeleavesinautumn · 18/07/2023 07:19

How the government treat asylum seekers, most of whom will be proven to be genuine refugees, fleeing persecution.

This is not how to treat people fleeing war, torture, threats, persecution

All because THEY ( the government) have messed up the application system, and now have such a back log they cant cope, and don't know where to house the people who are waiting.

How about investing in extra staff to clear the back log of people waiting? Rather than abusing the people waiting?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
cakeorwine · 18/07/2023 22:24

This is the United Nations High Commission for Refugees press release on the billl.

It's damning.

It's also shameful because of our role in the UNHCR

UK Illegal Migration Bill: UN Refugee Agency and UN Human Rights Office warn of profound impact on human rights and international refugee protection system | UNHCR

The Illegal Migration Bill, which has now been passed by Parliament in the United Kingdom, is at variance with the country’s obligations under international human rights and refugee law and will have profound consequences for people in need of international protection, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi warned today.

The Bill extinguishes access to asylum in the UK for anyone who arrives irregularly, having passed through a country – however briefly – where they did not face persecution. It bars them from presenting refugee protection or other human rights claims, no matter how compelling their circumstances. In addition, it requires their removal to another country, with no guarantee that they will necessarily be able to access protection there. It creates sweeping new detention powers, with limited judicial oversight.

“For decades, the UK has provided refuge to those in need, in line with its international obligations – a tradition of which it has been rightly proud. This new legislation significantly erodes the legal framework that has protected so many, exposing refugees to grave risks in breach of international law,” Grandi said.

The Bill denies access to protection in the UK for anyone falling within its scope – including unaccompanied and separated children – regardless of whether they are at risk of persecution, may have suffered human rights violations or whether they are survivors of human trafficking or modern-day slavery and may have other well-founded claims under international human rights and humanitarian law.

“Carrying out removals under these circumstances is contrary to prohibitions of refoulement and collective expulsions, rights to due process, to family and private life, and the principle of best interests of children concerned,” said High Commissioner Türk.

Most people fleeing war and persecution either do not have or are unable to access formal documents such as passports and visas. Safe and “legal” routes are rarely available to them. The 1951 Refugee Convention, for its part, explicitly recognizes that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.

In the absence of viable removal arrangements with third countries, or without adequate operational capacity to remove large numbers of asylum-seekers, thousands can be expected to remain in the UK indefinitely in precarious legal situations.

The legislation will exacerbate the already vulnerable situation of people who arrive irregularly in the UK, drastically limiting the enjoyment of their human rights, and putting them at risk of detention and destitution.

As a result, their rights to health, an adequate standard of living, and to work are at risk, exposing them to the risk of exploitation and abuse.

“In addition to raising very serious legal concerns from the international perspective, this Bill sets a worrying precedent for dismantling asylum-related obligations that other countries, including in Europe, may be tempted to follow, with a potentially adverse effect on the international refugee and human rights protection system as a whole,” Türk warned.

“UNHCR shares the UK Government’s concern regarding the number of asylum-seekers resorting to dangerous journeys across the Channel. We welcome current efforts to make the existing asylum system work more effectively through fast, fair and efficient case processing, that allows the integration of those found to be in need of international protection and the swift return home of those who have no legal basis to stay. Regrettably, this progress will be significantly undermined by the new legislation. Cooperation with European and other partners along the routes through which refugees and migrants are moving is also key,” said Grandi.

All those who leave their country of origin to seek safety and protection elsewhere are entitled to the full respect of their human rights and dignity, regardless of their legal status, mode of arrival or any other distinction.

“The UK has long had a commitment to upholding international human rights and refugee law. Such steadfast commitment is needed today more than ever,” the UN Human Rights Chief stressed.

“I urge the UK Government to renew this commitment to human rights by reversing this law and ensuring that the rights of all migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers are respected, protected, and fulfilled, without discrimination. This should include efforts to guarantee expeditious and fair processing of asylum and human rights claims, improve reception conditions, and increase the availability and accessibility of safe pathways for regular migration,” Türk said.

UK Illegal Migration Bill: UN Refugee Agency and UN Human Rights Office warn of profound impact on human rights and international refugee protection system | UNHCR

GENEVA – The Illegal Migration Bill, which has now been passed by Parliament in the United Kingdom, is at variance with the country’s obligations under international human rights and refugee law and will have profound consequences for people in need of...

https://www.unhcr.org/news/press-releases/uk-illegal-migration-bill-un-refugee-agency-and-un-human-rights-office-warn

Willyoujustbequiet · 18/07/2023 22:39

cakeorwine · 18/07/2023 22:15

Depends on how you measure the stats and what you are measuring.

As usual, definitions count.

There is a backlog of asylum claims - so when you measure successful asylum claims, you are looking at a different data set and time frame to when you look at the small boat arrivals.

How many people cross the Channel in small boats and how many claim asylum? - BBC News

So yes - Albania does have the most claims.
But there are a lot of people coming from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria...and the success for an asylum claim from people from those countries is very high.

People need to delve deep into the stats and the numbers.

For context:
2,600,000 Afghan refugees are in Iran
1,700,000 refugees are in Pakistan

Countries in sub-Saharan Africa hosted 1 in 5 of all refugees globally. A total of 7 million refugees remained displaced at the end of 2022, a slight increase from the previous year.

The East and Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region hosted
4.7 million refugees, primarily in Uganda (1.5 million), Sudan (1.1 million) and Ethiopia (879,600), which is consistent with the previous year.

West and Central African countries hosted 1.6 million refugees at the end of 2022, 5 per cent more than the previous year. Almost 85 per cent of all refugees in the region resided in Chad (592,800), Cameroon (473,900) and Niger (255,300).
Countries in Southern Africa continued to host slightly more than three-quarters of a million refugees (773,000), with most residing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (520,500).

That's a lot of refugees in poor countries.

That graph proved what the BBC said. The vast majority are from Albania. A so called safe country. So economic migrants not asylum seekers.

cakeorwine · 18/07/2023 22:51

Willyoujustbequiet · 18/07/2023 22:39

That graph proved what the BBC said. The vast majority are from Albania. A so called safe country. So economic migrants not asylum seekers.

Did you not also see the other people?

10,000 from Afghanistan
9,000 from Iran
6,300 from Iraq
4.500 from Syria

Is the only thing you take from that is that there were 16,000 Albanians?

cakeorwine · 18/07/2023 22:55

Willyoujustbequiet · 18/07/2023 22:39

That graph proved what the BBC said. The vast majority are from Albania. A so called safe country. So economic migrants not asylum seekers.

If the Albanians weren't there, how would you feel about the

10,000 from Afghanistan
9,000 from Iran
6,300 from Iraq
4.500 from Syria

Coming over to seek refuge in our country?

Is it just the Albanians you think are economic migrants?
Do you think the Afghans, Syrians, Iranians and Iraquis are also economic migrants? Or do you think they (like so many of their compatriots) have a reason to seek refuge in another country?

cakeorwine · 18/07/2023 23:01

Did anyone watch Evacuation on Channel 4 recently?
About the fall of Kabul and the desparation of people wanting to leave as the Taliban came in.
Filmed through the eyes of the military.
You could see the fear people had of what was to come.

You can see why people do want to flee countries such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other countries where there are issues.

Personally, I think that the number of Albanians coming over is probably linked to economic migrants.

However, there are people who are fleeing war torn countries.
Most refugees end up in countries near where they used to live.

Only a tiny fraction come here. And we have just made it illegal for a refugee who comes over via a small boat to claim asylum, no matter what the reason for them wanting to claim it is.

orangeleavesinautumn · 19/07/2023 05:20

Puzzledandpissedoff · 18/07/2023 22:21

I am bemused by the family who are apparently sleeping rough.Itdoesn't make sense

Possibly it could make sense if we knew more about their circumstances?

For example:
Have they approached agencies for help at all, or are they among those who prefer to stay under the radar rather than become known to authorities?
Is it possible their application for refugee status has been refused, and that the possibility of deportation has led them to this?

no, they were refugees, and were turned away from housing, this is not uncommon, whatever is SUPPOSED to be happening, the system doesn't necessarily work. See my posts about an ESA application taking 5 months so far..I am entitled to ESA, I have had no income since March, as the DWP has taken that long to process the application, and are still processing... sometimes the system plain does not work. Quite often in fact.

There are other young children sleeping rough in London, that was just an example

OP posts:
orangeleavesinautumn · 19/07/2023 05:22

cakeorwine · 18/07/2023 22:24

This is the United Nations High Commission for Refugees press release on the billl.

It's damning.

It's also shameful because of our role in the UNHCR

UK Illegal Migration Bill: UN Refugee Agency and UN Human Rights Office warn of profound impact on human rights and international refugee protection system | UNHCR

The Illegal Migration Bill, which has now been passed by Parliament in the United Kingdom, is at variance with the country’s obligations under international human rights and refugee law and will have profound consequences for people in need of international protection, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi warned today.

The Bill extinguishes access to asylum in the UK for anyone who arrives irregularly, having passed through a country – however briefly – where they did not face persecution. It bars them from presenting refugee protection or other human rights claims, no matter how compelling their circumstances. In addition, it requires their removal to another country, with no guarantee that they will necessarily be able to access protection there. It creates sweeping new detention powers, with limited judicial oversight.

“For decades, the UK has provided refuge to those in need, in line with its international obligations – a tradition of which it has been rightly proud. This new legislation significantly erodes the legal framework that has protected so many, exposing refugees to grave risks in breach of international law,” Grandi said.

The Bill denies access to protection in the UK for anyone falling within its scope – including unaccompanied and separated children – regardless of whether they are at risk of persecution, may have suffered human rights violations or whether they are survivors of human trafficking or modern-day slavery and may have other well-founded claims under international human rights and humanitarian law.

“Carrying out removals under these circumstances is contrary to prohibitions of refoulement and collective expulsions, rights to due process, to family and private life, and the principle of best interests of children concerned,” said High Commissioner Türk.

Most people fleeing war and persecution either do not have or are unable to access formal documents such as passports and visas. Safe and “legal” routes are rarely available to them. The 1951 Refugee Convention, for its part, explicitly recognizes that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly.

In the absence of viable removal arrangements with third countries, or without adequate operational capacity to remove large numbers of asylum-seekers, thousands can be expected to remain in the UK indefinitely in precarious legal situations.

The legislation will exacerbate the already vulnerable situation of people who arrive irregularly in the UK, drastically limiting the enjoyment of their human rights, and putting them at risk of detention and destitution.

As a result, their rights to health, an adequate standard of living, and to work are at risk, exposing them to the risk of exploitation and abuse.

“In addition to raising very serious legal concerns from the international perspective, this Bill sets a worrying precedent for dismantling asylum-related obligations that other countries, including in Europe, may be tempted to follow, with a potentially adverse effect on the international refugee and human rights protection system as a whole,” Türk warned.

“UNHCR shares the UK Government’s concern regarding the number of asylum-seekers resorting to dangerous journeys across the Channel. We welcome current efforts to make the existing asylum system work more effectively through fast, fair and efficient case processing, that allows the integration of those found to be in need of international protection and the swift return home of those who have no legal basis to stay. Regrettably, this progress will be significantly undermined by the new legislation. Cooperation with European and other partners along the routes through which refugees and migrants are moving is also key,” said Grandi.

All those who leave their country of origin to seek safety and protection elsewhere are entitled to the full respect of their human rights and dignity, regardless of their legal status, mode of arrival or any other distinction.

“The UK has long had a commitment to upholding international human rights and refugee law. Such steadfast commitment is needed today more than ever,” the UN Human Rights Chief stressed.

“I urge the UK Government to renew this commitment to human rights by reversing this law and ensuring that the rights of all migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers are respected, protected, and fulfilled, without discrimination. This should include efforts to guarantee expeditious and fair processing of asylum and human rights claims, improve reception conditions, and increase the availability and accessibility of safe pathways for regular migration,” Türk said.

Thank you for posting this

OP posts:
WaitingfortheTardis · 19/07/2023 05:28

L1ttledrummergirl · 18/07/2023 18:59

The country hasn't. The self serving, incompetent, theiving government that nobody wants and will be out on their arses come an election has.

The two need to be separated because this government doesn't represent the country any more (if it ever did).

I really hope this turns out to be right, but I fear there are too many heartless people out there who live this government's dreadful treatment of human beings.

If something happened to our country tomorrow (war etc), we could all be refugees desperately seeking somewhere safe for ourselves and our families. I hope someone would show us kindness.

loislovesstewie · 19/07/2023 06:19

OP , if you are going to say 'they were turned away from housing' that doesn't give the context or the reason. If you want people to believe you, give the facts. I'm sorry to be like a dog with a bone, but after a lifetime of working in the public sector in exactly this setting I have a very real feeling that you are missing out the detail that would explain exactly why this family are/were sleeping rough.
I have dealt with exactly this sort of complaint from a concerned member of the public and there is always, ALWAYS a reason.
If you are whipping up outrage then give the facts of why they weren't given interim accommodation by the L/A, or if a full duty had been given why long term accommodation was not provided. I suspect, from my dealings with homeless families , that this couple refused some sort of accommodation and the duty to them ended.
Yes, I know mistakes can happen and there is a mechanism internally with the L/A to resolve that , and referring the family to social services might have been part of that resolution.

orangeleavesinautumn · 19/07/2023 06:22

loislovesstewie · 19/07/2023 06:19

OP , if you are going to say 'they were turned away from housing' that doesn't give the context or the reason. If you want people to believe you, give the facts. I'm sorry to be like a dog with a bone, but after a lifetime of working in the public sector in exactly this setting I have a very real feeling that you are missing out the detail that would explain exactly why this family are/were sleeping rough.
I have dealt with exactly this sort of complaint from a concerned member of the public and there is always, ALWAYS a reason.
If you are whipping up outrage then give the facts of why they weren't given interim accommodation by the L/A, or if a full duty had been given why long term accommodation was not provided. I suspect, from my dealings with homeless families , that this couple refused some sort of accommodation and the duty to them ended.
Yes, I know mistakes can happen and there is a mechanism internally with the L/A to resolve that , and referring the family to social services might have been part of that resolution.

I am not giving any further details, as I do not want to be identifying. They got refugee status, but could not get housing, this is VERY common in many places

OP posts:
orangeleavesinautumn · 19/07/2023 06:24

They did NOT turn down any accommodation. I am not "whipping up outrage" is is outrageous, no whipping required.

Did you notice my post where I pointed out that severely disabled people were also being turned out onto the street, as well as young children? a woman with no eyes, a man with no legs?

OP posts:
orangeleavesinautumn · 19/07/2023 06:25

Anyway, the main point of this thread is the govt needs to clear the backlog of asylum seekers waiting to be processed, once refugee status is granted, individuals can at least get work, and make a start on rebuilding their lives

OP posts:
loislovesstewie · 19/07/2023 06:26

I'm sorry I don't believe you. I think in all likelihood they were offered something but it didn't suit them, the duty was discharged and they decided to
a] not appeal the decision
then
b] sleep rough rather than take up the offer.
If that is the case , then they need to accept that was a very poor decision.
And lastly that is why they would have been referred to social services, because the homeless officer has an obligation to do that.

orangeleavesinautumn · 19/07/2023 06:30

loislovesstewie · 19/07/2023 06:26

I'm sorry I don't believe you. I think in all likelihood they were offered something but it didn't suit them, the duty was discharged and they decided to
a] not appeal the decision
then
b] sleep rough rather than take up the offer.
If that is the case , then they need to accept that was a very poor decision.
And lastly that is why they would have been referred to social services, because the homeless officer has an obligation to do that.

well you are wrong, and I know that, as my charity not only provided the solicitor who helped them, but I was "in the loop" with the solicitor and privy to all their information, and that of other families too, so I do find your faith in the system touching, but misplaceed

OP posts:
loislovesstewie · 19/07/2023 06:58

As I said I worked as a homeless officer for over 25 years. You are saying nothing about why they were 'turned away', if the decision was wrong they ask for a review, that review is carried out by a senior officer, if that doesn't go their way then it goes to judicial review. Those decisions are the basis of caselaw. You are saying nothing about the circumstances or the legal reasons .Just saying they were turned away really is meaningless.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread