Category: asylum

Plan to block HRA


Plan to disapply the Human Rights Act reported

November 2023

A report in the Guardian suggests the government proposes to disapply the HRA and block its use to enable the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda. This follows the Supreme Court’s decision last week that Rwanda is not a safe country and individuals sent there would be at risk of refoulement. The government is under considerable pressure from the right of the party and in particular the ‘New’ Conservatives jointly led by Danny Kruger MP who is the member for Devizes in Wiltshire.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/19/rishi-sunak-could-block-key-human-rights-law-force-through-rwanda-asylum-plan

0

Human Rights Watch on UK events


HRW comments on the extraordinary events yesterday in the UK

November 2023

This is a piece from today’s (16 November) from HRW.

A Welcome Decision in the UK Regular Daily Brief readers may recall our story on the UK government’s obsession with cruelty, shown by its intention to ship asylum seekers to Rwanda, a country with a terrible rights record. I’m happy to report a good-news update to this story: yesterday, the UK Supreme Court said Rwanda is not a safe country for the government’s plans.

As my UK colleague Emilie McDonnell writes, the decision was “a huge victory that will protect the rights of countless people who have come to the UK seeking safety.” In a unanimous judgment, the UK’s highest court drew attention to Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including threats to Rwandans living in the UK, alongside extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, torture, and restrictions on media and political freedoms.

The Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has responded by vowing to introduce emergency legislation “to confirm Rwanda is safe. ”Instead of arguing with reality, he would be wiser to ditch the government’s unlawful Rwanda deal.
0

Supreme Court decision – Rwanda


Supreme Court declares government’s Rwanda plan ‘unlawful’

November 2023

This morning, 15 November, the Supreme Court in the UK gave its unanimous decision on the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, declaring it unlawful. This puts a flagship policy in jeopardy and it is not clear what will happen next. Huge political capital has been vested in this decision and it had massive, if totemic, significance for the government. One of its motivations was that it would act as a deterrent to the huge numbers crossing the Channel in small boats, something it was never likely to do.

The first flight was planned in June this year and it was due to take off from Boscombe Down airfield (pictured) in Wiltshire just a mile or so from where this post is being written. At the last moment, the European Court ruled it unlawful and the aircraft took off empty the following day.

The court’s decision was based on the human rights situation in Rwanda. The key principle is refoulement: that someone should not be sent back to their country of origin if there is a risk of mistreatment. The situation in Rwanda is poor with extrajudicial killings, use of torture and enforced disappearances a regular feature. The court also took into account that individuals from Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan have all been returned to their home country where they will be at severe risk of mistreatment or death. Other individuals have been clandestinely moved out of the country.

This decision and the whole vexed story of immigration, refugees, the boat crossings, use of hotels and related issues is extremely high profile in the UK. Considerable anger is expressed by many on the subject and it is a regular source of hostile front pages of the tabloid press and outlets such as GB News. It is said to be as a result of the public’s anger on the subject but this is not altogether true. Many it is true, are angry and want the government to deport the boat people forthwith. Other views are more nuanced. It is not always clear whether the ceaseless headlines on the subject and the somewhat one-sided treatment is itself stimulating the public to its hostile attitudes.

This decision, and the previous one to halt the flight in June, will add to those in the Conservative party who have been seeking our departure from the European Convention. This was a threat expressed by the previous Home Secretary who lost her post on Monday. However, the court made clear that it wasn’t just the European Convention that was the key law in this regard. They pointed out there were other aspects of law, as well as international treaties which the UK has signed, all of which had a bearing on the question of refoulement. This has not prevented – in the words of Open Democracy – the ‘marginally less deranged’ members of parliament who are calling for us to abandon all international covenants. One such is Danny Kruger the member for Devizes in Wiltshire, another is the deputy chair of the party Lee Anderson.

It is important to recognise that the court ruled that the policy of deporting asylum seekers is not unlawful. What was at issue was the human rights in Rwanda itself. So the policy lives on and the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said in the Commons today that he was willing to “revisit domestic legal frameworks” in their desire to pursue this policy. This might mean the Human Rights Act (one of the acts the high court referred to) comes under attack again, a long time goal of the Conservative Party.

Such is the level of political capital involved in this issue and its place in the Prime Minister’s five priorities that they cannot allow it to go away quietly. We will have to see what emerges in the coming days and weeks. If the decision to remove ourselves from the aegis of the European Court, that will be a retrograde step. We will have to leave the Council of Europe, it will weaken our voice internationally and will hinder our efforts at improving the rule of law around the world.

Photo: Boscombe Down. Salisbury Amnesty

UPDATE: Prime Minister announces they will conclude a new treaty with Rwanda which will override the Supreme Court decision (which he does not agree with) and will enable refugees to be sent there.

0

Refugee report: November


Reports focus on destitution and the need for cooperation concerning asylum

November 2023

We are grateful to group member Andrew for his work in compiling this report on the current state of affairs with refugees and asylum seekers. A quiet month on the legislative front, but much noise from certain quarters. It was noted that the Home Secretary’s complaint against “tent-dwellers” included the aside “many of them from abroad”, with its implication of illegal immigrants joining in the supposed lifestyle choice. This was roundly condemned by a number of refugee charities, along with homelessness support groups. 

The Joseph Rowntree Trust have published a report on destitution in the UK. Among its findings was the fact that 28% of destitute households were migrants, and rates for that group were 35% higher than the national figure. Such households also tend to have more children. 

The Institute for Public Policy Research (a centrist think tank) has also published a report, “Charting New Waters”, on dealing with those crossing in small boats. Like the Safe Passage report mentioned last month it is concerned with developing safe routes, an organized Europe-wide system to share the responsibility, and a reform of the asylum processing system. The report does not give much detail, but reinforces the feeling that the government needs to engage with our neighbours in finding solutions to the issue. 

On that topic, the numbers of asylum seekers crossing the channel has been lower this month, mainly because of the weather 

We still await the High Court decision on the Rwanda plan, but the feeling is that the government is prepared to lose the case. This would, of course, put the European Court of Human Rights in the firing line, at least with the Home Secretary. The decision is expected in the first half of December. 

Many Afghans who were promised a safe passage to the UK after the Taliban takeover are still waiting; 3000 who have been promised asylum in the UK are in UK-funded hotels in Islamabad, but the Pakistan government is ejecting all Afghan refugees. There has been no government statement, as far as we know. 

The Home Office has rolled out a new “asylum decision-making prioritisation”. This is really a pushing ahead in trying to reduce the backlog of cases awaiting decision. The government has argued that the backlog has been reduced, but in fact the total has increased due to new cases, while the “legacy” cases from pre-2022 are indeed being reduced. 

Migration lawyers have noted with pleasure that the number of refusals of claims of trafficking by new arrivals has fallen, following a change in the regulations. 

The Home Office announced this week that the number of asylum seekers to be held on the barge Bibby Stockholm is to be reduced from 500 to 425, following a fire risk assessment. This would likely make the provision 10% more expensive than housing claimants in hotels. 

On the campaigning front, next year’s Refugee Week will be from 17th to 23rd June. The theme will be “Our Home.” 

AH

1

Refugee report


Many of the boat people are from Afghanistan

August 2023

The tragic events in the English Channel this week have served to draw attention to the fact that most of the asylum seekers affected by the disaster were from Afghanistan. This might invite the question: “But I thought that Afghans were the one group for whom official arrangements to come here had been made?” Indeed, there are two official processes by which Afghans can come to this country to escape persecution. One is the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy, designed to help those who had been involved with the UK administration pre-Taliban, and several thousand have arrived through this route. Asylum seekers arriving now may have worked with the British and been left behind or not, but clearly most feel threatened by any connection they may have had with the old regime. The Afghan Citizen Resettlement Scheme (ACRS) was designed for such cases.

So how has the ACRS been performing? A new report by the Refugee Council gives a gloomy assessment. The plan was to take 5,000 refugees in the first year and 20,000 in total. So far, 54 Afghans have arrived under ACRS; many are waiting in Pakistan for arrangements to be made to bring them over. Accommodation in the UK is not available however and, as the report notes, those 9,000 Afghans currently being accommodated in hotels here will be ejected at the end of the month to find their own places or become homeless.

Afghans arriving via the Channel will be sent back

Hence the large number of Afghans arriving on small boats. In the last year 8,429 have come by this route, of whom 96 have been given leave to stay. Of course, under the new Illegal Migration Act, none will be given that right and will in theory be returned to Afghanistan or a third country like Rwanda.

The report goes on to note that no method has been established to help reunite the families of asylum seekers with those who are here, despite assurances  from the government.

The Guardian has published an article by the Council’s chief executive, Enver Solomon, which gives more detail.

UPDATE: Shortly after posting this, the BBC Radio 4 programme ‘World at One’ devoted a lengthy package to this item.

AH

0

Exiting the European Court possible


Some Conservative politicians again calling for the UK to exit the European Court

August 2023

The issue of the small boat crossings continues to generate considerable passions amongst many in the Conservative party in particular and in sections of the media. This week, the first of the asylum seekers arrived on the barge, Bibby Stockholm, moored at Portland with many local protests, concerns about fire safety and legal protests in train. The response to the protests and appeals from the deputy chair of the Conservative party, Lee Anderson, broke new ground when he said that if they weren’t happy with the accommodation they should ‘f–k off back to France.’ When interviewed on GB News he declined to withdraw the remark and he has received support from others in the party.

Part of the frustration that some feel is possibly based on the misunderstanding about the Court and its relationship with Europe. Brexit was largely based on a desire to regain our sovereignty and the fact that the Court has nothing to do with the EU has come as a surprise and disappointment to those who believed it did. When the Court stepped in to stop the first flight to Rwanda a year ago from Boscombe Down airfield (a mile or so away from where this is being written) it generated considerable fury and with it the threat to leave the aegis of the Court.

If we did leave the Court, we would join Belarus and Russia, hardly exemplars of sound government or decent human rights. It would, as one of the key proponents of the Court in the ’50s, be a great blow to our international standing. There are many in the Conservative party who recognise this.

In many respects, the problem of Channel crossings is as a result of successful policies elsewhere to prevent other forms of crossing. Channel ports are now surrounded with razor wire and boarding and aeroplane is now a major exercise in logistics and checking of details. Legal routes barely exist and the ability of someone to claim asylum in their own country is all but impossible. Getting on a boat is almost the only way.

The ECHR is a threat to British democracy

Daily Telegraph, 10 August

In previous posts we have commented on many aspects of the government’s policy and how exporting people to Rwanda – tried and abandoned by Israel – will be of limited utility. Hundreds will be deported, if it comes into being, while the backlog is in the tens of thousands. Ascension Island is also being rumoured: another expensive and impractical solution.

On 18 July, the government passed the Illegal Migration Bill which means those who arrive by crossing the Channel will not be able to claim asylum. This is likely to be a breach of the Refugee Convention, hence the call to exit the ECHR.

Such is the desire of those to escape war or persecution that threats to send them to Rwanda or place them on a barge off the south coast are unlikely to be a deterrent. The continued failure to stem the flow of crossings represents a major political problem for the government. Oafish comments by the party’s deputy chair are in a way a symptom of the frustration felt in the face of this huge, and in many respects insoluble problem.

It is a pity that the connections between causes and results is not discussed more. The coup in Niger is the latest example of a desire to grab mineral resources. Western countries along with China and Russia, are desperate to secure supplies of these resources and the rights of people who get in the way are nearly always ignored. We are happy for the City of London for example to fund companies and to enable the vast wealth to be routed through the city. We pay little attention to the ‘front end’ so to speak and the activities of corporations in their thirst for rare earths, oil, gold, uranium or other commodities. The resulting conflicts and displacement of peoples, some of whom end up on the northern coast of France, suddenly results in angst and furious editorials in our tabloids. A man reaps what he sows as the Bible tells us. Perhaps if government spent more time concerning itself with the activities of our mining and resource companies then fewer would be forced from their homes and land, dispossessed or otherwise maltreated and fewer would end up at Calais and thence onto a boat. Fewer then would need to f–k of back to France.

UPDATE: 12 August 2023. Migrants taken off the barge because of the risk of Legionnaires disease (11th). Ascension Island no longer an option it is reported.

0

Refugee report: July


Refugee report with an update on the current state of play with legislation

July 2023

The Illegal Migration Bill continues its dizzying route to completion, despite 20 defeats in the House of Lords. The Commons has rejected all the amendments, and the Bill will return one more time to the Lords and, presumably, back to the Commons next week before the recess in a process called ‘ping pong’. Despite the enormous interest in this subject and its high political salience, it was reported that fewer than 40 MPs turned up for the debate and only 20 or so stayed to the end.

We are grateful for group member Andrew for this report.

The latest situation update:

All of the Lords’ amendments were overturned by the Commons, but several had some support from the Conservative benches (Tim Lough-ton complained that they had not had enough time to mull over the government’s changes). The Home Office offered several concessions on Monday evening, The bill’s provisions will no longer apply retrospectively to anyone deemed to have arrived illegally from March 7 (10,000 people will escape the legislation’s measures, according to the Daily Mail) … the detention of unaccompanied children will be limited to eight days (significantly longer than the 24 hours backed by peers) … and the detention of pregnant women will be limited to 72 hours (extendable to seven days by ministers). Other issues still in play from the Lords debates include:

• Removing unaccompanied children from within the scope of the Bill
• Allowing anyone not removed within 6 months to re-enter our asylum system and have their claims heard
• Ensuring Local Authorities maintain care of unaccompanied children and that children are protected during the age assessment process
• Ensuring LGBT+ people are not removed to countries where they risk persecution, and that victims of trafficking are not included within scope of the Bill (as sought by Theresa May). These will presumably come up again in the next Lords session.

Elsewhere

The highest number of small boat arrivals on a single day this year occurred last week at 686. The total for the year to last weekend was 12,119, slightly down on last year.

UNHCR report says the worldwide figure for refugees is now 29.4 million excluding Palestine. 76% in low/middle income countries 70% in a neighbouring country. 339,300 refugees returned home and only 114,300 refugees were resettled out of camps last year. UNHCR estimates that 1.5 million people globally are in need of resettlement because they are in a protracted refugee situation, meaning they had been refugees for longer than five years. For each refugee that was returned or resettled in 2022, there were 16 new refugees.

Free Movement have picked up on a story that the Home Office is planning to reintroduce the concept of “reasonable force” to remove families with children. Watch this space.

Small boats

The government does not know how much its new small boats bill will cost or if it will achieve its core aim of deterring Channel crossings, an official assessment has found. Documents published over three months after the Illegal Migration Bill was presented to parliament estimated that it will cost £169,000 to deport each asylum seeker – but it is unclear how many will be removed and what “third countries” will receive them. The only existing deal is with Rwanda and the Home Office refused to publish the actual payments agreed, citing “commercial sensitivities” as a Court of Appeal ruling on the scheme looms.
A report from the Migrant and Refugee Children’s Unit argues that Albania is not a “safe country”, as the Government maintains.

Controversial plans to house asylum seekers on a barge to reduce reliance on expensive hotels will save less than £10 a person a day, according to a report. The report, Bibby Stockholm – At What Cost? from the NGOs Reclaim The Seas and One Life To Live, provides the first detailed estimated costings of the Bibby Stockholm, the barge the Home Of-fice is planning to use in Dorset to accommodate asylum seekers.

On statistics, in correspondence between the head of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir Robert Chote and Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick, Chote commented: “concerns have been raised with us about your statement in the House of Commons on 20 March that :“Today, a majority of the cases being considered for modern slavery are people who are coming into the country – for example, on small boats. We are seeing flagrant abuse, which is making it impossible for us to deal appropriately with the genuine victims, to the point that 71% of foreign national offenders in the detained estate, whom we are trying to remove from the country, are claiming to be modern slaves.”

Minister accused of using the wrong statistics

“The Home Office advised us that the quoted figure comes from a recent report about modern slavery referrals for people detained for return after arriving in the UK in small boats and that your statement was intended to refer to the proportion of foreign national offenders (FNOs) that are referred to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) as potential victims of modern slavery. The report explains that while an increasing proportion of all those in detention after arriving by small boat are referred to the NRM up from 52% in 2020 to 73% in 2021 (and subsequently falling to 65% between January and September 2022), the proportion among foreign national offenders is much lower (at around 20% between January and September 2022)”. This argument came up again in the Commons when Theresa May claimed Jenrick was using the wrong statistics.

Beyond Europe, it seems that the UN estimates that more than 31 mil-lion Africans live outside the country of their birth, mostly within the continent (only a quarter head for Europe). AlJazeera is running a se-ries of articles on this subject.

The BBC’s More or Less programme presented a special episode on immigration, featuring Colin Yeo as well as several other experts, which is recommended.


Migrant Help runs a guidance and advice helpline to assist asylum seekers in the UK as they move through the process. The charity is not part of the Home Office but is the advice by The Independent, a Migrant Help adviser said: “I am afraid Migrant Help are not contracted to respond to MPs correspondence and have forwarded the attached to the MP correspondence team. Our call handlers will reach out to the service user to see if there is any further support they can provide.
I would like to clarify that not responding to MP enquiries is not a Migrant Help policy but a directive given to us by the Home Office as part of our work under the advice, issue reporting and eligibility (AIRE) contract. I have expressed con-cerns regarding this process

0

The ‘New’ Conservatives


Danny Kruger: the leader of the New Conservatives

July 2023

Danny Kruger, the MP for Devizes in Wiltshire, whose odd ideas on human rights we have had occasion to highlight before, is the founding member of the New Conservative grouping within the party. All their manifesto concerns considerable hardening of attitudes towards immigration. Their ten point plan is:

  1. Closing temporary schemes that grant work visa eligibility for care workers and senior care workers.
  2. Raising the minimum income required to gain a skilled work visa.
  3. Extending the closure of the student dependant route.
  4. Closing the graduate route to students.
  5. Reserving university Study Visas for the brightest international students.
  6. Monitoring the reduction in visa applications under the humanitarian schemes.
  7. Implementing the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill rapidly.
  8. Capping the number of refugees legally accepted for resettlement in the UK.
  9. Raising the minimum combined income threshold for sponsoring a spouse and raising the minimum language requirement.
  10. Capping the amount of social housing that councils may assign to non-UK nationals. [Source Wikipedia]

Several of these policies run counter to the UK’s treaty obligations and would have significant impacts on human rights particularly concerning the Illegal Migration Bill currently struggling in the House of Lords. The care worker proposal for example, would make an already serious situation considerably worse. Their policies are all concerning immigration at present and are reported to be designed to appeal to Red Wall voters which, curiously, does not include Devizes, a safe Wiltshire seat. It is depressing that the people of Devizes should support Kruger and one assumes, these policies. The grouping claims to have 25 supporters but those listed do not add up to 25.

It is concerning that a group of MPs should see it advantageous to major on – to the exclusion of all else – a range of draconian anti-immigrant policies believing them to be popular with the electorate. Mr Kruger has previously claimed that a number of our country’s ills – long waiting lists for example – are the fault of immigrants.

The item concerning the cap on refugees would apply across the piece and would include those from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong. Mr Kruger is a committed Christian and has spoken often about his beliefs. He is himself, the son of an immigrant and it is a curious fact that many in his party who are sons and daughters of immigrants (Priti Patel, Suella Braverman and Rishi Sunak) are so hostile to those who follow them.

Sources: Wiltshire Times, Premier Christian News, Wikipedia, Blavatnik School of Government (Oxford University), Politico

0

Rwanda flights ‘unlawful’


High Court rules flights to Rwanda unlawful

June 2023

The High Court has today (29 June) ruled by a majority, that the planned flights to Rwanda are not legal. This has been a key element of the government’s policy and the first flights due to go out in June last year from Boscombe Down near Salisbury, were halted at the last minute following a ruling by the European Court deciding it breached article 3 rights against torture and bad treatment.

The case hinged on whether it is safe for asylum seekers and others to be sent to this African country. Both UNHCR and Amnesty International have expressed doubts and concerns about what life is like and the safety of those sent there. In its 22/23 report Amnesty had concerns about the asylum process procedure, the risks of detention and deportation, discrimination against members of the LGBTIQ+ community and inadequate legal representation.

Plane waiting at Boscombe Down airfield in June 2022 but which left empty. Photo: Salisbury Amnesty

There is limited freedom of expression, bloggers and journalists are harassed, persecuted, intimidated and sometimes unlawfully detained. Although the country has made promises to improve as part of the deal with the Home Office, serious doubts remain about how genuine these might be.

A report last week noted that the costs of sending individuals to Rwanda were excessive at around £170,000 per person and they also doubted the deterrent effects of the policy – a key element behind why the government wishes to do it. Altogether, the government’s policies on immigration and asylum are looking threadbare. They plan to appeal the decision. Both the prime minister and Suella Braverman have been critical of it.

Sources: BBC; UNHCR; Daily Mail, Guardian

0

Refugee report, March


March 2023

The temperature surrounding immigration and asylum has risen this month with yet more legislation is proposed. We are grateful for group member Andrew for the preparation of this report.

Now we have the detail of the new legislation proposed by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary designed to deal with the small boats issue “once and for all”, and we can also review some of the latest figures on immigration to emerge.

As expected, the main thrust of the new Illegal (sic) Migration Bill is to state that migrants arriving by small boats will be detained and deported to their home country (though there appear to be no return agreements in place), or, if not safe, to a third country e.g. Rwanda, to be processed.  There will also be a cap on the numbers to be taken in by “safe and legal” routes.  Those removed after processing will not be allowed to re-enter, resettle, or seek British citizenship at any future date.

The issue of the legality of the proposed legislation is based around the UK’s being a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (and a member of the court thereof).  The Home Secretary believes that Article 19(1(b)) of the Human Rights Act allows a level of circumvention:

“The Home Secretary, the Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP, has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998: “I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”  A statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not mean that the provisions in the Bill are incompatible with the Convention rights.  The Government is satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are capable of being applied compatibly with those rights.”

Responses

Comments from organisations with an interest in the area have mostly been hostile.  For example, this is from Amnesty International UK’s refugee and migrant rights director, Steve Valdez-Symonds:

“Attempting to disqualify people’s asylum claims en masse regardless of the strength of their case is a shocking new low for the government.

“There is nothing fair, humane or even practical in this plan, and it’s frankly chilling to see ministers trying to remove human rights protections for group of people whom they’ve chosen to scapegoat for their own failures …

“Ministers need to focus on the real issue – which is the urgent need to fairly and efficiently decide asylum claims while urgently introducing accessible schemes, so people seeking asylum do not have to rely on people smugglers and dangerous journeys.

“Clearly we do not know how this will proceed, either through parliament or the courts, although previous attempts along similar lines have not got very far. It seems likely that the proposed act will not come into force for many months or even years.

“It is worth noting, though, that the government frequently refers to “abuses“ of the human rights law by lawyers representing asylum seekers, which may result in further legislation.  Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick has suggested that some such lawyers are being “monitored.””

It is also worth noting that in 2021, 12,838 Rwandans applied for asylum in other countries.

Arrivals

Arrivals by boat last year included more Albanians and Afghans and fewer Iranians than previously.

On Afghanistan, 22 people were settled in the UK under Pathway 2, and 38 by other means (Pathway 1 appears to be non-functioning).  Of those arriving by boats most have been granted leave to stay (Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea and Sudan all have acceptance rates over 95%).

Backlog of asylum cases now 160,000

The backlog of asylum cases waiting for decisions has now reached 160,000, despite increased numbers of staff at the Home Office.  The total number of decisions made in 2022 was 19,000.

As a comparison with other European states, up to September 2022, the UK had received 80,000 applications for asylum status; Spain had received 130,000, France 180,000 and Germany 300,000.

Europe as a whole had its highest level of immigration since the crisis year of 2016.  Some states have responded by increasing the numbers of staff processing claims (Germany by 5 times) and by reducing the backlog (France by a third).  In the UK, not only is the backlog increasing but the productivity of staff is going down.

In the case of Shamima Begum, the Upper Tribunal has stated that she was a victim of trafficking, but that it is still legal to remove her British nationality.

It is interesting to note that only 6% of small boat arrivals are referred for trafficking checks.

It was noted this month that up to a third of the Overseas Aid budget has been reallocated to housing refugees.

Finally – somewhat under the radar – the Court of Appeal has upheld the ruling that asylum seekers can be prosecuted for arriving in the UK without valid entry clearance or assisting unlawful immigration.  This follows last years’ Nationality and Immigration Act and will clearly have major repercussions.

AH

Recent post on the subject by EachOther

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑