“An ‘issue’ is a public matter,” he elaborated “when values cherished by the public are felt to be threatened […] it is the very nature of an issue, unlike even widespread trouble, that it cannot very well be defined in terms of the everyday environments of ordinary men. An issue, in fact, often involves a crisis in institutional arrangements.”

There are an estimated 60,000 young people living in the UK who have irregular immigration status. This tag is no mere administrative burden. It compromises their security and safety, their health and wellbeing and our ability to support those who are vulnerable and exploited by others. If you are young, and without the correct papers, then you are likely to be extremely quiet about it: you will try to manage alone the problems this generates. You will be unable to get trusted advice and legal support. You will be unwilling to speak up about this for fear of being deported. You will be unsure about accessing the health and social support that most of us take for granted. You will not know who and what to trust. You will see both light and darkness in remaining invisible.

Last week, at a meeting of European charitable trusts at Paul Hamlyn Foundation, two organisations spoke to the assembled grant makers about what they were doing to make sure the personal troubles of so many become social issues that we address. Just for Kids Law talked about their work helping young migrant – many of whom have grown up as children in the UK – to access higher education. Swarm has developed a web portal through which young people and their families can work out how they can get help with their immigration status problems. Both charities are part of a wider collaboration, started by Paul Hamlyn Foundation and Unbound Philanthropy – two funders working in partnership. Supported Options uses grant making, research, convening, digital technology, story-telling and direct service development to shine a light on the lives of young people trapped by their status, and also to point to policy and practice solutions.

We are rightly transfixed by the continuing refugee crisis and in the UK there has been a huge mobilisation of interest and offers of help from the general public. But we must not lose sight of those – such as young people without papers – whose stories are not being told, and who are not in the limelight. They are as deserving of our attention and our support as any young person in trouble.

In the United States, a growing movement for change – led by United We Dream – has turned many undocumented young people into social activists and campaigners, and in this movement individuals find support and friendship. In the United Kingdom, a similar movement has been much slower in coming – but coming it is. Let Us Learn is a youth-led campaign that has already brought about a change in the law, with a recent Supreme Court decision securing access to higher education funding for many. We must nurture this movement and protect the brave young people who work selflessly for the rights and futures of others. ‘Coming out’ as undocumented and speaking up for one’s rights and the rights of others is to put oneself in peril, but it is probably the only way that young people’s troubles become our social issue. We should reward their courage and dignity by helping them to study and ensuring that they can access legal advice and representation in order to make decisions about their futures from a position of stability and security.

This meeting of the European Foundation Centre’s (EFC) Diversity, Migration, and Integration Thematic Network brought together EFC members for two days in October 2015, to network, learn from one another and identify potential areas of common interest. The Network is chaired by the Barrow Cadbury Trust.

Some Sudanese are held in detention centres while their appeals for asylum are considered. If their cases fail they face forcible return to Khartoum. That means arrest, interrogation, torture and possible “disappearance” at the hands of the Sudanese security services.   Waging Peace recognises how stressful and lonely it can be for people in detention centres, so we organise a visitor’s group to provide moral support to Sudanese asylum seekers. Mostly the visitors are Sudanese already living in the UK who can offer people reassurance in their native language. However, Dr. Arama, the person I saw on my first visit, spoke perfect English.

It was a suitably cold, grey January day when I arrived at Yarl’s Wood detention centre in Buckinghamshire, just outside London. I had no idea what to expect, and I was nervous, wondering how could I really help. What could I do?    As I prepared myself mentally to meet Dr. Amara, the prison-like atmosphere blindsided me. It wasn’t the back of beyond physical location nor being bussed to a walled-up, barbed wire fenced-in facility. It wasn’t even the frosty reception from the front desk staff who only allow you to proceed once your fingerprints and photographs have been taken. Rather, it was the stark walls, barren but for one or two signs posting stern warnings that no visitor was to take anything – not a pen or paper, not an offering of food, not a book, not a sliver of any humanity from the ‘outside’ world, not even your own belongings – into the visitor lounge.

I had to remind myself that the woman I was about to meet was not a prisoner, she was a person, who happened to be an asylum seeker, there on humanitarian grounds, fleeing extreme conditions in her home country after being victimised by her own government and subjected to torture, rape and further trauma.   “Yarl’s Wood detainees aren’t there because they have been charged with a criminal offence” reported BBC Home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw, “They are people, many of them vulnerable, whose claims for asylum or right to stay in Britain have been rejected or are being challenged.”

Yet, when Dr. Amara had gone to her weekly immigration sign-in 2 weeks ago, she was briskly taken into custody, without warning and with only the clothes on her back. Her personal belongings were taken away, and for several hours she was held in a locked room. No one told her what was happening. They bustled her into a van for the journey to an unknown destination – which turned out to be Yarl’s Wood IRC, several hours away.   Not surprisingly, the experience reminded Dr. Amara of when she had been detained back in Sudan. Her unease increased when she was given “removal directions,” with an airline ticket to return her to Sudan within a week.  She had risked her life to escape from the Sudanese regime and she knew what awaited her if she was forced to return.

When I met her at Yarl’s Wood I had to pass through a security scanner and I was patted down by an officer who made sure I was taking no more than £10 in with me. When the officer was satisfied, she unlocked the door to the visitor lounge and finally I made my way in to find Dr. Amara.   All the while I was wondering how on earth I could help this woman who had endured so much. What can I do? How can we tangibly measure the importance of Waging Peace through our Sudanese Visitor’s Group and visiting people in detention?   I smiled as I approached Dr. Amara and without thinking I opened my arms.  She offered me a brave but sad smile and with no words she collapsed into my arms, sobbing. I gently embraced her and when she was ready, we sat down and talked for the next two hours. It was finally clear to me, the value of what we do.

Through meeting people where they are, we don’t have to ‘do’ anything. In a sense we offer hope and hope is immeasurable.   Below are comments from other Sudanese dissidents who have been visited at detention centres by representatives from Waging Peace.   Mohammed, now living in Cardiff, said, “The Sudanese government troops attacked my area and killed many people so I left Sudan because it was not safe. In 2009 a friend gave me the number for Waging Peace while I was being detained at Campsfield detention centre.  I was at Campsfield for nearly 11 months. I didn’t speak any English and wasn’t able to speak to many people because I didn’t have the language ability. To give me something to do and also help other people, I got work inside Campsfield. I was very depressed. It was difficult to be locked away, not speaking English, after my long and frightening journey from Sudan.”  

Dr. Ahmed, now living in London, told me, “You supported me with many things – especially hope.  At least I talked to someone. Even simply saying ‘hello’ helped me. Waging Peace also contacted my lawyer and if I wasn’t happy with something or I didn’t understand they would act on my behalf and support me.”     Ezzeldin, now living in Manchester, remembers, “I didn’t have family or friends to talk to and I was scared. I knew if I was sent back home I would die. I needed support and help with my asylum application. I totally broke down when I arrived. I tried to commit suicide two times while I was in detention. Waging Peace gave me emotional support and helped contact my lawyer. Unfortunately no Sudanese Visitors Group visits were allowed because of my mental state so I was very lonely. When I received a phone call from Waging Peace it felt like I received a message from God. Waging Peace’s support was a lifeline for me.”

Paul Dillane writes about the UK’s use of indefinite detention for LGBT asylum seekers

‘It’s Ali. I’ve been detained. Please help me.’

This week I received a telephone call from a client – a young gay man from Pakistan – who had travelled to the Home Office in Croydon to seek asylum. In Pakistan, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people experience systematic discrimination and violence. Upon claiming asylum in the UK, Ali was immediately detained and transferred to the largest immigration detention centre in Europe – Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre.

Ali is not a criminal, he has exercised his right to seek asylum as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in domestic law. Yet he has been detained indefinitely.

Ali’s case is being processed in the ‘Detained Fast Track’ system, a highly accelerated process whereby an asylum claim is determined in a matter of days. Thousands of asylum seekers experience the same fate every year.

My organisation, the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG), is a charity dedicated to supporting LGBT asylum seekers. Not only do LGBT asylum seekers face significant obstacles in securing refugee status but also increasing numbers are indefinitely detained. They will remain in detention until they are granted asylum – which can take weeks or months – or until they are forcibly removed to their country of origin. The civil liberties organisation Liberty argues that migrants are detained purely for ‘administrative convenience’ which leads to many asylum seekers being ‘denied the right to a full and fair consideration of their claim’.

Over the last 20 years the scale of immigration detention in this country has expanded rapidly and now the UK detains more migrants than any country in Europe apart from Greece, which is in the process of releasing many of those it detains. The UK is alone in detaining migrants indefinitely. In France the maximum period is 45 days.

In 1993, UK detention capacity was just 250 places. In 2015, there are 11 immigration removal centres and capacity is approximately 4,000 places. Statistics published in September 2014 show that 3,378 people were in detention at that time, while 29,492 people entered detention over the previous 12 months. Sweden has only 255 detention places yet receives twice as many asylum claims as the UK.

As the Refugee Council says, in recent months ‘a bright light has been shone into the darkest corners of the British immigration system and it has revealed some unpleasant secrets.’ In January, Women for Refugee Women reported female detainees are routinely humiliated by male staff who monitor them while they are dressing, showering and using the toilet. In March, Channel 4 News broadcasted a shocking investigation which exposed staff calling detainees ‘animals’, ‘beasties’ and ‘bitches’.

The following day, a cross-party group of MPs and Peers demanded a fundamental change in the way that immigration detention is used and called for a 28 day time limit. The Detention Inquiry’s damning findings – arising from an investigation chaired by Liberal Democrat, Sarah Teather MP – found immigration detention is used ‘disproportionately and inappropriately’.

The Inquiry argued: ‘The system is hugely costly to the tax-payer and seriously detrimental to the individuals we detain in terms of their mental and physical well-being.’

It also criticised the conditions for LGBT people who experience bullying, harassment and abuse. As Johnson, a former client from Jamaica who now has refugee status, described:

‘The whole place is vile, it is homophobic, one of the guards called me a poof and then there were the Jamaicans who kept hurling some abuse at some Iranian guys—calling them batty men. I was terrified thinking: “Oh my God, I hope they don’t know I am one of them.”’

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, invited the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, to investigate whether ‘improvements can be made to safeguard the health and wellbeing of detainees’. Disappointingly, the narrow scope of the review means it will not be able to deal with the wide-ranging issues raised by this Inquiry.

The use of immigration detention in the UK is out of control but, crucially, a political consensus on the need to tackle this problem has finally begun to emerge. More than 50 organisations, including UKLGIG, joined the #Time4aTimeLimit campaign and urged political parties to adopt the Inquiry’s recommendations. Last week, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party all offered manifesto pledges to end indefinite detention. Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, commented:

‘Indefinite detention of people who have committed no crime – and without even any independent review – is wrong. It can be deeply scarring – especially for asylum seekers who have already suffered abuse. And it is extremely expensive for taxpayers. No other western nation does it. We don’t need to either.’

British immigration detention centres have become notorious for their cruelty but the crescendo of opposition can no longer be ignored. Are the days of indefinite immigration detention in the UK finally numbered? The fight isn’t over yet but for Ali – and the thousands of others who languish in immigration detention – there may be hope on the horizon.

Paul Dillane is Executive Director of UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG) http://uklgig.org.uk/.  This blog was originally published on The Justice Gap.

In March the Modern Slavery Act 2015 received Royal Assent, as one of the last pieces of legislation to be passed by the current government.  Its entry into law marked the end of an intense period of parliamentary activity and impassioned debate, and the start of a period of reflection on what has been achieved and what was left behind.

The government has emphasised the number of concessions it made in securing the passage of the Bill, and indeed important amendments were made.  These include the insertion of a “Transparency in supply chains” provision, which requires companies with turnover above a certain (undefined) threshold to report on what they are doing to address slavery in their supply chains, and aims to encourage corporate responsibility. Also, a commitment to review the role of the Gangmaster’s Licensing Authority (GLA), opened up the possibility of extending its restricted remit. Finally amendments to the definition of forced labour, slavery and servitude mean this offence may fill some of the gaps left by the government’s narrow definition of trafficking.

But what difference does the law really make for actual and potential victims of severe exploitation? Of course this largely remains to be seen, but there are some areas in which the new law has potential to improve the situation of exploited workers.

Changes to the definition of forced labour, slavery and servitude have the potential to broaden understandings of criminal labour exploitation, and encourage the investigation and prosecution of a larger number of cases. The definition now makes clear that the appearance of, or actual consent of a worker to exploitative work is irrelevant where the worker is being held in forced labour, slavery or servitude. This is important given the number of cases we see in which migrant workers agree to work in sub-standard conditions that further deteriorate into forced labour through controls on movement and withholding wages. This definition also turns attention towards personal circumstances that may lead someone to be particularly vulnerable to exploitation.  Such circumstances expressly include the victims’ family relationships and mental or physical illness, but also have the potential to include the victims’ immigration status – a common source of vulnerability to forced labour.

A further important step made by the Act is to protect some people who are victims of modern slavery from prosecution for crimes they are forced to commit while under the control of their exploiters. This includes migration-related crimes such as identity document fraud, and crimes commonly involving trafficked labour, such as cannabis production. Smaller steps forward were also made in the area of victims’ legal rights – Section 8 of the Act requires a court to at least consider ordering compensation for a victim following a slavery or trafficking conviction. The Act also extends legal aid to victims of forced labour, slavery and servitude, where it was previously only available to trafficking victims.

Yet it is also on victims’ legal rights and protections that major gaps remain, and the Modern Slavery Act falls short of meeting key international obligations. Firstly, contrary to the European Trafficking Convention, the Act does not guarantee victims’ access to compensation, either directly from perpetrators through criminal or civil proceedings, or through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Victims trying to obtain compensation through these avenues currently face numerous hurdles, and very few exploited workers ever recover the unpaid wages they are owed.

Secondly, while the EU Trafficking Directive, requires legal assistance to be provided “without delay”, potential victims of trafficking and slavery still face significant difficulties in accessing legal aid. In particular they cannot access legal advice until a) they have agreed to be referred to the authorities, and b) it has been determined that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe they are a victim. In the case of third-country nationals and undocumented migrants in particular, referral to the authorities is a daunting and potentially dangerous prospect that often requires expert legal advice on options and consequences. Without early legal aid it is very difficult for someone who has been exploited to make an informed decision about their case.

Thirdly, contrary to the UN Human Trafficking Protocol, the Modern Slavery Act definition of human trafficking requires that the victim has travelled into exploitation, and for that travel to have been arranged or facilitated by the perpetrator. This is not a requirement of the international definition of human trafficking, and makes it very difficult to prosecute those involved in exploitation. It reflects the Government’s ongoing preoccupation with immigration, and continued prioritisation of immigration concerns over the prevention of exploitation.

Finally, and most damningly, the Modern Slavery Act failed to abolish the highly damaging tied visa for overseas domestic workers. The tied visa, which prevents overseas domestic workers from changing employers and so binds exploited workers to their exploiters, has been the subject of a sustained campaign by Kalayaan since it was introduced in 2012, and was an ongoing issue in the Modern Slavery Bill debates. In February an amendment was passed in the House of Lords to reinstate the right of overseas domestic workers to change employers. This was swiftly overturned by the Government when the Bill returned to the Commons. Pressed for a solution, the Government extended the right to change employers to victims who agree to be referred to the authorities and who are determined as “victims”.  For the majority of overseas domestic workers therefore, the tied visa remains, and perpetuates such an imbalance of power between employer and employee as to itself create a situation ripe for exploitation.

For these reasons and more the Modern Slavery Act is not exactly the triumph that the government suggests.  Whilst the Act shows progress in the UK’s approach to forced labour, slavery and human trafficking, it is far too heavily weighted towards prosecution, rather than prevention and protection, and effective responses have been thwarted by immigration concerns. For the large majority of migrant workers exploited across the UK this Act will have limited impact. It does, however, start the journey towards a stronger, more comprehensive approach to labour exploitation in the UK.

Claire Falconer is the Legal Director of Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX).  FLEX is a UK-based organisation that promotes effective responses to trafficking for labour exploitation worldwide, through research, advocacy, awareness raising and training.  This blog was originally posted on the Migrant Rights Network (MRN) website.  

“It was the best six days I have had since coming to the UK” Raga Gibreel tells me.   Campaign Bootcamp was a great learning experience. Raga met human rights campaigners from all over the world: Latin America, USA, Africa and other regions. She learnt effective campaign strategies and was made aware of how to use the media and engage with politicians – something she had not previously considered for her campaign.  Campaign Bootcamp also emphasised the need to take care of her personal health and wellbeing.

It was a rigorous six days.  The programme started at 8am and ended at 8pm every day. Raga explained to me that the experience inspired self-growth and made her aim for high goals for her organisation.   Raga Gibreel is a Sudanese refugee who has been living here in the UK for the past six years. She comes from Sourth Kordofan where there has been war on and off for many years. Raga’s story is a moving one.  Sadly it is representative of what many women and children face when there is political instability in a country. When she got to the UK it took her some time to get over the trauma and stress she had experienced during the war. Raga explained to me that her friends were the biggest support system for her.  Also helpful were Sudanese community groups.

The Trauma of civil war

She started volunteering for different human rights organisations, including at a detention centre, with Article 1. Raga couldn’t help but think how lucky she was because she met so many Sudanese refugees detained there. Fleeing from your home during war is very traumatic.  Many people die from lack of proper food, poor health facilities, and the long journeys can be difficult. Women and children are the most vulnerable as they are sometimes raped and even sold into sex trafficking businesses. She began to realise how much better off she was than many other Sudanese people.  So she decided to help bring change to her country.   She started a small organisation called Green Kordofan. Her aim was to provide the children in Yida refugee camp in Sudan with a sports and nutrition programme.   After completing Campaign Bootcamp Raga held a fundraising event for her organisation on 20 December 2014.  Some of those she had met at Campaign Bootcamp came to support her.  “I made friends for life at Campaign Bootcamp and I would not trade the experience for anything.  I really appreciate the opportunity Article 1 gave me.” During my interview with her it was evident that Raga has suffered a lot of pain because of the war.  However, she is now turning that pain into power to help others.

www.article1.org. Article 1 is a human rights charity whose aims are:

• To help asylum seekers from Darfur and other parts of Sudan to  navigate the UK’s complex immigration process
• To collaborate with the British government and relevant organisations to improve the UK’s policy and procedure for Sudanese asylum seekers
• To inform decision-makers and the public about the human rights situation in Sudan
• To raise awareness of Darfur and Sudan amongst the public

About 100 million people enter the UK every year, and about 100 million leave. Net migration – involving those who come here to stay or leave for at least a year – is a tiny fraction of that, estimated at 260,000 last year. So last year there were 260,000 more immigrants than emigrants.   The accuracy of that net migration estimate is limited – it’s based on a survey of just 4-5,000 migrants interviewed at ports, and that means there’s a large grey area. It could very easily be nearly 40,000 less than that in reality, or 40,000 more. Little wonder, then, that it’s been described as “little better than a best guess” by Public Administration Select Committee Chair Bernard Jenkin MP.   To that you might well ask: “why not just count everyone in and count everyone out?” And you wouldn’t be alone: it used to be an aspiration shared by government, statisticians and politicians alike. It still is in some cases, but delays, management problems and data issues have made this a more distant prospect. 

So how have we got here? Who are we counting now? And can we count people entering and leaving our country in future?

Previous governments abolished paper-based checks

In 1994, the Conservative government of the time partially scrapped exit checks on passengers leaving the UK. In 1998, the Labour government finished the job. Those decisions have provided the background to often–heard criticisms that successive governments stopped ‘counting people in and counting people out’.   The justification at the time was that the then paper-based checks amounted to “an inefficient use of resources and that they contribute little to the integrity of the immigration control” according to the Home Office.

In spite of pledges, exit checks still not fully in place

Since then, the prospect of reintroducing exit checks electronically has gained widespread favour. For the past decade, pledges to reintroduce the checks have been made repeatedly, while the timetable for actually doing so has been repeatedly pushed back.  

Step forward, ‘e-borders’—the whole solution?

The government has rarely been explicit on how exactly it would implement such checks.  Initially a programme called ‘e-borders’ was assumed to be the answer.  E-borders was a project first conceived in 2003 aimed at gathering passenger and travel information electronically and using it to help strengthen the UK’s border records and security – similar to a system used in Australia.    Starting in 2008, it was expected to gather an increasing proportion of passenger data, culminating in 95% coverage by the end of 2010 (reflecting Gordon Brown’s claim above) and 100% coverage by 2014. In fact, by 2010 only about 60% of passengers were being recorded and today about 80% are.  As it stated in its 2007 business case, counting was to be one of the key benefits:

“There are also a number of wider socio-economic benefits, for example the ability, for the first time, to comprehensively count all foreign national passengers in and out of the UK, improving public confidence in the integrity of the border and enabling a more accurate count of migrants for future planning and for informing the population count.”

This sounds impressive. By scanning passports at check-in and departure and making use of other travel information, details such as people’s name, age and nationality can be combined with flight number, times and port of departure or arrival.  A survey of a few thousand migrants versus actual passport data on people entering and leaving the country doesn’t sound like much of a contest.  Except it is, because while counting everyone in and out is relatively straightforward (though no simple task, as has been found); counting migrants and filtering out everyone else is hard.  Passports provide names and numbers, but they don’t tell stories. Your passport doesn’t know why you’re travelling, how long you’re intending to stay, or whereabouts exactly you’re planning to stay. So neither do the authorities — unless you happen to be interviewed on your way in or out.

There are ways around this, but they don’t fully solve the problem. For instance recording the date a person arrives in and leaves the UK: if it was a stay of less than a year, they’re a visitor, if more than a year, they’re a migrant. But that’s not very helpful for finding out about people coming to the UK now.   Visas are another potential source of information, and integrating that into an electronic counting system was recommended by MPs last year. That would, of course, be limited to non-EU nationals because EU citizens don’t need a visa to enter the UK.   Using the Census every 10 years to help identify migration flows to local areas is another option, but those figures become obsolete very quickly, and they’re not without accuracy problems of their own.

Not the whole solution any more

Because of these limitations, and other problems with implementation, the government has backtracked from its original business case, saying in evidence to MPs last year:

“while valuable, this data is by itself insufficient to provide a direct measurement of migration flows. As the information on entries and exits from the UK gets more comprehensive however it will, when combined with other data sources, help improve our statistics in this area.”

A similar view has since been expressed by the UK Statistics Authority and—after feasibility testing the data itself—the Office for National Statistics. The Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration questioned why the government hasn’t realised this sooner:  “It was not clear why the language of counting in and counting out had survived in each of the business cases.”   As things now stand, the e-borders’ project has been terminated. The systems are still there, but they’re now referred to as ‘Semaphore data’ and there are separate systems for enforcement purposes. Still, the coverage isn’t comprehensive, and as of last month, rail routes into and out of the UK still weren’t being counted at all.   The future for counting is uncertain, but it’s not necessarily confined to electronic measurement.

One recommendation from MPs last year was the possible creation of a new “routine migrant survey”, an option the Home Office investigated back in 2011. That could provide more detailed information on migrants’ reasons for coming and what they’re contributing to the UK.  For now, though, the government thinks a new survey would be bad value for money, and continues to indicate its commitment towards bringing back full exit checks at the border.    As for meeting this particular commitment, 100% or near 100% coverage isn’t the only condition. As the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has commented “it must be capable of facilitating physical interventions where appropriate” — i.e. intercepting departing passengers before they leave, instead of realising they’ve left afterwards. The time needed to do this is running out.

TIMELINE

Charles Clarke (then Home Secretary), 2005: “The new borders technology will record people’s departure from the country”
Home Office, 2006: “We will progressively reinstate exit—in other words, embarkation—controls in stages, starting with the higher-risk routes and people, identify who overstays and count everyone in and out by 2014.”
Gordon Brown, April 2010: “border controls have been brought in and we’re counting people out and in from the end of this year”
Coalition Programme for Government: “We support E-borders and will reintroduce exit checks.”
Home Office, 2012: “The Government have committed to the reintroduction of exit checks by March 2015″
Nick Clegg, March 2013: “we are reintroducing exit checks.”
Nick Clegg, July 2013: [quoted] “I’m not going to pretend to you that exit checks will be restored in full, according to the Home Office’s present plans, by the end of this Parliament”
Home Office, October 2014: “The Government is committed to introducing exit checks by April 2015″
David Cameron, November 2014: “We have also brought back vital exit checks at ports and airports”
Ed Miliband, December 2014: “We will introduce those [proper entry and exit] checks”  

This month I turn 21! In my British years, that is. I made a journey from broken hearted, disillusioned refugee journalist from war-torn Sarajevo in 1993 to passionate advocate for the rights of refugees and migrants and 2014 Churchill Fellow.

According to the latest research by British Future, I, as a naturalised Brit, here for more than 15 years, am also that mythical creature, who according to their polling is trusted by the British public more than any politician of any political party.

I was lucky to survive the worst war and destruction Europe has seen since WW2. I was lucky to find refuge in Britain, amongst people, who despite often harsh policies and negativity around the issue, welcomed me into their lives and families and helped me not only to survive, but also to thrive. I worked hard to educate myself, to work and to contribute to my new country. I love living in London, even though I was forced to leave my country.  That does not mean I love Sarajevo or Bosnia less, it just means I belong here now and I want to see London and Britain be the best it can be.

In our approach to refugees and migrants as well as in the way we conduct the immigration debate, for many years now we have not been at our best. It was painful to see the introduction of the Azure card for asylum seekers, while they were prevented from working or studying. I felt angry, guilty and powerless. Despite the passage of time, this is still very personal – it was happening on my watch and if I were to arrive now, my life would be on hold, in administrative destitution or even worse – indefinite detention. With many of my colleagues I feel overwhelmed by negativity and the inhumanity of it all. I felt we needed to do not only more but something different, something positive. We also needed to tell a different, more positive story.

In 2012 we set up Woman on the Move Awards to recognise and celebrate inspirational migrant and refugee women who make contribution to their communities. It worked! I am proud of our amazing winners: superwomen who even Nigel Farage would want to have as his neighbours!

But we have not been able to overturn the tide of negativity partly whipped up by the tabloid press peddling myths of scary immigrants and partly based on real concerns that people experience in their daily lives of which visible immigrants are increasingly both symbol and consequence. So I looked for a success story somewhere else. While we are trapped in a vicious circle of circular debate on numbers and entitlements, our special relations in the US were doing something very interesting. Don’t get me wrong, there were some exciting developments over here, namely the work we did with Citizens UK on the Independent Asylum Commission and on the campaign to end detention of children for immigration purposes. But the DREAMERS were making progress I had not yet seen anywhere else. It was HOPE and CHANGE all over the place! And for real!

I was lucky again as I won a scholarship to travel to the US for two months this summer to learn more about how they did it. I was able to do this due to the generosity of The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, which funds British citizens, (like me) to travel abroad and learn about best practice in the area of their personal interest and bring it back for the benefit of others, their profession and community in the UK. This just one of those things that makes Britain great!

I covered 15,000 miles from London to Alabama, Atlanta, Illionois, Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia, New York, Massachusetts and Washington State. I met more than 200 people organising for immigrants’ rights and achieving the impossible: Chicago police refusing to implement Federal orders to hold people on immigration charges. Massachusetts’ gubernatorial candidates all agreeing that undocumented migrants should have access to drivers licenses and the city of Seattle tolerating labour exchange of undocumented immigrants and funding safety at work training for them.

Wherever I went I learned something inspiring and felt empowered and encouraged that positive change is possible. These are just a few examples of things I have learned. I also learned that America is not the promised land and there are some real problems. This administration has deported more than two million immigrants, and split as many families. But this has just increased the resolve of immigrant campaigners to work harder and they are about to reap the benefits of their hard work. An estimated 11 million of undocumented immigrants are about to become documented. And I wanted to learn how did they get to this place.

I have asked all my new friends all over the US, if they had a magic wand, what is the one thing they would wish for, and every single one of them, from  large national coalitions to small local community groups told me: immigration reform. When I asked them if they think they will get it – they all, without an expectation told me that it is just a question of time. I was impressed by their confidence, but having seen how they work, I too had no doubt they will succeed. And it is the ‘how’ that is the most impressive.

There were in the past attempts to deliver immigration reform in the US, but it only started happening when immigrants organised. Firstly young people made the progress for themselves, and now they are fighting for their families. It is hard to put into words the power of organised people, mobilising and registering new voters, drafting their own legislation and using their democratic powers for better society. They will get their reform by the executive order because the Latino vote is no longer a sleeping giant.

We have a long way to go in Britain. The Forum has for many years been a proud member of Citizens UK a broad based community organising alliance. We are working together with schools, churches, mosques, synagogues and charities to make Britain a fair, just and better country. We are spearheading the Citizens Sanctuary campaign to ensure the end of indefinite detention, welcome more Syrians in the UK and reduce the income threshold required from those who fall in love with foreigners.

The Forum has in the past year made progress in bringing organising to migrant and refugee communities. We are working hard to ensure new citizens register to vote and have a say in our democracy.

On Saturday 15^th November we tasted the flavour of organising and movement building with our colleagues who work in the refugee and migrant world. Over the last year we worked with colleagues from around the country to organise the first Sanctuary Summit in Birmingham, attended by more than 400 people from more than 100 organisations.

I am very excited to have been involved in drafting the set of principles and asks we now call the Birmingham Declaration, which has already been signed by more than thirty organisations. This is the first time we as refugees, migrants and advocates made a proactive step for positive change. Yes, we have a long way to go to see fairer and more humane immigration policy and debate, but last Saturday in Birmingham we made that first step towards a better, organised, fairer future. I am asking you to join the list of supporting organisations and take the Declaration to your church, school, union, community, ask them to sign it and take the stand for positive change together.

May the force be with us!

http://online.wsj.com/articles/program-offers-reprieve-for-some-immigrants-1409933293

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/by-using-executive-order-on-immigration-obama-would-reverse-long-held-stance.html

Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX) will be co-sponsoring a briefing session in the House of Lords this Wednesday, 16 July, from 5-7 pm.  The session is being chaired by Baroness Young of Hornsey, with speakers including Diana Johnson MP, Kathryn Cronin (Garden Court Chambers), Klara Skrivankova (Anti-Slavery International) and Caroline Robinson (FLEX). 

In this blog Caroline Robinson, co-director and founder of Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX) makes the case for a more effective response to human trafficking for labour exploitation.

As the public’s response to recent strike action on the part of public sector workers shows, it is not always easy to convince people of the need to protect the rights of all workers, British or migrant.  It is particularly hard in the face of high unemployment and a struggling economy, when the argument is put that migrant workers are filling roles British workers could take.

Yet, when it comes to debates about modern slavery, there is widespread sympathy and support for the victims, the majority of whom are migrant workers exploited for their labour. This paradox arises, simply put, because victims are viewed as deserving protections whereas potential victims are not. Our job is to make the argument that protections are most useful before someone becomes a victim and therefore should be applied to all workers regardless of migrant status.

In debate on this question, people often suggest that greater labour protections would act as a pull factor towards the UK. Yet, the recent Migration Advisory Committee report on low skilled migration suggests that in fact the opposite is true – that the absence of labour protections creates the demand for migrant workers, ergo labour protections reduce that demand.

But it is not just public opinion that is contradictory: migrant workers also face a confusing policy landscape. On the one hand there are increasing checks on immigration status at work and home provided for in the new Immigration Act and reduced labour protections as a result of the Government’s ‘red tape challenge’; then on the other hand there is Theresa May’s high-profile campaign against  ‘modern day slavery’.

Only last month the UK government, in adopting a new Protocol to the international Forced Labour Convention, recognised that greater labour protections serve to prevent acts of modern slavery from taking place. This supports the case made by Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX) in our working paper on Preventing Trafficking for Labour Exploitation, that the UK needs a much stronger labour inspection system to prevent people from being exploited for their labour. We know that where gaps in the enforcement of labour protections exist, unscrupulous employers will take advantage of such gaps and exploitation will snowball from minor infringements of employment law to severe exploitation that constitutes modern slavery.

The Modern Slavery Bill offers an opportunity to improve labour protections for vulnerable workers as a means of preventing acts of severe exploitation. The debate around the Bill should focus on why, in modern Britain, workers are still being exploited for their labour in the restaurants we visit, hotels we stay in and on the construction sites all around us.

Yet, so far the Home Secretary has resisted calls for an expanded Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) in this Bill that could serve as an effective labour inspectorate, particularly in high-risk sectors where exploitation is rife. Instead the GLA has been moved into the Home Office, placing in great jeopardy its role to protect all workers regardless of status.

As politicians of all parties declare their support for ending slavery in the UK, there is a unique opportunity to put in place measures that would ensure no worker ends up in exploitation. But this opportunity will be missed if our leaders continue to talk tough on modern slavery without recognising that labour protections for all workers is the first line of defence in this fight.

Caroline Robinson is co-Director and founder of Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX). FLEX promotes effective responses to human trafficking for labour exploitation that prioritise the needs and voice of the victims and their human rights. Caroline is also a founder and Editorial Board Member of the Anti-Trafficking Review, an international open access journal that offers an outlet for dialogue between academics, practitioners, trafficked persons and advocates on anti-trafficking issues.

For the first time in almost six years, Immigration has topped the list of issues people see as the most important facing Britain today, beating the economy into second place.

It comes just a day after the Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee, Bernard Jenkin, reiterated the body’s view that the figures we have on immigration are:

“blunt instruments for measuring, managing and understanding migration to and from the UK, and they are not fit for purpose”

In spite of this, those same figures have previously been described by the UK Statistics Authority as the “best available measure” of net migration “given the existing statistical sources”.

That’s why there were calls from MPs yesterday for new sources to be used – including passenger travel data from the upcoming Border Systems Programme (formerly ‘eBorders’).

We’ve outlined the issues surrounding how reliable our migration figures are in our spotlight, published today.

Full Fact is an independent fact checking organization which  provides free tools, information and advice so that anyone can check the claims we hear from politicians and the media.  020 3397 5140.  [email protected]

A cultural polarisation over attitudes to immigration, according to the authors of the new British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey chapter on immigration published today, could generate long-term political headaches for politicians who adopt a tough anti-immigration agenda in search of public support.

‘Responding to the concerns of voters worried about immigration today risks alienating the rising sections of the electorate whose political voice will become steadily louder in elections to come’, say authors Anthony Heath and Rob Ford. Their BSA report shows that levels of education are a strong predictor of attitudes towards immigration, with an especially stark polarisation between the attitudes of graduates and those with no qualifications. Sixty per cent of those with a degree believe that immigration is beneficial for the economy, and another 16 per cent see it as having neutral impacts, leaving just 22% of graduates who believe that the economic impacts of immigration are negative.

Yet this three-to-one margin in favour of the economic benefits of migration among graduates is reversed among Britons who left school with no educational qualifications: where 61 per cent believe that the impact is negative, 21% see it as neutral, and just 16 per cent believe that the economic benefits are positive.

The political dilemma, according to academics Anthony Heath and Rob Ford, co-authors of the BSA study, arises from how short-term and longer-term political pressures pull in opposite directions.

“Although UKIP competition creates a short-term demand for restrictive migration policies, such policies may cause problems in the longer run. Advocating strongly restrictive immigration policies risks alienating the more liberal third of the population – and given constraints on policy and high political distrust, may not convince the most anti-immigration voters anyway. Moreover, long-term demographic change is moving society in the opposite direction, because the most pro-migration social groups – university graduates and professionals – are steadily growing while the most anti-migrant groups – unskilled  manual workers and those with no qualifications – are in sharp decline,” the authors write.

They note that, in 1989, just 7 per cent of BSA respondents were graduates, while 44 per cent had no qualifications. Now graduates (25 per cent) outnumber those without any qualifications (20 per cent), according to the BSA study. It also reports that those whose parents were migrants to Britain see both the cultural and economic impacts of migration as positive, as do Londoners.

The challenge to business

If the BSA study presents dilemmas for politicians, it presents a significant challenge for business advocates of the economic benefits of migration too. The BSA survey presents clear evidence that graduates have been convinced, while those who didn’t go to university have not, leaving the public as a whole sceptical that migration will have a net benefit to Britain’s economy.

Yet both the content and style of economic advocacy about migration – which often focuses on the factual evidence about positive net contributions – remains pitched primarily to the more elite, educated audience which is already onside. A focus on the arguments and messengers who could connect with those who didn’t go to university –engaging their concerns about migration constructively – will be important if business advocates want to preach beyond the converted, and to seek majority public support.

Joining the club

BSA respondents were also asked how long it should be before migrants have full and equal access to the same welfare rights as British citizens. Most people believe that citizenship is a ‘club’ and that people need to earn entitlements to it. But the BSA findings show that the majority are pragmatic about how this works in practice: only a fairly small niche take a highly restrictive view.
One per cent say that migrants should ‘never’ have the same access to welfare as British citizens. Only a minority of around a quarter believe that the qualifying period for full welfare access should be five years or more. (18 per cent proposed a five-year wait for EU migrants, and 25 per cent proposed that this would be the right approach for non-EU migrants).

Around one in four (37 per cent) of respondents believe EU migrants should have full and equal access immediately (14 per cent) or after one year (23 per cent). In the BSA findings, most people would see two to three years as fair. Citizenship usually takes five years from those outside the EU, but EU membership constrains governments from discriminating between EU citizens.

This belief, that the willingness to contribute is important, goes with another feature of ‘fair play’ – which is that those who do contribute and play by the rules have to be accepted as fully and equal members of the club.

Lack of knowledge

Public attitudes may not always prove highly responsive to policy changes on immigration, where there is a lack of public knowledge, or low trust about policy. Respondents to the BSA survey were asked whether it was true that ‘there is a limit on the number of work permits the government issues each year to migrants to Britain coming from outside the EU who want to come and work in Britain. Most of these permits are reserved for those with better qualifications and English language skills’.

Forty-five per cent knew this was true, but 42 per cent thought it was false, while 14% didn’t know. Those who were most sceptical about immigration were more likely to give an incorrect answer about work permits.

Contact matters

The BSA report also shows that contact with migrants is associated with more positive, rather than negative views, about the impacts of immigration. ‘While socially marginal groups worry the most about the impact of immigration, those most likely to be directly exposed to migration in their daily lives have much more positive views. Londoners, those with migrant heritage and those with migrant friends (all of whom are more likely to have regular direct contact with migrants) have more positive than negative views about immigration’s effects. The most intensely negative views are found among the oldest voters, and those with no migrant friends’, Heath and Ford conclude.

Reaching the pragmatic middle

The challenge for those who seek to make the positive case for immigration – whether they are political parties, business interests, migrants’ rights advocates or universities seeking continuing openness to international students – is to reach beyond these groups who already agree with them and engage the ‘pragmatic middle’ that the BSA survey identifies.

A rejectionist rump would pull up the drawbridge tomorrow. They are unlikely to ever engage with any argument that would still hold some appeal to the growing group who hold liberal attitudes already. Many have found their political home with UKIP, though it remains to be seen how many will stick with Nigel Farage right through to May 2015’s general election.

The BSA survey echoes existing analysis of public attitudes on immigration. This identifies, sitting between the liberals and rejectionists, a ‘pragmatic middle’ who have reasonable anxieties about the pace of change in Britain and what this means both economically and culturally, but who acknowledge that pulling up the drawbridge is not the answer. It is this group who will accept that migrants can ‘join the club’ and be ‘one of us’ – including accessing the British welfare system – but only if they first show their willingness to play by it’s rules: working hard and paying taxes, learning English and joining in with the community.

It’s this group that politicians and others need to engage. Like others, they have had enough of ‘tough’ promises that can’t be kept. As the issue of immigration becomes increasingly salient in the lead-up to May 2015, they will listen to those who make a pragmatic offer on immigration, one that acknowledges and engages their worries but which is both principled and achievable.

This blog was posted initially on the British Future website.