What do YOU think? From today’s Observer:
Mutwadi was a clinical biologist at a hospital in Kinshasa. In 2003 he was asked to help the security services to murder leading opposition politicians. He was chosen because he was active in opposition politics and had the means to administer lethal injections and falsify hospital medical records.
‘Fabulous rewards were offered to me, and a great deal of pressure was applied by the security services to accept this commission, but as a Christian and a medical professional I had to refuse,’ he said. ‘I was asked to rethink my decision, and knew that if I remained in Congo I would be killed. I fled immediately to priests who could protect me until arrangements could be made to get me out quickly.
‘The security services killed my brother, Kakesa, when he was unable to give them information regarding my whereabouts.’
Mutwadi was smuggled to the UK, where he immediately claimed asylum, which was rejected. Throughout 2004 the Home Office tried to send him back, only to fail after interventions by politicians and Amnesty International. Now on bail, he is awaiting the outcome of a judicial review of the Home Office’s decision. ‘My return to Congo would result in my immediate death,’ he said.’
What part does changing political situations play?
‘There was a time when a number of countries were considered no-go areas. But now Somalia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Iraq are not even considered dangerous,’ said Lord Avebury, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Africa in the Lords.
Home Office figures show that 65 people were returned to Congo from the UK last year, 105 to Zimbabwe, 150 to Somalia, 760 to Iraq and 795 to Afghanistan. Many [were] sent back against their will.
BUT: How sure are governments that “no-go” areas are now safe? And, of what quality is the intelligence used to make these determinations?
Their fears were justified. Abdinassir Abdulatif, a Somali forcibly returned by the Dutch authorities, was murdered last June … The institute [will] argue that, by sending asylum seekers back to war-torn countries, Britain is breaching the Geneva convention which says ‘no state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, [or] membership of a particular group or political opinion’.
How is the upcoming UK election a factor?
The protection of child asylum seekers is a cause for which Angelina Jolie traveled to Washington, D.C. on March 8:
Children fleeing persecution and arriving alone in the United States will now have better access to free legal counsel, thanks to the new National Center for Refugee and Immigrant Children in Washington, D.C.
The centre was launched on Tuesday by UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie, who last year donated $500,000 to the centre and who has been advocating for more than two years on the issue of unaccompanied children seeking asylum who are detained in the US. Reuters Alternet
On the U.N. site, Jolie reports:
Over 6,000 children arrive alone in the United States every year. Some are fleeing persecution, many are fleeing abuse. Some are trafficked to work as prostitutes or in sweatshops. Many are eligible for asylum or other humanitarian status in the United States, but US laws do not give them the legal assistance they need to apply. …
This is a worldwide concern. Here are links to just a few of Amnesty International’s reports:
- Refugees have rights
- 2004 Annual Report
- Italy (Urgent Action): Forcible return/fear for safety/fear of torture to Libya
- Malaysia: Concerns about planned deportations of hundreds of thousands of migrants
- Belgium: Round-up and deportation of Slovak Romani asylum-seekers
- USA: Lost in the labyrinth: detention of asylum-seekers
- Iraq: Forcible return of refugees and asylum-seekers is contrary to international law (Nov. 2003)
What should nations do?
The first thing that happens to me when I read stories like those above is that I instantly put myself in their shoes and can begin to imagine the stress and terror they’re going through, and the agonizing hope they’re holding onto that a nation like thet UK, the US, Australia, Italy, etc. will welcome them.
I can also see why governments have to be vigilant about who gets in, and why. But a lot of these asylum seekers are fine people who will undoubtedly contribute much to their new country — they’re often the kind of courageous, ethical people we always need more of in every country.
Then again, it’s like my home. If my heart had its way, I’d have 7 foster kids, 18 cats, a couple dogs, some rats, and an injured raccoon. Not smart in a one-bedroom home. And I couldn’t afford to care for all of them. So, I have to make choices, and that sucks.
American-Statesman – Undocumented workers wary of Bush immigration plan (free registration). Highly recommended reading on the immigration issue in general, but this leapt off the page for me
House leaders cast the measure, which potentially sends asylum-seekers back to their homelands and restricts judicial review for people challenging deportation, as being in the interests of national security. Critics vigorously dispute this and say the restrictions and others contained in the legislation are anti-immigrant. The Senate could vote on the measure this week. (bf mine)
I once had a student who fled Zimbabwe in the night with her two very young children – walking the last few miles to and across the border. Her father had been murdered for refusing to carry out an order to murder opponents of Mugabe. She managed to make it to England, then to the US, and received asylum here. It was while she was in my class that she went for her asylum hearing. She said she was sure that she would be killed if she had to return, and she was a very quiet, serious, and intelligent young woman – I have no reason to doubt her assessment of the situation. But it sounds like she – and her children – would probably be sent back there under this proposed law.
I’m appalled – there I go again, still being appalled – when will I ever learn that this is SOP now? Anyway, I’ll write Cornyn and KayBee, again, but you’ll have to revive me from a dead swoon if they vote against this travesty.
Janet, if more Americans heard stories like the one you tell, sympathy for asylum seekers’ plights might increase.
When I had to work very late at a company east of Seattle, we got taxi vouchers. I always got the same man if I called for a cab around 11PM or midnight. He was from East Africa, and on the long trip home, while he drove, we talked. He was imprisoned for 7 years in East Africa, and the soles of his feet were beaten countless times. His family survived, he told me, because he’d hidden money in the walls of their home. Then, when he got out, he walked from East Africa to Ethiopia, met up with his family at a refugee camp, and eventually got his entire family to the U.S. They live in West Seattle. One of his daughters goes to the Univ. of Washington. He was a lovely person, and my heart swelled with gladness that he’d survived his ordeal and made it here.
There appears to be an increase in xenophobia in Europe and other rich nations. Recall Pim Fortuyn of the Netherlands and the wave of populism he was riding. While he was murdered, his party went on to gain influence.
Look at Denmark, a welfare state with solid social-democratic traditions where Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Venstre (Liberal-centre/right) won the elections in 2001 on a platform that included to seriously limit immigration.
And have a look at this to see how the Australian Government handled more than 400 boat-refugees back in 2001.
So on one hand, we allow the social disintegration to continue in the least developed countries – corrupt and despotic leadership, coupled with a host of epidemics, hunger and a lack of even the most basic social services. At the same time, we refuse entry to those who bravely have voiced opposition – or otherwise got caught up in local politics. Leaving (or returning) them to fend for themselves – in some cases to certain death.
How do we expect oppositions to form if they are not even accorded the ‘safety-valve’ of political asylum if the persecution gets to oppressive?
What short-sighted policies our leaders make…
should be how they would wish their children treated, were they ever have the need to seek asylum.
Sometimes it really is that simple. 🙂
The Statue of Liberty is losing its relevance. See the Amnesty International report for USA.
Great numbers of Haitian and Chinese illegal immigrants seek entry into U.S. via St. Maarten (Dutch) and subsequently to the U.S. Virgin Islands. They are routinely rounded up and put into detention in Puerto Rico. Since the Patriot Act we hear less and less about them.
The Chinese arrive via a vast smuggling apparatus. The Haitians are just desperate people and have been refused political asylum for years. Yet our policies toward Haiti are reprehensible.
What’s happening to the Geneva Conventions? How it is that they can just be ignored?
Washington does not consider them applicable to people kidnapped by its gunmen, whether in the US or outside it.
Michael Howard, the British Tory leader, is the son of refugees from Romania. This does not seem to have moderated his approach.
Thanks for writing such a brilliant story on this Susan.
What’s been happening over here lately is pretty appalling and I think it will only get worse in the run-up to the election.
Ultimately, I think that what it comes down to is that here, as in the United States, the official value that attaches to people’s lives depends on what passport they hold and the colour of their skin.
As to what nations should do?
They should open their borders. They should stop criminalising people for seeking to escape political persecution and/or poverty. And frankly, people who claim to be progressive/leftist/liberal/democrats etc. should bloody well stop claiming that immigration restrictions don’t have to do with racism — claims which seem to be awfully thick on the ground just down the road from here.
But thanks again for a brilliant diary
It just amazes me to hear people go on and on about how awful it is that all of “those people” are sneaking across our southern border. They’re illegal they rant – they are breaking the law just being here, rant, rant, take our jobs, use our social services, it’s just so terrible, rant, rant, we must have armed vigilantes down there!
But these same people act like the US only has one border. Illegal immigrants from Canada don’t seem to bother them. If confronted, they would probably say it’s the numbers of illegal immigrants from the south that is the problem, but I’m not buying it. It’s because they’re brown, and they don’t speak English.
I don’t know. I mean… I know how nations should treat asylum seekers… I think all of them should be let in. It’s to our (collective) eternal shame that people who are in danger of their lives, or fleeing abuse, persecution, slavery, or starvation are turned away from lands of plenty. I don’t know who is left to be ashamed of us though, who can’t have a finger pointed back at themselves. I am not sure I know what to do about it, either.
Most refugees wind up in countries nearby to the point of conflict/danger, often ones just as poor as the place they left, but at least safer. It makes it harder on the poor host country, of course, but well, what can you do? Except also close your borders, or ignore the strife in the next country, in order to avoid having refugees flood across the borders. The rich countries have no excuse at all.
I used to think we’d be more enlightened as time went on, but unless we stand our ground worldwide and win now, or in the very near future, I have less confidence in that.
Great points.. You made me think about Chad, which is receiving so many refugees from Sudan. I don’t know so am asking: Is Chad getting sufficient aid and military back-up? I saw a headline somewhere yesterday that Chad is facing reprisals.
Oh, I’m not sure either. I read something not too long ago about it, but don’t know what or where. Somebody really needs to invent a one-click news organizer. Too bad I’m not a programmer, I’d be rich by now, sigh ;).
As I write this, the Malta Armed Forces have just recovered a second body in three days from the waters off the north coast of Gozo. The first, a young Asian woman, was pulled from the sea by helicopter on Friday, less than a mile from my home.
http://217.145.4.56/ind/news.asp?newsitemid=14217
It is generally believed that they are among a group of Chinese immigrants, possibly as many as 15 in all, who were forced overboard at gunpoint two weeks ago by smugglers trying to avoid apprehension by the Italian Navy.
Malta, three tiny islands in the middle of the Mediterranean, has a huge problem with migration: it is within easy reach of the north coast of Africa, less than 200 miles away, and only 60 miles from Sicily. Trafficking is a growing problem, and tragedies like those above are becoming all too familiar. Malta’s capacity to deal with the issues involved is stretched to its limits, and only since joining the EU, and gaining their assistance, has any progress been made. Open centers, where people are free to come and go, with work permits in hand, are becoming the norm, in contrast to the “lock them up and send them back” policies of the not so distant past.
Many of the people arriving on Malta’s shores are truly refugees within the applicable definitions of persecution; many are not, and would be classified as economic migrants. Much is made about that difference in the raging debates about just how big the welcome mat should be.
In the end, it really doesn’t matter. If all of the conflicts in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia miraculously ended tomorrow, and peace and tolerance reigned across these regions, the flow of human beings would not slow to any significant degree, because abject crushing poverty at home would remain as a major driving force.
I remember reading a study once that indicated that the average incomes in countries on the north shore of the Med were ten times those of the countries to the south and east. You cannot have that kind of disparity in such proximity, and expect people not to attempt to make the journey. Human spirit, the desire to make things better for one’s children, cannot be denied or suppressed, no matter how high the walls are built.
There are no easy answers. Absorption capacity in destination countries has limits, and development to alleviate poverty in the home countries carries a host of problems as well. Solutions will be be expensive, but they must be undertaken with compassion and a firm commitment, or we will continue to fish bodies out of the sea.
I hope you’ll transform this into a diary. You are THERE.
…one of these days. Or maybe one about the guy that showed up at trafficked women’s shelter that I supervised, insisting that I was violating his human rights because I refused to return his property – I swear that he used that word. Interesting afternoon, that was.
I have been involved in a few refugee/asylum projects over the years, so I tend to keep an eye on things as they develop when I am here between contracts. Malta had a horrible reputation as concerned migration issues when I first moved here, but has really made an effort to clean up the process. They are even now putting together a system to allow journalist access to the detention centers that are still in existence, but it has not been an easy struggle, and many people have been hurt along the way.
I think the key was the success of the first “open center.” Refugees were given free movement, and encouraged to seek employment, and lo and behold, the republic did not disintegrate. Imagine that. Now, more than 70% of the refugees here live in open center settings and things are getting slowly but steadily better.
Unfortunately, tragedies such as occurred this past week are all too common. This incident is a big deal here, since it appears that there is sufficient evidence that Maltese were involved in the trafficking, and the homicides, and folks here are outraged.
The Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the British Home Office is under resourced. Its staff have too little training for the life and death matters they deal with. I have heard that a senior Immigration officer had to remind his colleagues that it was possible to grant applications. All too often the idea seemed to be to write the most appeal proof refusal letter possible.
The opportunities for appeal have been restricted and the unfairness of the process has become worse, with each new piece of legislation. There is a new Act each year because the politicians notice that people are upset about asylum and immogration and it is simpler to pass new legislation (even if it is just to repeal the last ill thought out scheme which has not yet been implemented properly) than it is to administer the system effectively.
The Conservatives, in the current election campaign, have come up with the bright idea of a maximum quota for asylum seekers. As the United Nations Convention currently requires each asylum claim to be considered, to implement the Tory idea will require the UK to withdraw from the Refugee Convention. To put it mildly this would be an extreme step. It would also be insufficient because for example the prohibition against torture in the European Convention of Human Rights could still be used by an asylum seeker to try to avoid being returned to a situation where there is a reasonable risk of torture.
The Home Office is not much concerned with the fate of failed asylum seekers it returns to foreign countries. Once they are back home they are no longer the British government’s problem.
I do remember a case a few years ago where soldiers had broken into the asylum seekers house in Congo and shot his father. The asylum claim failed because there was no evidence that the soldiers were going to kill the asylum seeker. There is a principle in the asylum law that international protection will not be granted just because a country is dangerous and the asylum seeker faces the ordinary risks of living there, but only if the particular asylum seeker can demonstrate a well founded fear that he or she is at risk of persecution (for a Convention reason) if returned.
I am sorry if I have gone into too much detail but I spent several years dealing with the incredibly frustrating Home Office system for my clients.
Gary, this is fascinating. Thanks for giving us a better picture of the situation. Are you a barrister? What types of cases have you found to be the most successful?
And, something I keep wondering about: What if the asylum seeker KNOWS he’ll be in grave danger should he/she return home, but can’t produce documented proof? What if all he/she has is his/her own testimony? Is that enough?
I practised as a solicitor rather than a barrister. The distinction is less significant than it used to be in the English legal system, but it still exists.
Most asylum seekers lacked documentary evidence. For some reason the secret police did not usually provide documentation of what they had done. Even if exceptionaly quite a lot of documents were produced that did not necessarily help, if an unsympathetic decision taker did not accept the asylum seekers credibility.
The best evidence of past persecution, if available, is probably medical evidence of torture. It also helps if there has been a consistent and credible account given at various stages of the asylum process.
The second aspect of an asylum appeal is the objective evidence (reports by the Home Office, US State Department, Amnesty International and so on), which would hopefully demonstrate that the asylum seeker’s account was consistent with the sort of things which went on in the home country. This is also vital to show that there was still a problem. It is not helpful if the claim of persecution in the Home Office interview is based upon membership of a political party, which by the time of the appeal had come to power.
There are also usually some Human Rights points which could be raised, particularly about torture as the prohibition of this is more absolute than most of the rights in the European Convention of Human Rights.
Other rights, like the right to respect for private and family life, could often be evaded in an immigration context. Typically the asylum seeker having come to the UK, often years before as the asylum system was so slow, had married someone entitled to be in the UK by the time the appeal was heard. It is not sufficient to show this, as the right to married life could be exercised in the asylum seeker’s home country unless there is a good reason why not.
For example I represented an Iranian exile who was caring for his disabled wife. She was also from Iran but had the right to be in the UK as an Italian citizen. The asylum claim was rejected so the only basis on which I was able to keep the client in the UK was that the wife had converted to Christianity and so could not return to Iran safely. This factor allowed a sympathetic Immigration Adjudicator to rule that the right to family life was engaged and could not be exercised in Iran.