The report found no use of force on a later flight carrying 32 detainees who had been collected from three removal centres including Harmondsworth. Photograph: Shutterstock
Inspection reveals use of force after protest by detainees being deported under ‘one in, one out’ scheme
Asylum seekers who protested against being forcibly removed to France under the Home Office’s controversial “one in, one out” scheme, were transported out of the UK in waist and leg restraints, an inspection report has revealed.
The report by the chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales, Charlie Taylor, inspected a flight to France that took place on 20-21 January this year and on which it found no force was used.
However, it also referenced a flight on 16 January where force was used after a detainees’ sit-down protest the previous evening. The protest was ended after the deployment of “specialist national resources”, said the report, which was published on Monday.
Thirty-two detainees onboard the 20-21 January flight were small boat arrivals who were forcibly removed to France in exchange for a similar number in France brought to the UK legally. Many asylum seekers who arrive in the UK on small boats have experienced persecution including torture and trafficking.
Four use-of-force incidents were recorded in connection with the 16 January flight. Waist restraint belts were applied three times.
Ellie Chowns, Green Party MP for North Herefordshire. CC image Wikipedia.
Responding to plans announced by Nigel Farage to rip up swathes of international law and deport thousands of migrants if Reform UK ever gained power, Green Party MP Ellie Chowns said:
“More inflammatory rhetoric from Farage at a sensitive time in many communities. This dangerous toxic bluster is clearly aimed at whipping up anger, hatred and even disorder. The way he talks about asylum seekers – our fellow global citizens – is reprehensible.
“The policy proposals themselves are unworkable. They rely on ripping up swathes of international law and would likely face many legal obstacles in the UK courts that could use British common law to block such cruelty.
“Iran, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Sudan and Syria feature in the top ten countries for asylum seekers in the UK – all places where people face oppression, conflict, extreme poverty or famine. Asylum claims from people arriving from these countries have high approval rates – almost 100% in the case of Sudan and Syria [1].
“Yet former Reform UK Chair Zia Yusuf has suggested that a Reform government would pay brutal regimes like the Taliban to accept the return of migrants – including unaccompanied children. They must know what could happen to these people when they are returned – they will likely be abused, tortured or executed.
“This is not who we are as a nation. The vast majority of the British public are willing to show compassion towards those fleeing the terrible situations they leave behind.”
Climate science denier Nigel Farage explains that it’s simple to blame asylum-seekers or Muslims for everything.
Starmer announces plan to stop the boats in May 2024 | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
The UK immigration system is racist by design. The Border Security Bill will make it worse
Over the past few years of increasingly hostile migration policies, many in the migrant, including refugee, charity sector have looked to the dawn of a new government with eager anticipation. Surely, a Labour government would undo so many of these cruel anti-migration laws and mark a more ‘progressive’ chapter in migrant rights?
While the new government wasted little time in scrapping the infamous Rwanda Plan (and rightly so) it has diverted funds from that scheme into yet another anti-migrant policy in the form of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. The announcement of this bill proves our caution was completely justified. It’s simply a continuation of the UK’s track record of enacting immigration policies that disproportionately impact people of colour.
We only have to look at the record of the last Labour government to see that they are no different to the Conservatives in embedding anti-migrant policies and rhetoric. Let’s not forget it was a Labour home secretary who first coined the term ‘hostile environment’ and it was New Labour that brought in the restrictive Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which laid the foundation for the hostile environment policies of the past 14 years.
In the past year itself, now-prime minister, Keir Starmer, has made plenty of not-so-subtle signs indicating what approach his government would take towards people seeking safety, including a promise to treat so-called ‘smugglers’ like “terrorists”.
Fast forward one year and these ideas have materialised in the form of the new Border Security Bill. The bill was announced as part of the King’s Speech and is part of a turn towards approaching migration through counter-terror, making space for even greater surveillance of and denial of rights for migrants, including refugees.
This dangerous bill would introduce powers previously been confined to alleged terror offenders, including travel bans and restrictions in the UK and abroad, restrictions on access to the internet and banking, and the ability to apply these measures before someone is even convicted of smuggling offences.
UK’s immigration policy has always been racist
Successive UK governments have essentially tried to ‘outdo’ each other when it comes to making the lives of migrants, including refugees, and racialised communities unbearable. In fact, these rafts of policies stem from a long history of targeting ‘unwelcome’ groups based on colonial constructions of the ‘threat’ and who are considered to be of ‘good character’.
In the Migrants’ Rights Network’s new Hostile Office report, we demonstrate that from the 1905 Aliens Act to the inhumane Migration Act 2023 (Illegal Migration Act), as well as the suffering of the Windrush victims and the government’s ability to deprive people of their citizenship, it should be evident to all of us that immigration laws are underpinned by a desire to limit the presence and freedom of racialised people in the UK.
Proposed powers in the new Border Security Bill would enable border force officers to search people and examine and seize their belongings, including copying data from and retaining people’s mobile phones, without a requirement for reasonable suspicion. It mirrors Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, where someone can be arrested and convicted for refusing to hand over sensitive and personal information, including passcodes to devices, in addition to failing to answer all questions or refusing to provide biometric data – all without the need for reasonable suspicion.
However, implementing counter-terrorism policies into immigration is hardly surprising or new. It marks just another chapter of an increasingly cruel, racist and Islamophobic trajectory in the immigration system.
Take citizenship laws, for example. Deprivation of citizenship and counter-terror laws are linked: most cases of deprivation on ‘public good’ grounds have been justified using counter-terror legislation. We have been campaigning against the expansion of deprivation of citizenship powers and highlighting the racist, Islamophobic nature of them.
Since the 2003 ‘Hamza amendment’ to the British Nationality Act 1981 (an amendment that was passed specifically to deport one man, Abu Hamza, a naturalised British citizen), of those who have had their citizenship revoked since 2002, the majority of people affected have been British Muslims.
Our findings show that between 2002 and 2022, 85% of those stripped of their citizenship had, or were deemed to have, nationalities of countries in Africa, South Asia or West Asia (the Middle East) and 83% were from former British colonies. Of this, 41% were South Asian, all being Pakistani or Bangladeshi.
It is, therefore, not a huge leap to understand that the presence of counter-terror measures serves to limit the freedom, security and sense of belonging for racialised people in the UK, particularly those from a Muslim background.
Meanwhile, in December 2023, the Home Office published an Independent Review of Prevent’s report and the government’s response by William Shawcross (Independent Reviewer of Prevent) in which he recommended the Government explore extending Prevent into the immigration and asylum system. Make no mistake, linking the racist criminal (in)justice and counter-terror systems will further the harm and punishment to people seeking safety and a new life. It will do nothing to target the true roots of why people migrate and are forced to make dangerous border crossings.
The answer to a lack of safe routes is not further criminalisation through the introduction of counter-terror powers, which are often opaque and almost impossible to challenge. This lack of safe routes is why brokers exist, to capitalise on people’s desperation.
The Border Security Bill, and the counter-terrorism approach as part of a package deal, will just continue a long tradition of punishing people of colour at the UK border.
The Doctors Without Borders vessel Geo Barents intercepted two small boats full of migrants navigating toward Europe in the Central Mediterranean on March 16, 2024. (Photo by Simone Boccaccio/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
“As this legislative cycle starts, the E.U. can and must do better than abandon its commitment to the global refugee protection regime,” said an Amnesty campaigner.
Nearly 100 human rights organizations came together Tuesday to emphasize that members of the European Union “must guarantee the right to seek and enjoy asylum and uphold their commitments to the international refugee protection system.”
The joint statement from groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam came as members of the European Parliament prepare for the July 16 plenary sitting, the first meeting scheduled since the bloc’s June elections, which resulted in the far-right “Patriots for Europe” becoming the third-largest alliance in the legislative body.
The human rights coalition underscored obligations under Article 18 of the E.U. Charter of Fundamental Rights and expressed concern about “the recent and increasing attempts by the E.U. and its member states to evade their asylum responsibilities by outsourcing asylum processing and refugee protection risk undermining the international protection system.”
As the groups detailed:
Italy, for instance, is currently seeking to process asylum applications of certain groups of asylum-seekers outside of its territory, from detention in Albania—which risks leading to prolonged, automatic detention, a denial of access to fair asylum procedures with necessary procedural guarantees, and delayed disembarkation for people rescued or intercepted at sea. Others, such as Denmark and Germany, are assessing the feasibility of this type of arrangement. Fifteen E.U. member states and some political groups have endorsed similar shortsighted measures to shift asylum processing outside E.U. territory and encouraged the European Commission to explore ways to facilitate this through further legislative reform, including through a watered-down ‘safe third country’ concept.
These attempts must be seen in the context of parallel containment efforts that seek to stem departures and prevent the arrival of asylum-seekers to E.U. territory through partnership agreements with third countries, with little to no attention to the human rights records of those authorities.
The coalition stressed that “as the extensive track record of human rights violations in partner countries such as Libya demonstrates, the E.U. and Member States have no adequate tools and competencies to effectively monitor or enforce human rights standards outside of E.U. territory.”
A report published in November by Doctors Without Borders features stories of violence that migrants endured in nations including Libya and Tunisia while trying to get to the E.U. That publication also points out that 2023 was the deadliest year for migration in the Central Mediterranean since 2017, due in part to E.U. countries failing to assist those at risk of drowning.
On Friday, our aircrew witnessed 1 of 3 rescues by @soshumanity_de that day. While 111 people were evacuated to Lampedusa, the other ~180 survivors had to stay on board the Humanity 1, assigned the port of Bari, over 1100km & a 4-day crossing away—pure political harassment by 🇮🇹. pic.twitter.com/DXwVFzNq0X
— Sea-Watch International (@seawatch_intl) July 8, 2024
In addition to sounding the alarm about current E.U. policies and practices, the coalition on Tuesday cited examples including Australia’s offshore detention scheme, which “demonstrates how these models have created prolonged confinement and restricted freedom of movement, deeply harming both the mental and physical health of people seeking protection.”
The organizations also pointed to an asylum scheme attempted by the United Kingdom—which left the E.U. in 2020 following the 2016 Brexit vote—and Rwanda, which the statement notes “is not yet in effect following the U.K. Supreme Court declaring it unlawful and in any event is unlikely to be operationalized at any significant scale.”
The U.K.’s failed attempt to forcibly remove people to the African country was “projected to cost a staggering £1.8 million per asylum-seeker returned,” which is equal to €2.13 million or $2.3 million. The coalition called such schemes “not only an unjustifiable waste of public money, but also a lost opportunity to spend it in ways that would truly aid people seeking asylum by investing in fair and humane asylum systems and the communities that welcome them.”
Olivia Sundberg Diez, Amnesty’s E.U. advocate on migration and asylum, said in a statement Tuesday that “attempts by states to outsource their asylum responsibilities to other countries are not new—but have long been criticized, condemned, and rejected for good reason.”
“Just as the U.K.-Rwanda scheme is, rightly, collapsing, the E.U. and its member states should pay attention, stop making false promises, and wasting time and money on expensive, inhumane, and unworkable proposals,” she continued. “As this legislative cycle starts, the E.U. can and must do better than abandon its commitment to the global refugee protection regime.”
The EU and its member states have had some truly terrible policies toward asylum seekers in recent years.
The meeting scheduled for next week will follow the Pact on Migration and Asylum that the European Parliament passed in April and the Council of the E.U. adopted in May. The coalition highlighted that “civil society organizations have been clear about their serious concerns” regarding the reforms while also explaining that “the transfer of asylum-seekers outside of E.U. territory for asylum processing and refugee protection is not provided for in the pact, nor within current E.U. law.”
“After the E.U. and member states have spent close to a decade attempting to reform the E.U.’s asylum system, they should now focus on implementing it with a human rights-centered approach that prioritizes the right to asylum per E.U. law and fundamental principles of international refugee law to which they remain bound,” the coalition concluded. “They should not, mere weeks after the reform has passed, waste further time and resources on proposals that are incompatible with European and international law.”
