Immigration News Articles

Source: No-Deportations – Residence Papers for All

News & Views Monday 17th December to Sunday 23rd December

  • Guardian, World, Migration by Jon Henley: UK and German Immigration: A Tale of Two Very Different Lawsfull article

  • Home Office Criticized for Deleting Records on Death of Detainee
  • Guardian by Ismail Einashe: Hundreds of Trafficked Children ‘Lost’ by Local Authorities – full article
  • Guidelines on Assessing and Determining the Best Interests of the Child (UNHCR) – Source


UK and German Immigration: A Tale of Two Very Different Laws

 Two European countries announced radical overhauls of their immigration rules on Wednesday, but there the similarity ended.

 Britain, where concerns about long-term impacts of immigration helped drive the 2016 vote to leave the European Union, billed its stricter regime as “a route to strengthened border security and an end to free movement”.

Germany, however, facing such a shortage of workers that is threatening economic growth, said it was easing immigration rules to attract more foreign job-seekers.

 In an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the British home secretary, Sajid Javid, stressed that the Conservatives’ 2017 election manifesto had made clear the party’s “commitment to bring net migration down”.

His counterpart in Germany, Horst Seehofer, said: “We need manpower from third countries to safeguard our prosperity and fill our job vacancies.” The economy minister, Peter Altmaier, hailed the new law – keenly awaited by business – as historic.

 Britain’s priority appears primarily to be establishing a system of tough controls capable of keeping certain people out. Business has accused the government of putting a political imperative for restriction before the needs of the economy.

In contrast, by introducing looser visa procedures and reducing red tape Germany’s emphasis appears to be on making it easier for certain people to enter and to stay. Some in Angela Merkel’s conservative alliance and in the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) have said such a move ignores public concerns about immigration.

Read more: Jon Henley, Guardian,

Home Office Criticised for Deleting Records on Death of Detainee

 A coroner has accused the Home Office of “manipulating statistics” relating to deaths in immigration detention after it emerged that some records relating to the death of a detainee had been deleted. Senior coroner André Rebello made the comments at the conclusion of an inquest at Liverpool and Wirral coroner’s court on Wednesday into the death of 35-year-old Polish man Michal Netyks. Netyks was found dead at HM Prison Altcourse in Liverpool on 7 December last year. A jury concluded that the cause of death was suicide, partly contributed to by the immigration deportation process.  Netyks had completed a short prison sentence and had packed his bags ready for release when he received the news that, instead of being freed, the Home Office was going to deport him to Poland. He had lived and worked in the UK for 12 years.

 The eight-day inquest heard that he died from a head injury after jumping from a floor of the building soon after he received the news that he was going to be deported. Rebello said that partially redacted notes provided to the inquest by the Home Office indicated that records had been deleted by senior management. He said: “This needs investigation and an explanation as its effect is to manipulate statistics – it appears to be almost a denial of the facts.”

 This is not the first time the Home Office has been criticised over its lack of transparency relating to deaths in detention. The Guardian and other sources reported that there were 11 deaths n immigration detention last year – an all-time high. However, at the end of last month the Home Office for the first time ever published detention death statistics as part of new “transparency data”. Officials said there had only been four deaths last year. Read more: Diane Taylor, Guardian,


Hundreds of Trafficked Children ‘Lost’ by Local Authorities

A quarter of trafficked children who were in the care of local authorities in the UK last year have going missing from the system, according to new research by two British charities that work with vulnerable children.

British children make up the second largest trafficked group after Vietnamese. Photograph: Jack Sullivan/Alamy

The new figures raise serious questions about the capacity of local authorities to provide a safe environment for vulnerable children who arrive in the UK alone, or after being rescued from trafficking gangs. The report – to be published this week and seen by the Observer – shows that of the 1,015 children reported by local authorities as identified or suspected victims of trafficking in 2017, 24% – 276 – have gone missing from the care system.

The charities ECPAT (Every Child Protected Against Trafficking) and Missing People found that, in total, 5,780 unaccompanied and trafficked children were reported as being in local authority care in 2017, an 8% increase on 2014-15. The study found 15% of unaccompanied children had also gone missing from care. Overall, 190 of the total missing children have not yet been found. The findings are from Freedom of Information requests to 217 local authorities with responsibility for children’s social care in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Read more: Ismail Einashe, Guardian,

Guidelines on Assessing and Determining the Best Interests of the Child
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

A Child as defined in Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), means “every human being below the age of 18 years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier”. In terms of actions by UNHCR, the word “child” refers to all children falling under the competence of the Office, including asylum-seeking children, refugee children, stateless children, internally displaced children and returnee children assisted and protected by UNHCR.

Children at Risk are those children who are at heightened risk of violence, exploitation, abuse or neglect as a result of exposure to risks in the wider protection environment and/or risks resulting from individual circumstances. Children at risk can include, but are not limited to: unaccompanied and separated children, particularly those in child-headed households as well as those accompanied by abusive or exploitative adults; stateless children; child parents; child victims of trafficking and sexual abuse, including pornography, paedophilia and prostitution; survivors of torture; survivors of violence, in particular sexual and gender-based violence and other forms of abuse and exploitation; child spouses, particularly those under the age specified in national laws and/or children in forced marriages; children who are  or have been associated with armed forces or groups; children in detention; children who suffer from social discrimination; children with mental or physical disabilities; children living with or affected by HIV and AIDS and children suffering from other serious diseases; and children out of school.

Unaccompanied Children are children who have been separated from both parents and other relatives and are not being cared for by an adult who, by law or custom, is responsible for doing so. Please note that some States still refer to these children as “unaccompanied minors” in their legislation and policies; UNHCR uses the term unaccompanied children.

Separated Children are those separated from both parents, or from their previous legal or customary primary care-giver, but not necessarily from other relatives. These may, therefore, include children accompanied by other adult family members.

Orphans are children both of whose parents are known to be dead. In some countries, however, a child who has lost one parent is also called an orphan. 

The Best Interests Procedure (BIP) describes UNHCR’s individual case management procedure for children of concern. It is a multi-step process that goes through identification, assessment, case action planning, implementation, follow-up and case closure. It includes two important procedural elements: The Best Interests Assessment (BIA) and the Best Interests Determination (BID).

A Best Interests Determination (BID) describes the formal process with strict procedural safeguards designed to determine the child’s best interests for particularly important decisions affecting the child. It should facilitate adequate child participation without discrimination, involve decision-makers with relevant areas of expertise, and balance all relevant factors in order to assess the best option. 

A Best Interests Assessment (BIA) is an assessment made by staff taking action with regard to individual children, except when a BID is required, designed to ensure that such action gives a primary consideration to the child’s best interests. The assessment can be done alone or in consultation with others by staff with the required expertise and requires the participation of the child.

A solution is achieved when a durable legal status is obtained which ensures national protection for civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. 

Consent is any freely given and informed indication of an agreement by a person, which may be given either by a written or oral statement or by a clear affirmative action. ln the case of children, consent should generally be obtained from the child’s parent or guardian, as well as consent or assent from the child according to the child’s age and maturity. “Assent” is the expressed willingness or agreement of the child. Consent from parents/guardians is not necessary where it is not in the best interests of the child to share information with the child’s parents/guardian or where parents/guardians are not reachable. The information provided and the way in which consent/assent is expressed must be appropriate to the age and capacity of the child and to the particular circumstances in which it is given.

Complementary Pathways are safe and regulated avenues by which refugees are provided with lawful stay in a third country where their international protection needs are met, while they are given opportunities such as learning new skills, acquiring an education, and contributing as workers in the labour market. Complementary pathways are not meant to substitute the protection afforded to refugees under the international protection regime; they complement it and serve as an important expression of global solidarity, international cooperation and more equitable responsibility sharing to meet the protection needs of refugees and support them to achieve durable solutions. While resettlement must remain a protection, tool guided by protection and humanitarian imperatives and must not be conflated with migration pathways, complementary pathways can help widen temporary options available for refugees with few prospects of attaining a durable solution particularly in protracted and large-scale refugee situations.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s