'Racist' UK policies blamed for deaths of 77 asylum seekers and migrants

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Guardian

'Racist' UK policies blamed for deaths of 77 asylum seekers and migrants
Fatality figures likely to be an underestimate, according to report for Institute of Race Relations
Karen McVeigh guardian.co.uk,
Sunday 17 October 2010 21.46 BST

Racist asylum and immigration policies in the UK have led to the deaths of 77 asylum seekers and migrants over the past four years, according to a report for the Institute of Race Relations (IRR).

More than a third (28) of the deaths reported by the IRR are people suspected or known to have taken their own lives after their asylum claims had been turned down. Seven are said to have died after being denied health care for "preventable medical problems", seven are said to have died in prison custody, and 15 are said to have died during desperate and "highly risky" attempts to enter the country.

The report, which chronicles the often invisible lives and deaths of asylum seekers as they struggle to gain status in Britain, comes less than a week after the death of Jimmy Mubenga, 46, who died while being deported to Angola, and includes his death.

Witnesses have told the Guardian that the father of five collapsed after being restrained by security guards and complaining of breathing problems.



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/17/asylum-seekers-migrants-uk-report

[Edweird]

1. Immigration is not a right.

[boppers]

2. A quote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[Edweird]

3. Yes it is a quote. It has nothing to do with immigration, however.

[whathehell]

7. The quote is from America's Constitution

it's unrelated to the U.K.

[Edweird]

10. It's also unrelated to immigration.

[whathehell]

16. I get that.....

but when one discusses the problems of a nation, it would seem important to know the particular nation we are discussing.:eyes:

[AngryAmish]

26. Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson shakes head, walks away.

[whathehell]

27. My bad..

But as far as TJ's disappointment, I don't think so..The OP is NOT about America, it's about the U.K.

[boppers]

11. Key word: Unalienable

The concept is that some rights are universal, and apply to all people regardless of their citizenship status.

[Edweird]

12. LULZ. Well you just march right to the INS and tell them. Finally SOMEBODY has it all figured out.

Better yet, try to cross the border with no ID. Explain your 'unalienable right' to the guy with the gun.

[iverglas]

28. And this thread has nothing to do with immigration

typos fixed


So what was your point?

Asylum -- refugee protection -- is a right, under international conventions, for those who can establish that they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of residence.

You might want to educate yourself before making pointless and moronic comments.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is the key legal document in defining who is a refugee, their rights and the legal obligations of states. The 1967 Protocol removed geographical and temporal restrictions from the Convention.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/refugees.htm

Article 1. - Definition of the term "refugee"

A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "refugee" shall apply to any person who:

(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization;

Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organization during the period of its activities shall not prevent the status of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfil the conditions of paragraph 2 of this section;

(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 <restriction has been removed> and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

[Edweird]

29. Which they applied for and were denied. Not enough action in the gungeon for you?

[iverglas]

31. You're too cute for words.

"Which they applied for and were denied."

One third of the deaths were accounted for that way, according to the OP.

Anybody ever been wrongfully convicted of a crime, where you are? Any factors like racism ever at play in those cases?

Do you suppose that it's just possible that analogous situations might occur in the refugee determination process in some places? That genuine refugee claimants might be denied asylum?

I'll answer that question for you -- based on my 12 years' practice in refugee law.

Yup. Genuine refugee claimants are sometimes rejected.

Rejection of a refugee claim is no more proof that the claimant wasn't genuine than conviction is proof that an accused committed the crime.

[Judi Lynn]

4. It's a right for any Cuban national in the United States. He/she is awarded with instant work visa,

legal status protecting him from deportation, unlike ALL OTHER people, instant access to social security, welfare, food stamps, US taxpayer-financed Section 8 housing, medical treatment, and federal assistance for education, and other perks available in abundance designed to attract Cuban immigrants to the US as a political statement.

This array of benefits is available to NO OTHER PEOPLE. Only Cuban nationals. They are politically desirable.

Immigration is not only a right in their case, it's an obsession for the Cuban "exile" radical reactionary faction in the U.S. and their pawns in the U.S. Congress.

[Edweird]

8. Please direct me to that part of the constitution or applicable ammendment.

Hint: The Cuban Adjustment Act isn't a 'right' but a policy subject to revocation at will.

[whathehell]

6. Really?

It seems to be considered one in this country.

[Edweird]

9. Only by anti-labor types as far as I can tell. (They are sadly mistaken)

[readmoreoften]

14. Oh right, like all labor is racist and xenophobic! Immigrants are not our enemy; the bosses are.

Capital will use whoever it can to drive down wages: immigrants, women, Blacks, prisoners, etc. The enemy is not immigrants, women, prisoners, etc. The enemy is the bosses. Immigrants are no more likely to scab than those born in the states.

[Edweird]

17. So you believe the fact that labor jobs pay a living a wage in Canada,

but don't (anymore!) in the US is completely unrelated to their enforced immigration restrictions?

[iverglas]

30. Do you have any clue about anything?

The fact that blue-collar jobs, what's left of them, pay living wages in Canada actually has to do with things like the Rand Formula (go google that -- it has to do with union rights), and the fact that we don't have "right-to-work" laws that depress wages and make workers vulnerable and that some places (like Quebec) have anti-scab legislation, and that low-wage workers at least don't have to pay out half their income if they want health insurance, thus making their real wages higher relative to the US. For example.

Immigration legislation in Canada and the US is not very different, although Canada's refugee rules are more consistent with various rights both countries allegedly recognize.

Canada does not share a border with a country from which large numbers of people seek to emigrate. That is the major difference between the two contexts.

We are, however, seen as an easy mark for economic migrants because of our usually clogged refugee claim process, enabling people to remain in the country for long periods even if their refugee claims are totally specious. This is a problem that both the left and the right have grappled with for a long time -- striking a balance between fair treatment of genuine refugees and expeditious rejection of specious claims, so as not to provide an incentive for people who use that system to remain in the country. We haven't found the perfect solution yet.

[Edweird]

32. In about 6-8 mos I'll be applying for permanent residency. Maybe we'll be neighbors :)

[iverglas]

34. what is with all the edits?

I can't imagine why you'd be wanting to live here, frankly.

[Edweird]

35. I'm typing on a netbook and I have big fingers - plus I suck at typing.

I end up correcting errors after I post.

Why would I want to live there? 1) My trade gets paid well there. 2) I'm a hardcore mountain biker and Whistler/North Vancouver is my 'Mecca' 3) Healthcare Yeah the weather stinks but you can't have it all. My alternative is Australia and I'm not very enthused about that even though the money is much better.

[nomorenomore08]

13. Yeah, those folks should just stay in their own countries and starve to death, be tortured,

be ethnically cleansed... :sarcasm:

[Edweird]

15. Every country has to act in the best interest of it's citizens.

Part of that is immigration restrictions. There's only so much altruism available.It's unfortunate, but that's the reality. Much like how you may donate to worthy charities, but you certainly have a limit lest you find yourself homeless and destitute yourself. You cannot give money to everyone that asks for it.

[nomorenomore08]

18. Well, I would argue that Britain, for instance, has some degree of responsibility

to its former colonies, countries which it exploited materially and economically for hundreds of years, and most of which have only been independent for a matter of decades. Just as the U.S., having interfered (even to this day) in Mexico's political and economic affairs, to the detriment of most Mexican citizens, has a degree of responsibility to that country - arguably including the willingness to take in economic refugees, because that's exactly what most "illegal" Mexican immigrants are.

Basically, I'm saying I find the notion that immigrants and asylum seekers are "breaking the law" rather hypocritical...

[Edweird]

19. Yeah, that's the 'Maginot Line' of the 'they ain't hurtin' nobody' crowd.

It's also anti-labor hogwash.

[provis99]

20. none of that was happening to these people.

Their asylum claims were rejected because they weren't refugees. Get your facts straight.

[nomorenomore08]

22. I was talking more about the general attitude toward immigrants and asylum seekers.

People can be remarkably callous when it comes to those they view as "other."

[iverglas]

33. and the wrongfully convicted in the US were executed

because they committed the crimes they were wrongfully convicted of.

Got some facts of your own to prove that the individuals in question whose claims were rejected weren't refugees?

[Skip Intro]

21. This is a fact. nt

[Nihil]

23. "a fact"? That wasn't even a post, much less "a fact". (n/t)

[whathehell]

5. The conclusion of the report is interesting..

"Asylum seekers are demonised by the mass media as illegals and scroungers and to appease popular racism, governments across Europe, in addition to making access to refugee status much more difficult, have decided to accelerate the deportation of the many who have 'failed'.

"Such forced deportations of those terrified of being returned to the countries they have fled – often areas in which we are involved and at war – will inevitably lead to more deaths."

[intaglio]

24. Recommended by a Brit

Because we really do have racist immigration laws here.

[Nihil]

25. Yes, even the Guardian prints complete bollocks at times ...

We start off with the fiction in the headline:

> 'Racist' UK policies blamed for deaths of 77 asylum seekers and migrants

... then ease it back a notch for the opening:

> Racist asylum and immigration policies in the UK have led to the deaths
> of 77 asylum seekers and migrants over the past four years


... then let the facts trickle out in the hope that they'll be missed or just
ignored by the people going straight to "indignant hysteria" from the headline:

> More than a third (28) of the deaths reported by the IRR are people suspected
> or known to have taken their own lives after their asylum claims had been
> turned down.

> Seven are said to have died after being denied health care for "preventable
> medical problems",

> seven are said to have died in prison custody,

> and 15 are said to have died during desperate and "highly risky"
> attempts to enter the country.

That last group of alleged "victims" died by their own stupidity and/or
incompetence while trying to enter the country illegally ... and yet somehow
the country that didn't even receive their footstep is being blamed for its
"racist" policies?

OK :eyes:


The only point worth reading in that article was the reference to the death
of Mubenga. (The jury is still out on that one FWIW but it sounds pretty
suspicious from what has been reported so far).