New Report Draws Attention to UK's Stateless Children

Via Voice of Russia

A new BBC Inside Out episode is causing a flurry in UK news outlets after uncovering a hidden problem: hundreds of stateless children living on London's streets, at risk of exploitation or turning to crime. The report identifies migrant children whom possess no means of identification and are unable to take advantage of social programs, forcing some to turn to crime or prostitution.

One 17-year-old, who fled Libya without her family in 2009, said: “I have to do things that make me sick and ashamed for a few pounds, sometimes even pennies - just so I can eat or get somewhere to sleep for one night.” (The Week)

(If you live in the UK you can watch the clip here.)

This is obviously a horrible problem, but I can't help but wonder: what is the deal with calling all of these kids stateless?

New figures show at least 600 children in the capital are stateless — without a passport or official documentation linking them to their country of residence — and campaigners fear that number is rising.
Many of London’s stateless youths came to the UK legally but were never officially registered, meaning they cannot access education or apply for social housing. For teenagers like 17-year-old Ugandan-born Tony, attempting to become a legal citizen retrospectively can be virtually impossible. (London Evening Standard)

As we know from the 1954 Statelessness Convention, the definition of a stateless person is "a person who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law" (Art. 1). Not possessing a passport or documents might be a feature of statelessness, but its not enough. For example, Ugandan boy Tony, above, has a Ugandan father who kicked him out of his home at age 14. So although he is in an awful, heart-wrenching situation, Ugandan boy Tony is not "stateless", he is more likely Ugandan, and undocumented.

I bring this up because it may hurt the cause to call all these children stateless when in fact they are more likely "legally invisible," at risk of statelessness, or undocumented. The international human rights laws and UK immigrations laws applying to those groups are different, and are not as generous. If Tony were in fact stateless, and born in the UK, he would have a right to citizenship there that would simplify his problems tremendously. However, being legally invisible or undocumented he has limited options, at least under migration law. And that is a real problem- one that deserves more attention given the human rights issues at stake for these children.

The presence in each of these pieces of a disclaimer that most of the kids actually arrived in the UK legally suggests the reason for such a misnomer. If the kids were "illegal immigrant" homeless, would it be a news story? Does anyone feel sorry for kids with more complicated immigration issues, who aren't refugees or stateless?

If the public is outraged or concerned about this problem, it certainly doesn't help to call it something else to arouse additional sympathy. Its not necessarily the UK's "Homeless Stateless Kids" problem... might be more like the UK's "Homeless Kids" problem. And whether these children are actually stateless, legally invisible, or undocumented, don't they deserve some help in getting off the streets?

Read More:
Mapping Statelessness in the UK (Report from UNHCR and Asylum Aid)
Interview: Nando Sigona of Refugee Studies Centre (The Voice of Russia)
No Home, No Country, No Future: The 600 Stateless Children Living on London's Rough Streets (Evening Standard)
Hundreds of Stateless Children Live on UK City Streets (The Week)

And meanwhile, a report from Greece doesn't mince words: Teenage Migrants Trapped in Greece (IRIN)

ECtHR backs deportation of settled migrant in Balogun v. UK

Yesterday the European Court of Human Rights released a disappointing decision in the case Balogun v. UK. The headline out of the case is that the UK may deport long-term settled migrants for sufficiently serious offenses without violating Article 8. Let's dig a little deeper and see what the implications of this ruling may be.

Facts: The applicant, B, is a Nigerian immigrant who was born in '86 and has been in the UK since the age of 3 (this is debated a bit, but at least since age 5.) He lived with an allegedly abusive Aunt and was granted indefinite leave to remain after being kicked out of her house, and entered the foster care system until age 18 when he began to live by himself. From then on he has a criminal record of several counts of theft and possession of controlled substances (all occurring before he reached the age of 21). After a final count of possession with intent to distribute, he was sentenced to 3 years in prison and put into deportation proceedings. He appealed on human rights ground, and the first instance court found that, since he didn't have a significant private life in the UK, his deportation was proportional to the crime.

 With regard to his private life, while it was accepted that he had been in the country since a young age and had been educated there, as well as gaining some work experience, it was not considered that these ties were sufficiently strong to render his deportation an interference with his private life. It appeared that his mother still lived in Nigeria and, even if contact had been lost, as claimed by the applicant, there was no reason why it could not be re-established. Whilst the applicant would have practical difficulties in relocating to Nigeria, he could re-establish his private life there.

Several appeals and a suicide attempt later, we end up at Strasbourg debating whether this deportation violates article 3 (prohibition against torture) or article 8 (freedom from interference with family life).

Ruling: Article 3 is thrown out for being "manifestly unfounded" and I don't care to debate that since this is not an issue involving refoulement. 

Article 8, on the other hand, is where it gets interesting. Both the applicant and the UK spend their time arguing about the nature of the applicants connections to the UK. B claims that he has a long-term girlfriend, his Aunt is like a mother to him, and he has friends and employment connections that he may utilize now that he out of jail and off of drugs. The UK meanwhile contends that B has no significant friends and family interests, at least nothing serious enough to outweigh the public interest served by deporting a threat to public order.

The Court more or less agrees. Having a girlfriend and a few scattered relatives with whom you are on bad terms does not amount to a family life (um, guys, isn't that what most families look like?) but it does make a private life. And importantly, the Court recognizes that the length of time spent in the UK, and having grown up almost exlusively in the care of UK social services means that he has significant ties to the country and will be strongly effected by deportation. However, his criminal record ultimately outweighs these considerations.

He was left at the age of three with an aunt who, according to the applicant and to social services, ill-treated the applicant. He was thrown out by this aunt at the age of fifteen and was thereafter taken into foster care. He has therefore not only spent by far the greater part of his childhood in the United Kingdom and been entirely educated in that country, but has been partly brought up in the care of the United Kingdom’s social services. These elements of the applicant’s background contribute significantly to the Court’s finding that his ties to the United Kingdom are stronger than those to Nigeria. However, while the Court views with sympathy the circumstances of the applicant’s formative years, the fact remains that he is responsible for his own actions. Particularly in light of the fact that the majority of the applicant’s offences were committed when he was already an adult, the Court finds that the applicant cannot excuse his past criminal conduct by reference to his upbringing.

 Even with the impact on his private life, the UK's deportation of B does not violate article 8.

Response: It is obvious from the slant of this blog that I would disagree with this ruling. Legally, I don't think this is a totally outrageous ruling (reasonable people can always disagree), but the underlying premise is one that I think is extremely damaging and unfair.

Someone that lived in the UK since the age of 3, and was raised more or less by the system, is a product of that country. Deporting them to Nigeria is a non-sequitor and obliterates the chance for such a troubled individual to ever lead a normal life. It punishes him for the actions of his parents or parents in moving illegally to the UK, that he could not help or influence. It punishes Nigeria by sending back a bitter individual with a criminal history that will have a hard time adjusting to a completely foreign life. It violates the individual's right to a private life, and it encourages the UK to dump problematic foreigners back to countries they have hardly any connections with.

Its a bad decision and is not justified by out-dated drug charges for which the individual has already served time. B was not a drug dealer at age 3, but became one after spending his entire childhood in the UK. This is a home-grown problem, and regardless how many criminals the UK deports, they will find new ones that they cannot.

As ever, it is my opinion that deportation is not the only, nor the best solution.

ECtHR: Case of Balogun v. the United Kingdom 

And here's a nice fear-mongering Telegraph article pushing for more deportations.

UK: Compensation for child migrants detained as adults

Good and bad news out the UK today as we learn of  major victory in a case brought against the Home Office on behalf of a class of 40 unaccompanied minors. The children were allegedly compensated 2 million pounds- the biggest single payout for an immigration case in UK history, according to the Guardian. So what did the government do to have to pay such a major settlement?

The case apparently involved "age disputed" asylum seekers-  unaccompanied minors that do not have proof of age, and therefore hover between two types of asylum services- those "appropriate" (at least under international law) for adults, and those for children. Normally those children are assessed by social workers who use a variety of factors. However, the problem seems to be that, rather than being given the benefit of the doubt, children were presumed over 18 until being able to produce evidence, and therefore detained at length awaiting proof.

Some of the children were locked up for more than a month. One boy was moved around the country and held in seven different adult centres including Dover, Campsfield and Harmondsworth during his 74-day detention. "I cried myself to sleep every night," he said. "Nobody explained what was going on and I never knew what was going to happen to me when I woke up the next morning."

The case was settled in 2010, but it took a FOIA request by the Guardian to get the information released publicly. 

The bad news? Despite the payout, the practice allegedly continues, bringing to light one of the problems with settling. (Gotta get that precedent, people!) Does this mean we have similar cases on the horizon? Or perhaps at the ECtHR?

£2m paid out over child asylum seekers illegally detained as adults

Non-Citizen News Roundup

Photo via AP

Israel: On Sunday, hundreds of immigrants and allies protested at the Israeli Immigrant Absorption Ministry after a recent government recommendation to reduce the number of Ethiopian Jews accepted monthly as part of aliyah. The idea comes at a time when the government claims it is having trouble keeping up with the pace of immigration and assimilation needs. Opponents of the plan claim that there are already close to 4,000 recognized Ethiopian Jews waiting to immigrate and that the Government is looking for excuses to avoid its obligations. (There's probably a little truth to both positions.)
Ethiopians Protest Govt's Proposal to Reduce Aliyah (via Jerusalem Post)

UK: The United Kingdom is getting some increased (and probably unwanted) attention in the wake of a new report by UNHCR describing the legal limbo that stateless persons there live in. Many have been denied asylum or any right to remain, but are also un-deportable because no country will accept them. Therefore, they live on the street or hang out in detention centers- not a good situation.
Mapping Statelessness in the UK (via UNHCR)
What its like to be Stateless in Britain- Nischal's Story (via Alertnet)

Australia: Shockingly, Australia has more asylum trouble this week, as 3 Kurdish aslyum-seekers have sewn their lips together in the wake of having their asylum applications denied. Due to the fact that the young men are stateless, they cannot be repatriated anywhere and instead have remained in detention for between 18 and 22 months each. Much like the UK problems described above- it sounds like governments are going to need to reevaluate how they handle non-deportable stateless persons- endless detention and legal limbo are not the answer!
3 Kurdish Men Sew lips together in Protest (via Courier Mail)
Asylum Seekers sew lips together in Australia Protest (via AsiaOne)

UK to opt-out of EU Asylum Directive?

According to an article in the Guardian, the United Kingdom is considering opting out of the 2003 asylum procedure directive ("minimum standards directive") . By doing so, they could avoid having to give individual interviews to asylum seekers, and keep their "fast track" asylum procedure in place.

"Ministers fear the EU directive, which forms a key part of developing a common asylum policy, will also block deportations of "manifestly unfounded" failed asylum seekers before they can appeal. About 150 failed asylum seekers a year are told that lodging an appeal against their claim being turned down will not halt their deportation and they can only appeal once they have left Britain."

Not only that, but it would be expensive to implement. (The Home Office lists 37 million pounds, though I'd love to know how they came up with that.)

 We'll have to keep an eye out for further developments on this story... is the UK about to become an even unfriendlier destination for asylum seekers?

Petition Against Deportation of Bita Ghaedy

[Photo via Indymedia]

UK Indymedia is featuring the harrowing story of Bita Ghaedy, an Iranian woman seeking asylum in the UK. Apparently she has been on a 2 week hunger strike to resist deportation. You can read her story here and sign a petition for her non-refoulement here.

However, I haven't seen any updates on her situation, so if anyone has let me know!