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)

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

Is it a good thing? Sweeping changes to US ICE

The NY Times is reporting  that they have obtained a document describing the new immigration priorities policy that Homeland Security will kick off this week- and it is a big deal, effecting some 300,000 cases. Let's break it down.

The policy will be aimed at instructing all actors in the deportation process- from immigration agents, to judges, to prosecutors- to streamline their cases to fit the following priorities: close out cases of non-dangerous undocumented immigrants, and speed up deportations of criminals. According to the Times, the policy is intended to:

scale back deportations of illegal immigrants who were young students, military service members, elderly people or close family of American citizens, among others.

For immigration agents, this means releasing (or perhaps not catching in the first place) people that are not dangerous criminals, repeat offenders, or national security risks. For prosecutors, this means exercising discretion in which cases to bring before the judges. And for judges, this means a more lenient approach to immigration law violators. Sounds like a good deal, right? Particularly in comparison to the heavy-handed approach the Obama administration has taken in ordering over 400,000 deportations (the most of any President in recent memory) in each of the first three years of his presidency. Perhaps that was an effort to clear out the courts to make way for this more liberal policy?

However, there is still much to be concerned about. I visited an immigration detention facility not  long ago, where most individuals held were repeat offenders or criminals. However, the most frequent crime was "loitering," that is, dwelling outside of a hardware store or similar, waiting for work. Will the new policy consider people like this to be deportable?

In addition, while Homeland Security pushes a discretionary, flexible approach, the states are in some cases pushing the opposite message. Alabama, Georgia, Arizona and other states have laws on the books making police officers responsible to some degree for enforcing immigration laws- will they also get the memo that passing non-violent undocumented youth into federal hands is likely to lead to an eventual release? And which level- state or federal- is more likely to have the more immediate impact on immigrant's lives?

At the end of the day, the mish-mash of approaches taken by the US government in the last few decades leads to fear and confusion among immigrants primarily, but also to ample confusion among the law enforcement professionals meant to interpret these laws and policies on every level. It is encouraging to see the Obama administration taking the heat off non-criminal and youth immigration law violators, but until we see Comprehensive Immigration Reform it seems hard to believe that everyone that needs to know will get the message.

US to Review Cases Seeking Deportation (via NY Times)

Realizing the Dream Act

The Dream Act is one of those legislative imperatives, like the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that has been lingering around the halls of the U.S. Congress for years, receiving waxing and waning attention and support as political agendas shift. When Comprehensive Immigration Reform seemed to be gaining headway back in 2006, the DREAM Act was the carrot offered against the many sticks for undocumented immigrants contained in the bill. So what's it all about?

The DREAM Act portal website accurately describes the bill thusly:

Under the rigorous provisions of the DREAM Act, undocumented young people could be eligible for a conditional path to citizenship in exchange for completion of a college degree or two years of military service. Undocumented young people must also demonstrate good moral character to be eligible for and stay in conditional residency.

The basic argument for the DREAM Act is as follows.

1.) Children in the United States are guaranteed access to a K-12 public education, without any regard whatsoever to their immigration status. This has been so since 1983, when the landmark case Plyler v. Doe was handed down by the Supreme Court. The case struck down a Texas statute that would have denied access to public school education by children not "legally admitted" into the US. The logic of the Court (very simplified) was that the 5th and 14th amendment protects all people in the US (not just citizens) against discrimination/ deprival of rights, and therefore in order for the law to be constitutional, it must be rationally related to a substantial state interest. On the contrary, denying education to children was more likely to hurt state interests by relegating the children to a permanent underclass. Not to mention it was especially cruel to punish the children for the actions of the parents (ie, illegally crossing into the country.) Since 1983 this principle has been instituted in school districts across the country and has never been sucessfully challenged.

2.) Having received a high school education, many of these students would naturally have been prepared for the next step in education: a college degree. This makes sense, doesn't it? High school is increasingly geared towards preparation for a college degree, and having been educated in English and participated in the same kind of exams, extracurricular activities, and college prep programs, why wouldn't some or all of these students want to take the next step as many of their classmates?

3.) However, college, for most undocumented students, is an unattainable goal. Not only do most colleges require proof of citizenship, but they have proven particularly loathe to try to delve into the variety of non-illegal immigration statuses (such as temporary protective status or NACARA in cash, all at once. (See, for example: EAE v. Merten.) In sum, undocumented students face massive barriers to a college education, and have to find alternatives for after their high school education.

4.) The same arguments used in Plyler are applicable to college education. Why should students that were brought into the country at a young age be denied the opportunity to improve their career opportunities years later? In a sense, this situation forces otherwise bright and talented students to limit themselves to the kinds of jobs that do not require a college education- meaning that the U.S. deprives its economy of potential doctors, lawyers, scientists, ect, that are so needed. Not to mention that it is just patently unfair to continue to punish these children for the actions of their parents. These are often students that speak English and have otherwise completely assimilated into society, but are cut off from reaching their dreams because of... well, why, actually? I guess that's the point of the DREAM Act.

Apparently, this week will see an intensive lobbying effort on behalf of the DREAM Act by undocumented students in Congress. Whether it will have more success this time around is anyone's guess, but in my opinion it is only a matter of time before we stop depriving our society of the talents of first generation immigrants in this unjust way.

Some interesting articles:

Great old editorial from the NY Times: Pass the Dream Act
Will Perez: A New Civil Rights Movement

And here's a blog, ostensibly by an undocumented youth, about his efforts to get the DREAM Act passed. The Dream Blog

(Photo via Florida Immigrant Coalition Blog)

New Roundup

Here are some odds and ends in Migration News from the past week or so

African Unit Summit Results in Historic IDP Convention
-A recently wrapped conference in Kampala, Uganda brought about a major convention on the rights of IDPs, known now as the "Kampala Convention" (Text available in sidebar.) The African Union planned for the conference, which ended on Oct. 23rd, to address strategies and best practices in dealing with internal displacement, as well as enhance partnerships between states and work together to prevent the causes of large-scale internal displacement. According to theAU the Convention is the first of its kind in the world.

Obama Lifts AIDS Immigration Ban
-On Friday, Pres. Obama lifted a U.S. travel and immigration ban on people infected with HIV or AIDs. The ban has been in place 22 years and put the US in the company of only a handful of other states that had such bans, including Libya, Russia, South Korea and Armenia.

UNHCR Human Trafficking Event Highlights Victims
-A Conference hosted by the UN last week hosted former victims of human trafficking from a variety of different backgrounds and told some of their appalling stories. Particularly jarring was the accusation by one former victim that some US contracting firms, including KBR, were involved in a human trafficking scheme forcing Nepalese men in Iraq to work on US military bases. If true, this would follow a highly publicized case where an American KBR employee was allegedly gang-raped by her co-workers and held hostage when she threatened to go to authorities. So basically, KBR is potentially even more terrible than previously thought.

Human Rights Watch Publishes Report on Unaccompanied Migrant Youth at Paris CDG Airport
-A new report by Human Rights Watch, published last week, condemns France's system of dealing with unacccompanied Migrant youth who end up at Paris Charles De Gaulle Airport. Essentially, migrant children are treated as though they are in a "transit zone" rather than in France, and are therefore denied rights that they would normally have in France. The report, which can be found in full here, alleges that this system puts children at great risk. As researcher Simone Trollier says, "in the airport transit zone, children end up being treated like adult migrants. French authorities should stop pretending this place is not in France and grant children the protection they are entitled to."

Sri Lankans Protest Australian Immigration System
-A group of 78 Sri Lankan refugees off the coast of Australia are refusing to disembark from their ship, the Oceanic Viking, until they are granted refugee status.(See photo above.) The protesters have evidently been in limbo for several years, accepted as refugees by UNHCR, but unable to settle in either Australia or Indonesia. The stand-off comes at a time when Australia is engaged in a heated debate in how they deal with an influx of Asylum Seekers.