Greece is at it Again: Mass Deportation Raids Over the Weekend

Via FoxNews

Very depressing news from Greece in the last few days, as the government has rounded up thousands for deportation and shamelessly sought to shift blame for financial issues onto the shoulders of non-citizens.

The minister, Nikos Dendias, defended the mass detentions, saying that a failure to curb a relentless flow of immigrants into Greece would lead the country, which is surviving on foreign loans, to collapse. “Our social fabric is at risk of unraveling,” Mr. Dendias told a private television channel, Skai. “The immigration problem is perhaps even greater than the financial one.”(NYT)

 Oh, if only that were true.

Unfortunately, it is far more likely that this is a cynical move to distract from the country's actual financial problems- reliance on foreign debt, risky lending, artificial inflation- by suggesting that this is an outsider problem, caused by foreigners.

As we have discussed previously in this blog, Greece's asylum system is dangerously backed up, with asylum seekers waiting for years to get a (mandatory) interview or possibly receive refugee status if they are entitled to. With Greece being an entry point into the EU, and with the masses of refugees pouring out of countries effected by the recent tumult in the Middle East, this has meant a compounding of problems- larger numbers of people waiting larger amounts of time to have their status regularized (or, alternatively, to reach a determination that they are not refugees and may legally be deported.) This means some people have been living in Greece for years, waiting to get their status regularized.

It is understandable that the Greek government is anxious to clear up this issue. However, the solution is not to utterly disregard human rights obligations, both under EU and international human rights law, by arbitrarily deporting anyone found during mass "immigration raids" to not possess papers. Not only are some of these individuals likely to be waiting for their appointment with the immigration services, but more to the point, deporting an individual who qualifies as a refugee is refoulement, and is reprehensible and illegal. And you can't tell whether a person is a refugee by a brief glance at their papers, or lack thereof. When 6,000 people are detained over one weekend, it is hard to believe that anyone received a fair shake at a refugee status determination interview.

As history has often demonstrated, in times of economic and social strife it is tempting to rely on xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment as a tool of distraction. But that doesn't mean they should get away with it.

Come on, Greece, you can do better.

Previously:
Greece: The Pressure is on to Fix an Failing Asylum System
Deja Vu: Greek Immigration Crackdown

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.

South Africa: Legal Changes Hurt Asylum Seekers

It's another case of a huge backlog of asylum seekers persuading the government to make decisions that are not well thought out.

South Africa has a huge number of asylum seekers- UNHCR estimates just under 230,000- most of whom originate from Zimbabwe, supplemented by others from the Great Lakes region and the Horm of Africa. Starting in 2009, (perhaps overwhelmed by the numbers) the South African government took a generous policy towards Zimbabweans fleeing Mugabe's regime. Under a "special dispensation," refugees were entitled to remain in S.A. for 6 months, seek employment, and take advantage of educational and healthcare opportunities while their asylum applications were being processed, all without any form of documentation. (Although the dispensation was designed to assist Zimbabweans, as you might be able to guess, the "no documents" feature enabled a range of different nationalities to take advantage of the law.)

Now the government is back-tracking, concerned that economic migrants are abusing a system designed to protect "real" refugees. The department of Home Affairs has resumed deportations, and in the following weeks they will launch an inquiry to the minimum rights asylum-seekers are entitled to, and likely lift the dispensation for Zimbabweans as well as block rights to education and employment. The result could be thousands of asylum seekers in legal limbo, awaiting the outcome of their asylum application while unable to work or study. These developments, in conjunction with harsh announcements from the government and the closing of two refugee facilities, seems to signal a shift towards a harsher asylum regime in South Africa. As one government spokesman stated:

"South Africans must feel safe. If we're not able to control our illegal immigration, people won't feel safe."

It is understandable that providing education and/or employment for thousands of refugees is a costly measure. But the opposite can be ultimately be more expensive: thousands of individuals awaiting the outcome of their claim, turning to begging, crime, or black market employment to make ends meet. Which option do you think is safer for the people of South Africa? And in the event that the move forces massive returns to Zimbabwe as some fear it might, there is the question of whether S.A. is meeting its treaty obligations, particularly as pertains to non-refoulement.

In the end, the real question for South Africa is: is there a middle ground between all or nothing for Zimbabwe's asylum seekers?

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)