Migrants treated as second class human beings

In recent years, migrants - including individuals who were possibly refugees - have reportedly been shot dead by security forces, or dumped to die in the desert in their attempts to cross borders in North Africa. Hundreds more are believed to have died after being pushed back out into the Indian Ocean in boats without functioning engines. Many others die on a regular basis as they try to evade coastguard and naval vessels deployed by the world's richer nations, or because they have been packed on unseaworthy vessels by ruthless smugglers who seem, in some countries, to operate with almost total impunity.

Others migrants are killed by landmines, die of exposure in remote mountain areas, or are raped, forced into bonded labour or prostitution, in both developed and developing countries. In some countries, migrant communities have been forcibly rounded up by the authorities, or have had to flee for their lives as they are attacked by mobs, and seen their homes and businesses ransacked.

Despite the heavy toll, remarkably little attention is devoted to all these deaths and the chronic human rights violations against so many extremely vulnerable men, women and children.

The commonest reaction to this horrific reality seems to be a collective shrug: The deaths are sad of course, but it is the indivdual's own fault for trying to enter other countries uninvited. The unmistakable conclusion is that many of us - politicians, state authorities, media and the general public - view migrants, especially poor migrants, as second-class human beings, who are somehow not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.

It is likely that this year's International Migrants' Day will elicit token expressions of concern before we return to business as usual: keeping migrants out, blaming those in our countries already for some of our social or economic problems - while at the same time readily exploiting them as cheap labour. The trend of criminalization of irregular migration and the use of detention to discourage more people from coming are also likely to continue or get worse.

Such policies often violate the human rights of migrants and contribute to anti-migrant sentiments and xenophobia. Immigrants arriving irregularly in a new country are often detained as a routine procedure and at times without proper judicial safeguards. In addition, irregular migrants intercepted at sea, and others seized by law enforcement officials during raids, are increasingly facing violence, arbitrary detention and premature expulsion. Such actions rarely take into account the mixed character of migration flows, and often lack necessary measures to protect the most vulnerable amongst irregular migrants, such as unaccompanied children, asylum-seekers and victims of trafficking.

Migrants who reach their final destination often face severe discrimination in the fields of housing, education, health, work or social security. Laws discriminating - or allowing for discriminatory practices - against non-nationals, along with programmes and policies that fail to address specific needs and vulnerabilities of migrants, often result in them being unable to access basic services or only able to do so at levels that do not meet international human rights standards.

International human rights law recognizes this heightened vulnerability of migrants, but here too the 'collective shrug' is having a noticeably negative impact.

Thousands live destititute in Leeds

Destitution (n) 1. extreme want of resources or the means of subsistence, complete poverty
2. a deprivation or lack, a deficiency

There is a hidden, largely unreported population in British society which survives on less than a dollar a day - the yardstick that defines acute and unacceptable poverty across the globe. These people are rejected asylum seekers who have 'chosen' to live in destitution because they fear that their lives will be in danger if they return to their home countries.

The section of the Home Office responsible for asylum seekers, the UK Border Agency (UKBA) does not put an exact figure on this population but estimates range from 300,000 to 500,000. These 'failed' applicants are given 21 days, known as the 'move-on' period before financial, legal and health aid is severed. Without a home, thousands of people have taken to living under the radar in Britain, enduring severe poverty, extreme hunger, mental and physical ill health and multiple forms of abuse. Amnesty International believe this to be a deliberate tactic to rush people out of the country. Even the House of Lords deemed that by 'refusing permission for asylum seekers to work and operating a system of support which results in widespread destitution, the Governments treatment of asylum seekers in a number of cases reaches Article 3 ECHP threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment'.

A recent report published by PAFRAS, a charity that works with asylum seekers and refuges in Leeds revealed over half of the people it works with survive on one meal a day and less than £5 a week. Severe depression is widespread and many have experienced racial and physical abuse (including rape) by 'white English people.' Crucially, 95% of the people PAFRAS speak to are from affluent professional backgrounds including lawyers, teachers and television presenters. So the question must be asked, why would they choose to remain here and suffer such neglect and privation?

According to the Refugee Council, half of all recorded destitution cases come from only four countries, Iraq, Iran, Zimbabwe and Eritrea - all places of conflict or that have human rights records. Many were forced to flee these countries because they dared speak out against oppressive regimes in countries where opposing the government leads to detention, torture and sometimes death. Yet despite the government arguing it has 'a proud tradition of offering a place of safety for genuine refugees', many people from these troubled countries continually find their application rejected. But in the case facing many Zimbabweans, legal action currently prevents the government from removing refused asylum seekers back to the country and therefore many have little choice but to slip off the radar.

In contrast to popular opinion, the UK does not receive the most asylum seeker applications in Europe; last year both France and Italy took higher numbers. There are 10.6 million refugees in the world and 90% live in Africa and Asia. In 2006, only 23,610 people claimed asylum and up to two-thirds of these were refused - asylum was just 4% of overall immigration in 2007. Those who do it make to the UK have done so through people smugglers, often paying $10,000 to get passage to a safe country. Their socio-economic status then in their home country debunks the myth that asylum seekers are poverty-stricken individuals whose primary aim when in the UK is to claim benefit and secure council housing.

The destitute asylum seeker population is invisible, it statistically does not exist. But the human stories are there to be discovered. PAFRAS has seen demand for its services (free meals, toiletries, clothes, support and advice) rise from 2,230 visits in 2006 to 6,112 in 2008. Much of the help received by asylum seekers is provided by other impoverished asylum seekers but who are on Section 4 Support - £35 supermarket vouchers a week and no choice accommodation). As one put it, ''It's left to those of us with almost nothing to support those with absolutely nothing.'' This leaves many homeless, starving and open to exploitation and racist attacks.

Thirty-five percent of the women in the PAFRAS report who have no choice put to sleep on the street claim they had been sexually assaulted. One woman was attacked by a gang of five men while she was sleeping in a park - two of these men raping her. Another man was racially abused and stabbed in the eye with a piece of broken glass. But, the vast majority of attacks go unreported as failed asylum seekers are fearful of the police liaising with immigration officials to expedite their removal from the UK.

Many destitute asylum seekers are in poor health, both physically and mentally. Seventy-five percent of those who use PAFRAS have been diagnosed with clinical depression. Peoples psychological problems are a toxic combination of trauma endured in their home country and trauma endured here. But it is not just the adult asylum seeker population crippled by destitution. Five percent of the women interviewed in Leeds have children under the age of 5 born in the UK. Like their mothers, these children are enduring severe poverty and extreme hunger. What will happen when they reach school age?

Jon Burnett of PAFRAS perhaps offers the best possible summary when he states 'the fact that so many people who have escaped persecution are suffering such extreme privations is nothing short of a completely avoidable humanitarian disaster in our own backyard'.