LONG READ: This article, written by Migrants Organise CEO Zrinka Bralo, was originally published in the The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics and Arts. Published with permission.
‘If you tolerate this, your children will be next!’ Manic Street Preachers, 1998
I. A Hostile and Racist System by Design
The issue of immigration and human rights law, or more precisely, the human rights of people on the move, has become one of the most urgent challenges for many Western societies. Syrian refugees walking across Europe in 2015 almost faded away in the collective memory. They were replaced by the images of people clinging on the planes leaving Kabul, a mass exodus from Ukraine, people desperately trying to escape Sudan, and, now, the catastrophe in Gaza. In 2023, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) estimated 110 million forcibly displaced people worldwide. Many of them, like 750,000 Rohingyas [1] or 120,000 ethnic Armenians expelled from Nagorno-Karabakh in October 2023 [2], have not been properly registered on the Western news cycle.
Wherever, however, and whenever they arrive, people seeking protection or migrating are often perceived as a threat despite being vulnerable, insignificant in numbers, or needed for the local economy (only 3.6% of the world’s people lived outside their country of birth in 2020) [3].
The UNHCR has warned that the UK immigration legislation passed in 2023 is ‘inconsistent with the country’s obligation under the international human rights and refugee law’. [4]
This is, albeit limited, an attempt to chart some of the trajectories and connections of how hostile environment immigration policy, enforcement, and populist approach to immigration, undermine fundamental human rights and bring into question UK compliance with and membership of international human rights treaties and bodies and the rule of law.
It is also a reflection on the impact on people’s lives from the perspective of a frontline campaigner for migrant and refugee rights and a survivor of the siege of Sarajevo and the UK asylum system [5].
Despite the alarming state of affairs and the horrifying extent to which governments are willing to sink in their implementation of the hostile environment immigration policy, this is a story of hope—how people build resilience, resist hostility and human rights violations, imagine better future, organise in solidarity, and speak out for dignity and justice for all.
Context
There is widespread populist belief, deeply rooted in the right-wing, nationalistic and scarcity narrative, that rights cannot be shared or afforded to everyone. To take this logic further, as inalienable as human rights might be, there aren’t enough rights for everyone. Therefore, to paraphrase Hana Arendt, ‘the right to have rights’ is reserved only for citizens [6]. The not-so-subtle proposition that non-citizens, immigrants, refugees, or foreigners—currently the chief category of the ‘other’, are not to be afforded the same human rights as citizens is nothing new or surprising. At the risk of sounding cynical, it is all too often that we see citizens’ human rights violated, especially if rights are in the way of power interests, political or commercial or both. And yet, at a snail’s pace, some progress is being made.
Our contemporary legal framework defining and safeguarding human rights is historically inextricably linked to the failure to provide protection in the run-up and during WW2. Indeed, the refugee protection defined by the 1951 Refugee Convention was adopted to ensure that human rights and life are protected beyond the borders of the nation-state. The language of the definition of the refugee reflected the time in which the world was coming to terms with the Holocaust.
It was deemed at the time, in the early 50s, that people should have a right to seek protection and that it should be enough for those fleeing to have a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ instead of waiting to experience it. It was recognised that people fleeing persecution may not be able to obtain travel documents or visas and should not be penalised for the mode of their entry and that no one should be returned to a place where they may not be safe and could face torture.
The nation-states did not take long to find excuses to restrict and limit access to protection and find reasons to exclude and refuse protection. The freedom of movement was introduced as a ‘right’ and a ‘privilege’ for those who belong to the ‘club’ of nations.
I remember a woman facing deportation to a country that just a few days later became a member of the European Union. After a lengthy legal struggle and detention, she was forced on the aeroplane while experiencing physical and emotional distress, screaming, and taking her clothes off. The enforcement staff, the cabin crew, and all the passengers who watched it knew that three days later, she would be allowed to fly back to live and work in the UK without any restrictions. So, what was the point of this deportation? As it often happens, there is no point other than scoring some imaginary political point of being tough on immigration. Once the hostile systems are in motion, there is no turning back.
Immigration is often talked about in numbers and not people. The number of people arriving is the most frequently invoked argument for states to justify their failure or refusal to offer protection. However, the number of people that would be acceptable for states to protect has never been established. Like everything to do with power and politics, some refugees are more acceptable than others. The disparity in numbers and treatment of different groups of refugees and unapologetically racist policy at work is only shocking if you have not paid any attention to what has been happening in the past 400 years [7].
I- A Hostile and Racist System by Design
Since the inception of human rights jurisprudence in the 20th century, there have always been forces at play in Western societies that pushed for the restrictions and exclusion of the ‘other’. In such ideological framing, fundamental human rights—which should form the core principles of democratic societies—have been commodified and used to feed dangerous, racist, and divisive rhetoric, behaviour, policies, systems, and structures.
In the UK, immigration—or the rights of immigrants, including subjects of the realm—has only ever been framed through structurally and systemically racist narratives and policies. Since the ‘rivers of blood’ Enoch Powell days and the Primary Purpose Rule [8], the Windrush Scandal and the Rwanda Plan, the successive governments’ zeal to scapegoat immigrants and use the issue to obscure many other political failures has taken the 2023 administration into the breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, with serious implications for everyone living in the UK and all other signatories [9].
Even before 2012, the British government limited immigrants’ rights and access to essential services. But in 2012, the ‘hostile environment policy’ became an official mainstream political project. The name came from Theresa May, the then Home Secretary, stating that her aim ‘was to create here in Britain a really hostile environment for illegal migration’ [10].
Six Home Secretaries later, the mother of all parliaments, without much fuss or questioning, agreed to debate and vote for the so-called Illegal Immigration Act, which, by the admission of the then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, barrister and a former Attorney General no less, may not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights [11].
Such was the zeal to win the votes in the next general election (due in 2024) that nothing was significant enough to stand in the way of it. Not the rights of immigrants and other vulnerable groups. Not the UK’s reputation in the world. Not the relationships with other countries in the region. Not the facts or reality. The dehumanisation of people in need of protection was completed; they became boats that needed to be stopped, detained on barges and rendered to Rwanda. And, of course, there is a ‘magic money tree’ to spend billions on for-profit enforcement companies that mistreat and exploit the people in their care to extract profit [12].
The speed, intensity, implications, and impact of policy on immigration and asylum in the past few years is unprecedented, making it hard to keep up [13]. In just six months of the second half of 2023, the Illegal Migration Bill became an Act; the Government lost the Rwanda case in the Supreme Court, and Suella Braverman lost her job as the Home Secretary. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, just hours after losing the Rwanda case in the Supreme Court, floated the idea of ‘disapplying’ the Human Rights Act and sent his new Home Secretary, James Cleverly, to Rwanda to come back with a treaty (as opposed to the memorandum of understanding) [14]. In the meantime, the government announced that it would legislate reality and bring in the law that Rwanda is a safe country, regardless of the facts or reality. Another government minister resigned, adding to the political power-struggle drama driving this policy freefall [15].
This article will not age well, as by the time of publication, there may be another piece of legislation on immigration to demolish further any rights left for people in need.
To add the context and the time dimension, the Rwanda deal and immigration enforcement are taking place at the same time as the catastrophe in Gaza is unfolding daily [16]; food poverty is at an all-time high in the UK [17], and raw sewage is dumped into 90% of freshwater habitats, and most people worry about paying their bills and mortgages [18].
Many of the deeply disturbing totalitarian policies have already been passed and enacted, such as the one about the deprivation of citizenship without notice or appeal rights, even when a person becomes stateless as a result [19]. Let that sink in.
The extent to which the current UK administration is willing to derogate and completely breach its existing obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 Geneva Convention and how it sets a rather dangerous precedent.
In her statement in the House of Commons on March 7, 2023, The then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, said:
‘But I must say this, the Rule 39 process that enabled the Strasbourg court to block at the last minute, flights to Rwanda, after our courts had refused injunctions, was deeply flawed.
Our ability to control our borders cannot be held back by an opaque process, conducted late at night, with no chance to make our case or even appeal decisions.
That’s why we’ve initiated discussions in Strasbourg, to ensure their blocking orders meet a basic natural justice standard—one that prevents abuse of Rule 39s to thwart removal.
And it’s why the bill will set out the conditions for the UK’s future compliance for such orders. Other countries share our dilemma and will understand the justice of our position.
Our approach is robust and novel, which is why we can’t make a definitive statement of compatibility under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. Of course the UK will always seek to uphold international law and I am confident that this bill is compatible with international law.’ [20]
The speed of the process has obstructed meaningful scrutiny of the Bill by the Parliament, for example:
‘The Government expedited second reading in the House of Commons, chose to hold committee stage on the floor of the House, and at late notice published more than one hundred amendments at Report Stage’ [21].
‘The Home Secretary has made statements that the Lords must not frustrate “the will of the British people” and referred to the Bill as a “manifesto commitment in 2019”, implicitly invoking the Salisbury Convention. However, the 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment was only to “continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so” thus making this appeal to Lords by the then Home Secretary misleading’ [22].
This was a significant shift in rhetoric and open disregard for domestic and international human rights laws and conventions. Up until this moment, the official narrative, including that of the hostile environment immigration policy, was always about respect and compliance with international human rights law, even when discourse and practice were violating fundamental human rights of people excluded from healthcare or subjected to arbitrary, indefinite detention based on their immigration status. Indeed, as a Home Secretary, Sajid Javid tried to rebrand ‘hostile’ into ‘compliant’ environment policy.
It did not work because appearing ‘hostile’ on immigration is seen as one of the key electoral issues. But what are the legal, moral, and humane limits of the ‘control’ and its impact on very vulnerable people and society?
One of the most significant challenges in discussing the ‘hostile environment’ immigration policy with people who are not deeply immersed in it is complete disbelief on the part of the audience. The catalogue of violations of fundamental human rights and dignity is so long and egregious that it becomes unbearable and paralysing for many people when they first hear about it.
I frequently hear a very confused—why? Why would the government do that? It makes no sense? Why would victims of domestic violence be reported to immigration enforcement when running away from their abusive partners? Why would children like baby Omisha be charged £76,000 for cancer treatment by the NHS ? [23] Why would Windrush generation citizens be denied NHS treatment and told to self-deport, having arrived in the country decades ago with their parents, then British subjects? Why would 200 vulnerable people be forced into one bedroom, with one bathroom, in the dissuaded military barracks at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic? [24] Why would people be dispersed into destitution around the country and handed over to for-profit companies, which extracted more than £113 million in profit while mistreating people in their care? [25] Why are migrant domestic workers’ visas tied to their abusive employers while everyone is talking about modern slavery? [26] Why are citizenship fees so extortionate that families cannot afford them? Why is the Home Secretary allowed to strip any potential dual citizen of their British citizenship with no notice, explanation or right of appeal? Why do British citizens need to earn way above the living wage to be able to marry their partners from somewhere else? [27] Why are people who have no other way of seeking protection but to cross over on the boat detained and threatened with removal to Rwanda?
These are just some examples of the hostile environment immigration policy in practice. There is also arbitrary detention, [28] which also means the majority of people seeking protection are effectively on bail, have to report regularly, may be forced to wear a GPS tag and can be detained at any time with no notice or explanation [29].
Many people, banned from working and studying or accessing welfare support, are stuck in this limbo for years if not decades [30]. With almost no access to legal advice and representation, no voice or platform to affect the change.
How did we get here? And what does it mean for human rights, liberty and democracy for all of us?
II- Go Home or Face Arrest—The Hostile Environment Immigration Policy
Within just a decade, the hostile environment policy penetrated all institutions and dismantled the decades of slow and limited progress in equality and human rights. Theresa May’s policies in 2012 built on the decades of rhetoric of ‘illegal’ immigrants, connecting migrants with the perception of criminality in public imagination. Using the tested myths of foreign invaders who take advantage of the precious welfare state without making a contribution, she cleared the path for the hostilities to come, creeping up on centrists, one illiberal move at the time.
Theresa May’s first move as a Home Secretary was to send to north London a co-called Go Home Van, a truck with a massive advert telling people to go back home if in the UK ‘illegally’ or face an arrest. Even though ‘go home’ is a recognised form of hate speech against immigrants and people of colour, there was very little that could be done to hold anyone accountable. Campaigners and migrant rights groups’ only option was to go to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) as the only avenue to challenge the offensive campaign. Ironically, the ASA ruling declared the Go Home campaign misleading on a technicality of a number of arrests advertised on the van and did not find the language to be offensive [31].
Just a year earlier, in 2012, with hardly any publicity, Operation Nexus was launched in London—a joint operation between London’s Metropolitan Police Service and the UK Borders Agency [32]. The aim was to identify and remove the so-called ‘high-harm’ foreign national offenders. It involved the systematic checking of foreign nationals’ immigration status and police questioning without any of the usual procedures the police are required to follow. Nearly 3,000 people were removed between 2012 and 2015 through this extension of police powers. It has increased racial profiling in policing, targeting those who appear ‘foreign’ and increasing already highly controversial ‘stop and search’ policing powers [33].
Operation Nexus embedded immigration officers in the police stations, and questions about immigration status became part of the process of arrest or questioning. Ten years on, this practice still goes on, and does the resistance to it. In December 2023, The Advice on Individual Rights in Europe Centre (The AIRE Centre) was granted permission to appeal against the High Court decision that Operation Nexus is lawful with regard to EU citizens [34].
Once immigration controls became part of policing, and police and immigration enforcement officers sat in the same office, it did not take long to start checking the immigration status of victims of crime. In 2018, in the wake of the Windrush Scandal following a super-complaint by Liberty and Southall Black Sisters, the new policy, entitled ‘information exchange regarding victims of crime with no leave to remain’, was announced by the police to end the practice of reporting victims of crime to immigration enforcement [35].
Devon and Cornwall’s chief constable, Shaun Sawyer, the National Police Chiefs Council on modern slavery and organised immigration crime lead in 2018, said in the Guardian:
‘There were some who perceived we were becoming part of that hostile environment. It was imperative that we were clear with our staff that the role of the police and immigration enforcement are different. We had an inappropriate relationship with immigration enforcement whereby, by proxy, we were helping to kick people out of the country. There were a handful of cases that showed the relationship was too close and could not be tolerated. We are not a branch of immigration enforcement; we deal with crime and vulnerability’. [36]
The findings of the super-complaint published in 2020 showed the failure of these police protocols, and unsurprisingly, significant harm was experienced by the victims of crime and the public as crimes are not reported [37]. Step Up Migrant Women (SUMW) campaign by a coalition of 50 migrant and women’s rights organisations conducted research showing that the fear of immigration enforcement prevents migrant women with insecure status from reporting crimes, including domestic abuse and modern slavery. In many cases, the perpetrators use the threat of immigration enforcement to continue abuse and domestic violence. Despite the commitments and policies, the new Freedom of Information (FOI) request by the Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants in 2022 showed that in two years of the pandemic and lockdown, between 2020 and 2022, 2,656 victims of crime who found the courage to seek help from the police were in turn reported by the police to the Home Office as immigration offenders [38]. They include 419 domestic abuse survivors and 68 victims of child sexual abuse.
This hostile environment co-working practice soon found its way into the NHS and social care. Hospitals now have rather opaque ‘compliance’ departments checking patients’ immigration status, and numerous local authorities spend money on immigration officers ‘embedded’ in their social care and children’s services to ensure that destitute people with children do not get help if their immigration status is precarious [39]. And yes, racial profiling is at play here, too.
Local authorities have a duty to protect children in need, including children of people who are unable to work or access mainstream benefits because of the hostile environment immigration policy. These families are labelled as having No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF). The embedded immigration officers in local authorities, like those in police stations targeting victims and witnesses of crime, are looking at the applications for this last-resort support by people trying to feed their children to detain and deport them instead.
In the NHS, this practice was introduced on the back of the so-called ‘health tourism’—an imaginary problem, the solution to which is to turn the NHS into a border enforcement agency, that possibly costs more to administer, but still, it resonates well with right-wing press.
In 2018, Albert Thompson, a pseudonym used by Sylvester Marshall, who lived and worked in the UK for 44 years, was told he must pay £54,000 for cancer treatment because he could not prove his immigration status [40]. At the time, Sylvester was also homeless, having been evicted from his council flat because he could not prove his immigration status. Albert’s story was one of many told by the Guardian’s Amelia Gentleman [41], exposing the most egregious violations of human rights in what is now known as The Windrush Scandal [42].
As a part of the hostile environment policy, the UK government passed the Immigration Acts in 2014 and 2016, requiring local authorities, landlords, employers, banks, and the NHS to carry out ID checks and to refuse services to those unable to prove legal residence in the UK. As the UK does not have an ID card system, the only way to prove one is a citizen is to have a passport. Many people who arrived in the UK from the Caribbean, while it was still part of the British Empire, did not have adequate paperwork to show that they were citizens and were treated as ‘illegal’ immigrants—stripped of their jobs, homes, and access to healthcare and deported.
The Windrush was the name of one of the first ships that brought people from the Caribbean to the UK after WW2 to rebuild the country and the whole generation became known as the Windrush Generation.The Windrush Scandal is still not over. Despite the media coverage, official apologies, and many reports, many victims are still waiting for proper compensation, exposing the structural hostility of the Home Office, condemned even by the defanged Equality and Human Rights Commission [44].
In May 2022, the Home Office commissioned a report, ‘The Historical Roots of the Windrush Scandal’, which was leaked to the Guardian [45]. The unknown historian wrote a 52-page report which concluded that the ‘origins of the “deep-rooted racism of the Windrush scandal” lie in the fact that “during the period 1950-1981, every single piece of immigration or citizenship legislation was designed at least in part to reduce the number of people with black or brown skin who were permitted to live and work in the UK”’ [46].
‘As a result, the experiences of Britain’s black communities of the Home Office, of the law, and of life in the UK have been fundamentally different from those of white communities,’ the report states. ‘Major immigration legislation in 1962, 1968 and 1971 was designed to reduce the proportion of people living in the United Kingdom who did not have white skin’ [47].
The report was never published, and the Freedom of Information Requests were refused on the grounds that the Home Office’s response to the Windrush scandal included ‘sensitive issues involving the development of policies’. Publication of the document could ‘inhibit discussions and the ability of ministers to take free and frank advice’.
Another important footnote in the Windrush Scandal, and the hostile environment policy in general, is the introduction of the ID requirement for some people, namely immigrants, to ‘prove’ their legitimacy.
The debate about IDs in the UK comes and goes, and demands for IDs are usually not taken very seriously. However, like with the completely non-existent ‘problem’ of ‘health tourism’ in the NHS, the ID system was introduced recently in the form of a Voter ID requirement for the non-existent problem of electoral voting fraud. Interestingly, an old-age bus pass is considered to be a valid Voter ID, while a student ID card is not.
The list of suppressions, discrimination, and outright denial of fundamental human rights for migrants and refugees goes on. The examples above illustrate the insidious, historical, and structurally racist systems interacting over a long period of time. Nothing is too insignificant for the hostile system. These examples also illustrate the failure of democratic oversight and accountability. All systems of checks and balances that should have been there, including the Human Rights Act, have failed the most vulnerable and marginalised people in society.
One last resort, when everything else has been exhausted and failed, used to be to seek representation and support, from the local Member of Parliament. Their duty and the promise of democracy, rights and freedoms they are claiming to uphold is to represent all their constituents and to help them get some resolution or at least a response from institutions that they are struggling with. Many MPs deal with large volumes of immigration casework, as this is one of the most dysfunctional, ‘not fit for purpose’ government departments [48], keeping hundreds of thousands of lives in limbo with their ‘culture of disbelief’ as Lord Ramsbotham, the late Chief Inspector of Prisons called it in 2009 [49].
In 2017, a Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted by Politics.co.uk revealed that Members of Parliament reported their own constituents who had come to them for help to the immigration enforcement line [50]. The FOI showed that between 2014 and 2016, 482 tip-offs were made by MPs.
In 2018, the MPs Not Border Guards campaign by Migrants Organise [51] and Global Justice Now [52] revealed that only 103 MPs agreed to sign a public pledge not to report their constituents to the immigration enforcement hotline. By 2019, an increase of 91% in MPs’ immigration enforcement tip-offs was recorded [53]; in an Orwellian Stasi-like scenario, everyone has become an immigration police [54].
When I inquired why they would not sign the pledge, one of the progressive MPs told me how they had safeguarding concerns. I probed deeper as I did not understand why that would be a reason to report someone to the border enforcement. The MP explained how they discussed with their constituency casework team a possible scenario of a person coming for advice and representation who turns out to be a perpetrator of domestic violence or child abuse. They thought that based on their judgement as a judge and jury, they could report this person to immigration enforcement if they had immigration issues so that they might be removed. How the MP’s staff are qualified to make this judgement is unclear. So what would you do if you suspected someone who was not an immigrant of being a safeguarding risk in this way, I asked. They said, with a completely straight face and unphased by it all, that they would call the police.
These are just some examples of the slippery slope of diminishing the protection of basic legal and human rights for some humans, especially those declared ‘illegal’ by the state. After a decade of racist and hostile measures which undermined the rule of law in the UK, there was nowhere else to go but to Rwanda and the ECHR exit [55].
III- Dignity, Justice, Freedom: ‘It Always Seems Impossible Until it is Done’—Mandela.
In the UK, the implementation of Brexit and the rise of right-wing populism have normalised the hostility towards immigrants. The situation is so unhinged that our government, after losing the legal case in the UK Supreme Court, is now trying to pass the law that Rwanda is safe so we can give them hundreds of millions to take 200 people who came to claim asylum in the way that is lawful internationally, so we will abandon those laws too because there are some right-wing votes that are needed for the upcoming election.
The state of the debate on immigration is so partisan, manipulative and fragmented that it obscures deep structural analysis of the root cause of the issue. Most of us working in the field of human rights and justice are firefighting here and now and no longer have the capacity to tell our stories, understand, or even remember how we ended up here.
Without our stories—present and past—we lack the generative power to imagine and design meaningful policies and solutions away from hostility. Instead, we are reduced to responding to a manipulative algorithm of gaslighting and power struggle in the Westminster bubble.
But remembering, memorialising, and comparing is tricky, as Gary Lineker discovered after ‘that’ tweet.
In the speech that Masha Gessen gave in December 2023, at the ceremony accepting the Hannah Arendt Prize, she said:
‘The Western world and Germany in particular have invested a lot of time, effort, money, creative and political energy in imagining the Holocaust. We have language, images, statistics that are readily available for imagining the Holocaust. We have made it easy for one another to conjure up common images and even memories of the Holocaust. And yet there is a rule – and it is certainly not unique to Germany—that you don’t compare things to the Holocaust. There is a paradox: we imagine the Holocaust in great detail, but we conceive of it as fundamentally unimaginable. It is the kind of evil that we cannot comprehend. But anything that happens in the present is, by definition, imaginable. We can see it. Even small children separated from their parents at the US border and placed in detention are imaginable once we see pictures of them on our screens and hear their voices in audio recordings. So, when Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez in 2019 used the words ‘concentration camps’ to describe migrant detention facilities, this comparison drew fire, among other reasons, because it placed the imaginable—a regular practice of the US government—next to the unimaginable. Anything that is imaginable by the very fact of being seen, heard, witnessed, strikes us as being incomparable to the Holocaust’. [56]
The ‘never again’ was a promise at the heart of the post-WW2 reckoning with the Holocaust. It was a promise born out of desperation of having to face the ‘unimaginable’. It was a way of saying sorry, and we should have known better, and we will do better.
There are many ‘never again’ failures, but as Masha Gessen continues in her speech, there is something positive.
‘One of the structures that we have invented, acting politically, to prevent a repetition of the Holocaust is international humanitarian law, particularly the laws for the protection of civilians. It is also the framework of international jurisprudence, such as the International Criminal Court, war-crimes tribunals, and universal-jurisdiction trials’ [57].
International humanitarian jurisprudence saved my life as I sought protection from the war, and the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia provided some justice as 92 war criminals were convicted and sentenced to prison. Establishing facts and providing spaces for victims to become witnesses is an important step for many survivors to face the future.
As a promise, ‘never again’ was doomed to fail, and history is full of ‘never again’ failing again examples. My ‘never again’ moment of failure was in 1992 when as a granddaughter of the survivor of the Nazi concentration camp, I ended up living through and surviving the brutal war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The genocide and war, although part of my family’s history, were unimaginable until they happened to me. It would not be difficult for me to be cynical about the world; indeed, I often do. That is why I make a conscious effort to have hope. Not hope like some positive feeling of a happiness cult variety, but hope is a practice of resistance, something we do as a community to resist hate, hostility, injustice, and racism in solidarity with each other.
The resistance to the egregious hostile environment immigration policy in the UK is growing, and it is becoming better organised. The organised action of activists, lawyers and grassroots community organisations stopped the first flight to Rwanda in June 2022 [58].
As mentioned, advocacy groups doggedly pursue accountability through strategic litigation, inquiries, commissions and reports. Many investigative journalists will still ask the right questions and tell the hidden stories [59].
In my work at Migrants Organise over the last two decades, I have witnessed the gradual shift away from the top-down charity model of dealing with the symptoms of injustice towards self-organising and demands for justice rooted in the history of our communities [60].
What gives me hope are these self-organised communities of resilience that emerged in solidarity and resistance to hostility. Solidarity Knows No Borders is a movement still in the making, and it is not just about the protection of the rights and dignity of migrants and refugees; it is about the protection of all our freedoms and fundamental rights. There are no small victories in this struggle. The attempt to chart the issue we are grappling with may seem overwhelming, but the resistance to it is inspiring. I urge you to read the stories of people like Simba Mujakachi, who woke up from the coma, having suffered a stroke at the age of 30, and was asked to pay £93,000 because he was a refused asylum seeker. Simba and his supporters organised the Justice4Simba Campaign, and they won! [61] Simba got legal advice, won his status, and his debt was dropped. He can now focus on his recovery and is still inspiring new Patients Not Passports campaigns emerging around the country to support the right to healthcare for all refugees and migrants.
I also urge you to learn more about a group of residents who are organising Haringey Welcome after they learned that their local council was paying for immigration enforcement in their services for destitute residents. Their Welcome Pledge, now adopted by the Haringey Council, direct support for people in need, and persistent accountability demands are the most inspiring examples of local organising that is safeguarding all our rights [62].
The struggle for universal human rights may appear to be too legalistic and distant, but it is happening all around us all the time. The Hastings Refugee Buddy Project, Migrants In Culture, Polish Migrants Organise for Change, Coventry Asylum and Refugee Action Group, Women Asylum Seekers Together are just a few grassroots organisations that you should know about, be inspired by, and organise in solidarity with [63]. They are the people who make the environment really, really welcoming, and more importantly, they are safeguarding the human rights of all of us.
‘If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time, but if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together’. Lilla Watson
Footnote
[1] Al Jazeera, ‘“Many more could die”: Urgent plea for Rohingya refugees trapped at
sea’ (Al Jazeera, 24 December 2023)<https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/24/many-more-could-die-urgent-plea-for-rohingya-refugees-trapped-at-sea> accessed 4 January 2024.
[2] Ruslan Javadov, ‘As an Azerbaijani, I have to speak out about my country’s ethnic
cleansing of Armenians’ Guardian (London, 9 October 2023)
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/09/azerbaijani-ethnic-
cleansing-armenians-nagorno-karabakh-children> accessed 4 January 2024.
[3] Anusha Natarajan, Mohamad Moslimani, and Mark Hugo Lopez, ‘Key facts about
recent trends in global migration’ (Pew Research Center, 16 December 2022)
<https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/16/key-facts-about-recent-
trends-in-global-migration/> accessed 5 January 2024.
[4] United Nations, UK Bill ‘significantly erodes’ human rights and refugee
protections, UN agencies warn (UN News, 18 July 2024)
<https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/07/1138812#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20parliament%20has,refugee%20agency%20UNHCR%20on%20Tuesday>
accessed 4 January 2024.
[5] Migrants Organise, ‘Zrinka Bralo, Migrants Organise CEO Receives Honorary
Doctorate From University Of Exeter’ (Migrants Organise, 1 July 2022)
<https://www.migrantsorganise.org/zrinka-bralo-migrants-organise-ceo/> accessed 2 January 2024; Zrinka Bralo, ‘The case has closed on Ratko Mladić. Now we must honour those who survived him’ Guardian (London, 9 June 2021)
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/09/case-close-ratko-mladi-war-criminal-genocide-prijedor> accessed 2 January 2024.
[6] Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (World Publishing Company 1962).
[7] Georgina Sturge, ‘Asylum statistics’ (House of Commons Library, 12 September
2023 <https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01403/SN01403.pdf>
accessed 4 January 2023.
[8] See report by Young Justice, ‘The primary purpose rule: a rule with no purpose’
(JUSTICE, 1993) <https://files.justice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/06171917/PrimaryPurposeRuleRuleWithNoPurpose.pdf>
accessed 4 January 2024.
[9] Alan Travis, ‘Virginity tests for immigrants “reflected dark age prejudices” of 1970s Britain’ Guardian (London, 8 May 2011)
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/08/virginity-tests-immigrants-prejudices-britain> accessed 4 January 2024.
[10] Maymuna Osman, ‘A Decade Of The Hostile Environment: Watch Kamila
Shamsie’s Powerful Lecture’ (Migrants Organise, 22 June 2022)
<https://www.migrantsorganise.org/from-go-home-vans-to-rwanda-asylum-deal-a-decade-of-the-hostile-environment-a-lecture-by-author-kamila-shamsie/> accessed 5 February 2024.
[11] British Red Cross, ’How the Illegal Migration Act affects vulnerable communities’,
(British Red Cross, 11 August 2023) <https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/migration-
and-displacement/refugees-and-asylum-seekers/what-is-the-illegal-migration-bill> accessed 5 January 2023.
[12] Corporate Watch, ‘The Cost Of Misery: Rising Millions In The Bibby Stockholm
Fiasco’ (Corporate Watch, 11 October 2023) <https://corporatewatch.org/the-cost-of-misery-rising-millions-in-the-bibby-stockholm-fiasco/> accessed 4 January 2023.
[13] Martin Kettle, ‘Yes, the Tories’ migration bill is bad – but the lack of Commons
scrutiny is more disturbing still’ Guardian (London, 13 July 2023)
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/13/tories-migration-bill-
parliament-rebel-mps-debate> accessed 5 January 2024.
[14] Rajeev Syal, ‘Sunak could block Human Rights Act to force through Rwanda
asylum plan’ Guardian (London, 19 November 2023)
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/19/rishi-sunak-could-block-key-human-rights-law-force-through-rwanda-asylum-plan> accessed 5 January 2024.
[15] Pippa Crerar, Ben Quinn, and Peter Walker, ‘Relief for Rishi Sunak as Rwanda
bill passes first vote in Commons’ Guardian (London, 12 December 2023)
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/12/rishi-sunak-survives-rwanda-bill-commons-vote> accessed 5 January 2023.
[16] Al Jazeera, ‘UN: Gaza ‘catastrophe’ threatens to raise record global
displacement’ (Al Jazeera, 13 December 2023)
<https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/13/un-refugee-chief-says-gaza-war-
leading-to-catastrophic-displacement> accessed 5 January 2023.
[17] Brigid Francis-Devine, Shadi Danechi, Xameerah Malik ‘Food poverty:
Households, food banks and free school meals’ (UK Parliament, 24 August 2023)
<https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-
9209/#:~:text=In%202021%2F22%2C%202.1%20million,three%2Dday%20emergency%20food%20parcels.> accessed 4 January 2023.
[18] Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Maximilian Jenz, ’An utter disgrace’: 90% of England’s most precious river habitats blighted by raw sewage and farming pollution’
Guardian (London, 12 August, 2023)
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/12/an-utter-disgrace-90-of-englands-most-precious-river-habitats-blighted-by-raw-sewage-and-farming-
pollution> accessed 4 January 2024.
[19] Diane Taylor, ‘Hundreds stripped of British citizenship in last 15 years, study
finds’ Guardian (London, 21 January 2022) <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2022/jan/21/hundreds-stripped-british-citizenship-last-15-years-study-finds>accessed 4 January 2023.
[20] See Home Secretary statement on the Illegal Immigration Bill delivered on 7
March 2023 <https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-statement-on-the-illegal-immigration-bill> accessed 5 January 2024.
[21] Public Law Project, Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, Amnesty International,
Liberty, Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA), ‘The Illegal Migration Bill:
Constitutional Implications’ (22 May 2023)
<https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/The-Illegal-
Migration-Bill-Constitutional-Implications.pdf> accessed 4 January 2024.
[22] ibid.
[23] Aliya Yule, ‘The Justice For Omisha Campaign–Get Involved!’ (Migrants
Organise, 25 October 2023) <https://www.migrantsorganise.org/the-justice-for-
omisha-campaign-get-involved/> accessed 4 January 2024.
[24] Rob Davies, Jamie Grierson, Ben Stockton, Chantal Da Silva, ‘Home Office
housed asylum seekers in barracks “despite knowing Covid risk”’ Guardian (London,
4 March 2021) <https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/04/home-office-
housed-asylum-seekers-in-barracks-despite-knowing-covid-risk> accessed 5
January 2024.
[25] Diane Taylor, ‘Companies providing housing for UK asylum seekers make
£113m profit’ Guardian (London, 24 October 2023)
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/24/housing-uk-asylum-seekers-companies-profit> accessed 5 January 2024.
[26] Simon Israel, ‘The domestic slaves rescued from London’s richest streets’
(Channel 4 News, 25 August 2023) < https://www.channel4.com/news/the-domestic-slaves-rescued-from-londons-richest-streets> accessed 5 January 2024.
[27] Katharine Charsley and Helena Wray, ‘“Just the rich can do it”: our research
shows how immigration income requirements devastate families’ (The Conversation,
5 December 2023) <https://theconversation.com/just-the-rich-can-do-it-our-research-
shows-how-immigration-income-requirements-devastate-families-219246> accessed
5 January 2024.
[28] Avid, ‘What is immigration detention?’ (Avid)
<https://aviddetention.org.uk/immigration-detention/what-immigration-detention>
accessed 5 January 2024.
[29] ‘Charities protest Capita AGM over controversial government GPS tracking
contract’ (PI, 11 May 2023) <https://privacyinternational.org/press-
release/5065/charities-protest-capita-agm-over-controversial-government-gps-
tracking-contract> accessed 5 January 2024.
[30] Refugee Action, ‘Lift the Ban: People seeking asylum are being frozen out of
work’ (Refugee Action) <https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/lift-the-ban/> accessed 5
January 2024.
[31] Alan Travis, ‘Home Office “go home” vans banned over misleading figures’
Guardian, (London, 9 October 2013)
<https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/09/home-office-go-home-vans-
banned> accessed 5 January 2024.
[32] Melanie Griffiths and Candice Morgan, ‘Deporting High Harm foreign criminals:
Operation Nexus’ (University of Bristol, October 2017)
<https://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/policybristol/briefings-and-reports-
pdfs/2017-briefings–reports-
pdfs/PolicyBristol_Briefing_October_2017_operation_nexus_web.pdf>; Liberty,
‘Operation Nexus Is Dangerous And Discriminatory. It Needs To Go’ (Liberty, 1 June
2018) <https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/operation-nexus-is-dangerous-
and-discriminatory-it-needs-to-go/>; Alpa Parmar, ‘Arresting (non)Citizenship: the
policing migration nexus of nationality, race and criminalization’ (Faculty of Law
Blogs: University of Oxford, 31 March 2020) <https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/research-
subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-
criminologies/blog/2020/03/arresting> all accessed 5 January 2024.
[33] Liberty, ‘Stop and Search’ (Liberty)
<https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/stop-and-search/>
accessed 5 January 2024.
[34] Deighton Pierce Glynn, ‘Aire Centre Appeals Operation Nexus Judgment’ (DPG,
29 September 2017) <https://dpglaw.co.uk/aire-centre-appeals-operation-nexus/>
accessed 5 January 2024.
[35] See ‘Super-complaint prepared by Liberty and Southall Black Sisters and Chief
Constables’
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c1bc478ed915d730c0312fd/Super-
complaint_181218.pdf> accessed 5 January 2024.
[36] Vikram Dodd, ‘Police to stop passing on immigration status of crime victims’
Guardian (London, 7 December 2018) <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2018/dec/07/police-to-stop-passing-on-immigration-status-of-victims>
accessed 5 January 2024.
[37] See ‘Safe to share? Report on Liberty and Southall Black Sisters’ super-
complaint’ (Gov.uk, 17 December 2020)
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach
ment_data/file/945314/safe-to-share-liberty-southall-black-sisters-super-complaint-
policing-immigration-status.pdf> accessed 5 January 2024.
[38] Sebastian Shehadi, ‘Police report hundreds of crime victims a month to
immigration service’ The New Statesman (London, 27 June 2022)
<https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2022/06/police-refer-crime-victims-
deportation-home-office> accessed 5 January 2024.
[39] Hackney Citizen, ‘Council’s use of embedded Home Office staff criticised as part
of “hostile environment”’ Hackney Citizen (London, 16 November 2018)
<https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2018/11/16/councils-use-embedded-home-office-
staff-criticised-part-hostile-environment/> accessed 5 January 2024.
[40] Amelia Gentleman, ‘Windrush scandal: Albert Thompson still in dark about
cancer treatment despite May’s promise’ Guardian (London, 19 April 2018)
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/19/windrush-albert-thompson-
cancer-treatment-theresa-may> accessed 5 January 2024.
[41] Reni Eddo-Lodge, ‘The Windrush Betrayal by Amelia Gentleman and
Homecoming by Colin Grant—review’ Guardian (London, 23 November 2019)
<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/23/windrush-betrayal-amelia-
gentleman-homecoming-colin-grant-review> accessed 5 January 2024.
[42] Kevin Rawlinson, Nadeem Badshah, and Matthew Weaver, ‘Windrush scandal:
timeline of key events’ Guardian (London, 31 March 2022)
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/16/windrush-era-citizens-row-
timeline-of-key-events> accessed 5 January 2024.
[43] Almaz Teffera, ‘The Windrush Scandal 5 Years On—What Needs to Change?’
(Human Rights Watch, 23 June 2023)
<https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/06/23/windrush-scandal-5-years-what-needs-
change> accessed 5 January 2024.
[44] Equality and Human Rights Commission, ’Public Sector Equality Duty
assessment of hostile environment policies’ (November 2020)
<https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/public-sector-equality-duty-assessment-of-hostile-environment-policies.pdf> accessed 5 January 2024.
[45] Amelia Gentleman, ‘Windrush scandal caused by “30 years of racist immigrationlaws”—report’ Guardian (London, 29 May 2022) <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/29/windrush-scandal-caused-by-30-years-of-racist-immigration-laws-report> accessed 5 January 2024.
[46] ibid.
[47] ibid.
[48] ibid.
[49] Hélène Mulholland and Matthew Tempest. ‘System “not fit for purpose”, says
Reid’ Guardian (London, 23 May 2006)
<https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/may/23/immigrationpolicy.immigration1>accessed 5 January 2024.
[50] David Ramsbotham, ‘UK Border Agency shames our nation’ Guardian (London,
19 August 2009)
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/18/uk-border-agency> accessed 5 January 2024.
[51] Natalie Bloomer and Samir Jera, ‘Revealed: MPs using immigration
enforcement hotline to report people to the Home Office’ (politics.co.uk, 1 September 2017) <https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2017/09/01/revealed-mps-using-immigration-enforcement-hotline-to-report-people-to-the-home-office/> accessed 5 January 2024.
[52] Eleanor Weber-Ballard, ‘MPs Must Stop Informing On Constituents For
Immigration Enforcement! Join Our #Mpsnotborderguards Campaign’ (Migrants
Organise, 12 October 2018) <https://www.migrantsorganise.org/mps-must-stop-
informing-on-constituents-for-immigration-enforcement-join-our-
mpsnotborderguards-campaign/> accessed 5 January 2024.
[53] Ed Lewis, ‘Why we’re asking MPs not to act as border guards’ (Global Justice,
19 June 2018) <https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2018/06/why-were-asking-mps-not-act-border-guards/> accessed 5 January 2024.
[54] Aaron Walawalkar, ‘Revealed: 91% Increase In MP Tip-Offs To Immigration
Enforcement In Two Years’ (EachOther, 28 November 2019)
<https://eachother.org.uk/revealed-mps-immigration-enforcement/> accessed 5
January 2024.
[55] Jessica Elgot, ‘MPs criticised for calling immigration hotline 68 times in year’
Guardian (London, 12 October 2018) <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2018/oct/12/mps-criticised-for-calling-immigration-hotline-68-times-in-year>accessed 5 January 2024.
[56] Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, PLP, Amnesty International, Liberty, ILPA,
‘5 ways the Illegal Migration Bill threatens our constitution’ (Public Law Project, 23
May 2023) <https://publiclawproject.org.uk/resources/5-ways-the-illegal-migration-bill-threatens-our-constitution/> accessed 5 January 2024.
[57] Masha Gessen, ‘Comparison is the way we know the world’ (Zeit Online, 18
December 2023) <https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2023-12/masha-gessen-rede-hannah-arendt-preis-english> accessed 5 January 2024.
[58] ibid.
[59] Diane Taylor, Rajeev Syal, and Emine Sinmaz, ‘Rwanda asylum flight cancelled
after 11th-hour ECHR intervention’ Guardian (London, 15 June 2022)
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/european-court-humam-right-makes-11th-hour-intervention-in-rwanda-asylum-seeker-plan> accessed 5 January 2024.
[60] Emiliano Mellino and Matthew Chapman, ‘“All that is missing is a whip”: Home
Office ignored migrant worker abuses on farms’ (Bureau of Investigative Journalism,
22 October 2023) <https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2023-10-22/all-that-is-missing-is-a-whip-home-office-ignored-migrant-worker-abuses-on-farms>accessed 5 January 2024.
[61] Migrants Organise, ‘Stopping is not an option’ (Migrants Organise, 20 December2023) <https://www.migrantsorganise.org/wewontstop/> accessed 5 January 2024.
[62] Migrants Organise ‘Justice for Simba—We Won! Read Simba’s Letter’ (Migrants
Organise, 8 August 2022) <https://www.migrantsorganise.org/justice-for-simba-we-won-read-simbas-letter/> accessed 5 January 2024.
[63] See Haringey Welcome’s Pledge <https://haringeywelcome.org/pledge/>
accessed 6 January 2024.
[64] See <https://haringeywelcome.org/>; <https://www.migrantsinculture.com/>;
<https://www.pomoc.org.uk/>; <https://www.carag.co.uk/>;
<https://www.wastmanchester.com/> all accessed 6 January 2024.
