Memorandum submitted by the Runnymede
Trust
SUMMARY
The claims made recently by former UKBA case
worker Louise Perrett have highlighted the dismal treatment of
refugees and asylum seekers by the British state.
Runnymede is very concerned about the lack of
transparency and accountability in the UK's immigration system.
Perrett's claims are shocking, not only due to the human rights
violations and disregard for the dignity of refugees and asylum
seekers, but also because they reveal a culture of openly expressed
racism. This reflects a broader political consensus that immigration
policies need not verify their equality credentials. As a consequence,
overt racism has found a safe haven within UKBA, which is simply
unacceptable.
There is an urgent need to find ways to introduce
transparency to UKBA. It is deficient enough that immigration
is in important ways exempt from the Race Relations (Amendment)
Act 2000, but the termination of the role of Independent Race
Monitor means that there are virtually no structures in place
to make UKBA accountable.
IMMIGRATION AND
RACE EQUALITY[12]
Runnymede has for some time now been concerned
that migration discourses have successfully been disconnected
from principles of race equality. Hyper"sensitivity and political
correctness, so the argument goes, have cast anyone talking about
migration as bigots, thereby stifling mature discussion. However,
as is often the case with calls for an "honest" and
"democratic" debate on race related issues, this particular
formulation of the immigration debate is a thinly veiled attempt
to legitimise the use of ugly and xenophobic language by politicians
and the press. Unfortunately, however, influential figures of
all hues of the political spectrum have accepted this contention,
which has consequently been allowed to win the argument.
Looking back on the latter half of the 20th
century, it is clear that past immigration policies have had a
pivotal role in shaping the ethnic inequalities of the early 21st
century. Contrary to what some politicians and commentators maintain,
racism and anti-immigrant sentiments have historically been closely
linked. Although talking about immigration is not racist in itself,
immigration policies can—and often do—have a clear
racial bias. It is therefore reasonable to expect that immigration
policies drafted today may be a significant factor in shaping
the future of multi-ethnic Britain. Given that recent changes
in immigration policy—which the government has lauded as
the "biggest shake-up of the UK's border security and immigration
system for 45 years"—have gone hand-in-hand with a
return to assimilationist language in political rhetoric, there
is great urgency in examining these policies closely and critically
to assess their potential impact on race equality.
IMMIGRATION AND
ACCOUNTABILITY[13]
UKBA and immigration officers are able to discriminate
in important ways. As nationality is an important basis for immigration
control, immigration functions have been partially exempt from
the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, specifically section
19D which allows immigration officers, acting in accordance with
a relevant authorisation, to discriminate on the basis of ethnic
or national origin. Although the authorisations have to be issued
by a minister and be backed by statistical evidence to justify
them, we are concerned about the lack of transparency.
It is clear that there is overlap between ethnicity,
nationality, and colour or race. It is difficult to distinguish
between ethnicity and nationality unless factors such as colour
and physical appearance are used. Thus, the authorisations are
subjective and open to abuse.
Labelling people from certain nationalities
or ethnic groups as "greater risk" can become a self-fulfilling
prophesy. Where certain groups come under closer scrutiny and
are more thoroughly examined, their circumstances are more likely
to be doubted, and this may result in higher standards being applied.
This, in turn, can lead to unlawful stereotyping where assumptions
are made based on nationality and other characteristics. The same
applies to decisions in asylum casework, where caseworkers often
apply their own assumptions about what would be "reasonable"
to decide whether an applicant's story is credible. These decisions
can be influenced by stereotyped views of certain nationals who
are predominant in making asylum claims.
We are concerned that the lack of accountability
and transparency, outlined above, has allowed a culture of prejudice
and stereotyping to develop. This includes ethnic profiling at
the UK's ports and borders. The UK Border Agency refutes the suggestion
that it engages in ethnic profiling. Recent work by the Northern
Ireland Human Rights Commission contradicts that claim:
Comments from immigration officers certainly
indicated that certain presumptions were made about nationality.
One immigration officer confirmed that every Nigerian passport
was checked for forgery. Another stated that he knew he would
be routinely lied to and although there was nothing he could do
about it ". . . I can let them know that I'm
not a mug".[14]
CONCLUSION
It is clear to us that immigration policies
need to be reconnected to and informed by principles of race equality.
The exemption of immigration from the Race Relations (Amendment)
Act 2000 has allowed the UKBA to develop into a safe haven for
prejudice and openly expressed racism, and should be abolished.
At minimum, the Immigration Race Monitor should be reinstated.
Furthermore, data collection and monitoring
need to be more robust in order to improve transparency and accountability
within UKBA. Better monitoring of the pattern of decisions at
different ports of entry into the UK would show disparities between
ports. Data from monitoring decisions can also be a tool to support
training of new officials, and in developing existing officials,
to improve skills in assessing credibility. Managers should use
such monitoring data within ports and airports to expose different
patterns and stimulate improved quality assurance. Guidance tools
to define assessment criteria using examples from recent scenarios
would help to improve consistency in decision making.[15]
February 2010
12 This section draws on Kjartan Sveinsson's report
Making a Contribution: New Migrants and Belonging in Multi-Ethnic
Britain. Available under: http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/MakingAContribution-2010.pdf Back
13
This section draws on Mary Coussey's chapter in Ethnic Profiling:
The Use of "Race" in UK Law Enforcement (Runnymede Trust,
2010). Available under: http://www.runnymedetrust.org/events-conferences/econferences/ethnic-profiling-in-uk-law-enforcement/the-report/profiling-and-immigration/profiling-and-immigration-2.html Back
14
See Nazia Latif's chapter in Ethnic Profiling: The Use of "Race"
in UK Law Enforcement (Runnymede Trust, 2010). Available under:
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/events-conferences/econferences/ethnic-profiling-in-uk-law-enforcement/the-report/profiling-and-immigration/racial-profiling-and-immigration-1.html Back
15
See Mary Coussey's chapter in Ethnic Profiling: The Use of "Race"
in UK Law Enforcement (Runnymede Trust, 2010). Available under:
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/events-conferences/econferences/ethnic-profiling-in-uk-law-enforcement/the-report/profiling-and-immigration/profiling-and-immigration-2.html Back
| 
