What Moves
the World to Move?

              Never Doubt

The Butchers Apron

           Nellie de jongh

       Winning Campaigns


No-Deportations - Residence Papers for All
Monday 24th July to Sunday 30th July 2023

NUJ Expresses Grave Concern Over AI Generated Story On Refugees

The National Union of Journalists, NUJ has reaffirmed its position that Artificial Inteligence (AI) is no substitute for journalism, following publication of an AI generated story titled “Should refugees in Ireland go home?” The article published in the Limerick Leader and other titles owned bythe Iconic Media Group has been criticised by the NUJ. Its title “Should refugees in Ireland go home” has been been altered to “Can we trust artificial intelligence?” but has led to grave concern by the NUJ and wider public. The piece labelled as generated using ChatGPT also seeks views.

Séamus Dooley, NUJ Irish Secretary, said: “The NUJ would have a grave concern at the use of AI generated material in this fashion. The disclaimer at the beginning of the article confirms the limitations of AI in terms of providing informed research and analysis. The heading "Should refugees in Ireland go home" is classic clickbait and is designed to be provocative. Asylum seekers granted refugee status in Ireland under international law are granted a new home and the notion of asking if they should "go home" seems intended to fuel a debate similar to that generated in the UK.

“While the article seems relatively benign the question is loaded and is a classic trope. A journalist writing such a story would examine the local and national context, talk to relevant agencies and NGOs and perhaps discuss personal stories. The article largely ignores the human dimension, the pain and suffering of those forced to flee persecution or human rights abuses, the complex reasons why people seek asylum and the reasons why refugees may not be in a position to "go home". AI is no substitute for genuine journalism carried out by intelligent human beings paid a decent salary and enjoying proper working conditions."

Source: NUJ, https://tinyurl.com/2p8hephu

Home Office System for Supporting Asylum Seekers Ruled Unlawful

The Home Office’s system for supporting destitute asylum seekers whilst they wait for their asylum claims to be determined has been ruled unlawful after a group of asylum seekers brought a Judicial Review in the High Court.

The ruling found the Home Secretary was in breach of her duty to provide financial support and adequate housing to prevent asylum seekers from being rendered street homeless and hungry. In particular, the Court found that the time the Home Office took to consider applications for support, and then to provide support to those deemed eligible, was unlawful.

The Court also found that the Home Office’s failure to provide emergency interim financial support to those waiting for a decision on their application for support was unlawful. Previously the Home Office would refuse to provide emergency financial support and instead required individuals, including those who had access to their own accommodation, to move into hotel accommodation to avoid starvation.

Read more: Leigh Day, https://tinyurl.com/5n77czks

Home Office Broke Law by Withholding Payments From Pregnant Women and Young Children

The Home Office is legally required to make additional weekly payments to pregnant women and for children under 3 years old of £3/£5 to meet their additional nutritional needs. This mirrors the Healthy Start scheme which people waiting for their asylum claim to be decided are not eligible for. Two DPG clients, HA and SXK, challenged the Home Office’s refusal to make these payments while they were living in hotel accommodation.The Home Office’s defence was that the hotels met their additional nutritional needs, despite multiple reports detailing the extremely poor provisions in hotels, including from the National Audit Office and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. The Claimants gave evidence, which was accepted by the Judge, that they were not provided with additional nutritious food.

In a ruling which will impact thousands of families, the High Court Judge today (21 July 2023) held that the Home Office was required by law to make these payments. Additionally, that even if there was no legal requirement to make the payments, the hotels did not meet HA and SXK’s additional nutritional needs. The Home Office must now start making these payments to the thousands of pregnant women and people with children under 3 years old in hotels without delay.

Source: Deighton Pierce Glynn, https://tinyurl.com/4wthhub3

Should Family Migration be Limited? & What Family Relationships Should be Recognised?

Re-evaluating family immigration policy: part 1

Family immigration policy questions
1) Will the number of family-based immigrants be limited?
2) Which family relationships will be recognised?
3) In what circumstances will family separation be justified?
4) Will family ties affect the application of exclusion or expulsion grounds?
5) Will citizens be preferred over non-citizens?
6) What categories of non-citizens will be entitled to sponsor family members?
7) What will be the procedures for deciding eligibility?
8) Will informal controls such as delay, cost or complexity be used or tolerated?
9) What rights will family-based immigrants have?
10)How will family-based immigration affect the integration of immigrants into society?

There is quite a bit of overlap between these questions, and answers to some inform answers to others. Because this piece of work has ended up taking so long and is correspondingly long in word count, I’ve decided to break it up. I’m just going to address the first two of these questions here and the other answers will follow later, hopefully in the natural pairings you might detect there.

Read more: Colin Yeo, Freemovement, https://tinyurl.com/yc7vsnbp

Calendar of Racism and Resistance (4th – 18 July 2023)

A fortnightly resource for anti-racist and social justice campaigns, highlighting key events in the UK and Europe.

Asylum | Migration | Borders And Internal Controls | Citizenship
Reception And Detention | Deportations |
Electoral Politics | Government Policy
Anti-Fascism And The Far Right
Policing | Prisons | Criminal Justice System
Crime, Punishment and the French ‘Riots’
Counter-Terrorism and National Security
Education | Housing | Poverty | Welfare
Employment | Exploitation | Industrial Action
Racial Violence and Harassment
Culture | Media | Sport

Written by: IRR News Team

Read more: Institute of Race Relations, https://tinyurl.com/2jrztbsr





Mother and Four Children Spent Over a Year in ‘Inadequate’ Accommodation

An asylum-seeking mother and her four children were placed in inadequate hotel accommodation for over a year, the High Court has found. The case is R (on the application of SA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 1787 (Admin). It is a striking example of a judge displaying both faithful adherence to the law and recognition of the real people whose lives are affected by Home Office decision making.

The Facts: SA claimed asylum in March 2022. She was heavily pregnant and had three dependent children then aged 10, nine, and three. In May 2022, the Home Office accepted they were destitute and moved them to a hotel in Peckham. The baby was born in June, and the family were moved to a larger room in late November 2022. The hotel accommodation was supposed to be temporary, but they were still there when the judicial review was heard earlier this month.

Read more: Freemovement, https://tinyurl.com/m2hdnc2k

Home Office Withdraws Objective Evidence Test for Trafficking Decisions

The Home Office has, following a judicial review challenge for two claimants of Duncan Lewis, published new modern slavery statutory guidance which no longer requires a potential victim of trafficking and modern slavery to produce ‘objective’ evidence corroborating a credible account of their experiences in order to receive a positive reasonable grounds decision. Essentially, the Home Office is abandoning the higher “objective” standard of proof that was introduced earlier this year for trafficking cases.

Read more: Freemovement, https://tinyurl.com/yrk9vnpu

Rome’s Anti-Migration Summit Exposes Europe’s Growing Disregard for Rights

European Leaders Seek Closer Cooperation with Authoritarian Regimes

The controversial “Team Europe” deal with Tunisia’s autocratic leader, Kais Saied, set a new low in the European Union’s efforts to curb migrants’ arrivals at any cost. But Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni wants to dig deeper.

The far-right leader has invited authoritarian rulers from across the Middle East and North Africa to gather in Rome on July 23, alongside some European governments and representatives of international financial institutions. While details remain murky, the conference is expected to lay the groundwork for similar deals to the one struck with Tunisia, hailed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as a “blueprint” for the region.

The deal foresees EU financial support and enhanced cooperation with Tunisia in exchange for the country containing departures of migrants and asylum seekers towards Europe. Regrettably, the deal only pays lip service to human rights and fails to acknowledge – let alone address – serious abuses against Black African migrants by Tunisian authorities or attach any human rights conditions.

Its conclusion runs in the complete opposite direction of what a human rights-based approach to migration and refugees should look like. It shows that Europe has learned nothing from its complicity in the horrendous abuses of migrants in Libya, and the intention to replicate the deal elsewhere in the region, notably with Egypt and Morocco, further testifies to that.

Claudio Francavilla & Alice Autin, Human Rights Watch, https://tinyurl.com/mr42dbvw

“Historical Injustice” - Bad Immigration Decisions

As is clear from the decision in Patel (historic injustice; NIAA Part 5A) [2020] UKUT 351(IAC), the phrase “historical injustice” does not connote some specific separate or freestanding legal doctrine but is rather simply a means of describing where, in some specific circumstances, the events of the past in relation to a particular individual’s immigration history may need to be taken into account in weighing the public interest when striking the proportionality balance in an Article 8 case. In relation to the striking of the proportionality balance in cases of this kind we make the following general observations:

a. If an appellant is unable to establish that there has been a wrongful operation by the respondent of her immigration functions there will not have been any historical injustice, as that term is used in Patel, justifying a reduction in the weight given to the public interest identified in section 117B(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Although the possibility cannot be ruled out, an action (or omission) by the respondent falling short of a public law error is unlikely to constitute a wrongful operation by the respondent of her immigration functions.

b. Where the respondent makes a decision that is in accordance with case law that is subsequently overturned there will not have been a wrongful operation by the respondent of her immigration functions if the decision is consistent with the case law at the time the decision was made.

c. In order to establish that there has been a historical injustice, it is not sufficient to identify a wrongful operation by the respondent of her immigration functions. An appellant must also show that he or she suffered as a result. An appellant will not have suffered as a result of wrongly being denied a right of appeal if he or she is unable to establish that there would have been an arguable prospect of succeeding in the appeal.

d. Where, absent good reason, an appellant could have challenged a public law error earlier or could have taken, but did not take, steps to mitigate the claimed prejudice, this will need to be taken into account when considering whether, and if so to what extent, the weight attached to public interest in the maintenance of effective immigration controls should be reduced. Blaming a legal advisor will not normally assist an appellant. See Mansur (immigration adviser's failings: Article 8) Bangladesh [2018] UKUT 274 (IAC).

Source: Upper Tribunal, https://tinyurl.com/2n9wkmy9






Thanks to Positive Action in Housing for Supporting the Work of No Deportation's

Positive Action in Housing - Working Together to Rebuild Lives

An independent, Anti-Racist Homelessness and Human Rghts Charity Dedicated to

Supoorting Refugees and Migrants to Rebuild Their Lives.


Opinions Regarding Immigration Bail

36 Deaths Across the UK Detention Estate

UK Human Rights and Democracy 2020

Hunger Strikes in Immigration Detention

Charter Flights January 2016 Through December 2020

A History of

Immigration Solicitors

Judicial Review

Villainous Mr O