Barrister says Home Office’s unwillingness to protect 11-year-old makes a mockery of FGM protection orders
The UK government has said that the £60,000 bereavement payment to the families of health workers killed by the coronavirus will not apply to care workers or hospital cleaners.
The Tories have also said that families of the deceased have no automatic right to remain in the UK. Families of people who died trying to keeping us safe and well could face deportation if their right to remain is withdrawn.
Johnson and his fellow Tories will no doubt still make sure they are filmed ‘clapping for carers’ tomorrow.
With four children, 11 grandchildren, and one great-grandchild, Mozaffar Saberi and Rezvan Habibimarand have good reason to be proud of the family they have created. All living a short distance from one another, the close-knit relatives know that if they need help with anything, or even just a little company, there is always someone available.
And with their advancing years and failing health, it has never been more important for Mozaffar and his wife to have such support.
But the comfortable life they have spent years building together in the city of Edinburgh could soon be taken away from them.
Richard Stewart is one of my constituents in Edmonton, where I am the member of parliament. He came to the UK from Jamaica in 1955, aged 10, and has lived here and paid taxes for over six decades. He even played for Middlesex county cricket club. However, in 2013 he was told by the Home Office that he had lost his British nationality when Jamaica declared independence in 1962. He has faced uncertainty over his legal status ever since.
Trevor Lloyd Johnson is another constituent. He arrived from Jamaica in 1971, almost four decades ago, aged 10. Trevor was threatened with the possibility of deportation, and his family has spent the last few months in a nightmare of Home Office bureaucracy, tracking down historical documents that he was never asked to hold on to in the first place. He had to do so to prove his right not to be deported.
Paulette Wilson had been in Britain for 50 years when she received a letter informing her that she was an illegal immigrant and was going to be removed and sent back to Jamaica, the country she left when she was 10 and has never visited since.
Last month, she spent a week at Yarl’s Wood detention centre before being sent to the immigration removal centre at Heathrow, where detainees are taken just before they are flown out of the country. It was only a last-minute intervention from her MP and a local charity that prevented a forced removal. She has since been allowed to return home, but will have to report again to the Home Office in early December and is still worried about the possibility of renewed attempts to remove her.
The experience of being detained and threatened with deportation to a country she has no links with has been profoundly upsetting for Paulette, a grandmother and former cook, who has paid national insurance contributions for 34 years and can prove a long history of working and paying taxes in this country.
Paulette, 61, arrived in the UK in 1968, went to primary and secondary school in Britain, raised her daughter, Natalie, here and has helped to bring up her granddaughter. For a while, she worked in the House of Commons restaurant overlooking the Thames, serving meals to MPs and parliamentary security staff. More recently, she has volunteered at her local church, making weekly meals for homeless people.
She has been left furious and distraught by this sudden Home Office decision to categorise her as an illegal immigrant. The week of detention in Yarl’s Wood was the worst experience of her life.
“I felt like I didn’t exist. I wondered what was going to happen to me. All I did was cry, thinking of my daughter and granddaughter; thinking that I wasn’t going to see them again,” she says while sitting in Natalie’s flat in Wolverhampton. She was taken from the Home Office reporting centre in Solihull, Birmingham, in a secure van and told she was going to be sent out of the country. “I couldn’t eat or sleep; still now I can’t eat and sleep properly.”
When staff told her after she had spent a week in Yarl’s Wood that they were going to take her to the removal centre, she was allowed to call Natalie; she screamed in terror down the phone. “I was panicking because that evening they took away a lady. I watched her crying and being taken away. It was very scary,” she says.
Paulette’s solicitor, Jim Wilson, is working to persuade Home Office staff that Paulette has a legal right to stay in the UK because she moved here before the 1973 Immigration Act gave people who had already settled in Britain indefinite leave to remain. Although the decision to detain and remove her is extremely unusual, there is evidence that a large number of people who came legally to the UK in the 60s have found themselves wrongly caught up in the “hostile environment” Theresa May said she wanted to create for illegal immigrants in 2012.
Migrant rights charities around the country are increasingly coming across people who have been living here for 50 or more years – often people from the Commonwealth – who came to the UK when there was no need to apply formally for leave to remain. They have only recently encountered problems because they have no documents to prove their right to be here. (Newer arrivals, who came after immigration laws became tougher and less welcoming, are less likely to find themselves in Paulette’s situation.)
In a separate case earlier this month, an urgent appeal was made to trace former pupils of a school in Maidenhead, to see if they could help save a homeless woman who also faces deportation. Eleanor Rogers, 71, arrived in Britain from Sierra Leone in 1966 and has lived and worked here since. She has lost her documentation and she, too, faces removal back to a country she hasn’t lived in for 51 years unless she can find people who can help prove she has been here for five decades. In a report, Chasing Status: If Not British, Then What Am I?, immigration advisors warn of a “virtually invisible and rarely acknowledged group who can’t easily prove their legal status”, who are surprised to find their right to live in the country where they have lived all their adult life being challenged.
When she was 10, Paulette’s mother put her on a plane to the UK, to live with her grandfather, a factory worker, and her grandmother, a care worker. Her mother, who she never saw again, sent her here for a better life and, on the whole, Paulette has been happy here. She never travelled back to Jamaica and never applied for a passport. She never gave a thought to her immigration status.
In 2015, she was shocked to receive a letter informing her she was an illegal immigrant and that she had six months to leave the country. For a few days, she told no one. “I was panicking. I was too scared to tell my daughter,” she says.
Her housing benefit and sickness benefits were stopped immediately, leaving her homeless. For two years, Natalie has been supporting her financially and a friend has let her stay in his flat. She was told to report monthly to the Home Office.
Natalie and her case worker, Daniel Ashwell, at the Refugee and Migrant Centre in Wolverhampton have gathered documents proving that she has been in the country for 50 years. Paulette’s grandparents struggled to look after her for a while when she was in her teens and they sent her to a children’s home. The family now has letters from Shropshire council, acknowledging that she was there in the 70s. Her case worker believes there has been some bureaucratic confusion on the part of the Home Office, and a lack of understanding among junior staff about the law making it clear that Paulette has the right to remain.
“They have deprived her of everything,” Natalie says, detailing how her mother has been near destitution for the past two years. “I am surprised we didn’t lose her from the stress. She is normally so bubbly and sociable. Since she came out of Yarl’s Wood she has withdrawn.” A few times in the last month, Paulette, who lives nearby, has come to her flat in the middle of night, waking her to tell her she is scared that Home Office workers are going to come to take her away. She can’t sleep until she gets into Natalie’s bed. “I feel very angry. They have put me through the worst heartache anyone could go through,” she says. Paulette’s MP, Labour’s Emma Reynolds, says: “It is really shocking that the Home Office is detaining a woman in her 60s who has been here for 50 years. It seems to me that Paulette Wilson was detained wrongly and I am seeking clarification from the Home Office. My understanding is that she is here legally.”
Her solicitor, Jim Wilson, who volunteers legal support to the Refugee and Migrant Centre, says he knows of a number of people in a similar situation, but no one else who had been detained and threatened with removal.
Unusually, Paulette was not given a document giving details of the Home Office’s decisions when she was released from detention. Ashwell, her caseworker, says he has requested it several times, but has had no response. He says he has dealt with as many as 40 similar cases of people who have lived here for decades, but do not have British citizenship. “It’s very hard to communicate with anyone in the Home Office,” he says. “It’s hard to get through on the phone and you never speak to the person making the decision because those numbers aren’t provided. You’re always talking to an intermediary.”
Satbir Singh, chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants is also troubled by her case. “Paulette is part of this country, part of her community and she belongs here,” he says.
He also expresses concern about the week Paulette spent in detention. “It is unlawful to put someone in detention without a realistic chance that they will actually be removed. We see time and time again that people are placed in detention only to be later released. This inflicts huge trauma on individuals who may have done nothing wrong, at a shocking cost to the taxpayer.”
In a response to Paulette’s MP, a member of the Home Office “account management team” wrote: “It may help to explain that Ms Wilson currently has no legal basis of stay within the UK and is liable to detention or removal.” The Guardian has approached the Home Office for further comment.
Paulette is despairing at the pressure she is under to prove that she is British. The application to process leave to remain documents costs more than £240, money she does not have. Legal aid is no longer available for cases such as hers. She is terrified that she could be separated from her family. “I don’t know anyone in Jamaica. I had no passport so I couldn’t go,” she says. Paulette does not like to be asked if she feels British. “I don’t feel British. I am British. I’ve been raised here, all I know is Britain. What the hell can I call myself except British? I’m still angry that I have to prove it. I feel angry that I have to go through this.” AG
Source : ‘I can’t eat or sleep’: the woman threatened with deportation after 50 years in Britain : The Guardian
The more I see and hear President Donald Trump wishes to govern as a dictator, which will be the end of democracy in America. He believes he is the one supreme being whose word or demand has to be obeyed.
He has all ready started to take control of the press and now is starting on the judiciary. Then what is his next venture holding camps or even worse extermination camps for those who he and he alone considers undesirables and where have we seen that occur before.
On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security released a pair of memos laying out how the agency intends to implement President Donald Trump’s executive orders on domestic immigration enforcement. In addition to calling for a massive increase in the number of immigration agents and the deputizing of local and state law enforcement across the country — described in the documents as a “force multiplier”— the memos dramatically expand the range of people who can be deported without seeing a judge.
“I see now what the plan is,” Greg Siskind, a Tennessee-based immigration attorney and member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association board of governors, told The Intercept. “Their plan is basically to have everybody thrown out of the country without ever going to court.” Additional immigration attorneys and legal experts who spoke to The Intercept shared Siskind’s concerns, describing various elements of the DHS directives and the…
View original post 134 more words
Should this be true should Melania Trump be deported, for Trump as stated this should be so for anyone you works in the US before being granted a work permit. Where are Trumps comments on this or will he state he never stated this, if so more lies from Trump.
Under his policies, even a Texas high school valedictorian would be deported.
A woman stands at a camp in Haiti where families have settled after being deported from the Dominican Republic, on Oct. 14, 2015. (Photo: Hector Retamal)TAKEPART LONGFORMDeported From Their Own CountryThe Dominican Republic built its economy on the backs of Haitian immigrants and their descendants. Now it wants them gone.MAR 11, 2016Jacob Kushner reports on foreign investment and human rights in Africa. His work has appeared in NewYorker.com, Newsweek, Vice, Foreign Policy, and NationalGeographic.com.Bio FOND BAYARD, Haiti—On April 28, 2009, Julia Antoine gave birth to a girl in a hospital in the town of Los Mina, in the Dominican Republic. Her husband, Fritz Charles, couldn’t be there—he was busy working his job at a chicken farm.In the coming days, the couple named the girl Kimberly. When the family went home, Antoine was given a document from the hospital noting the birth, the date, and the word hembra, or “female.” They didn’t bother trying to get Kimberly an official birth certificate. Although Antoine and Charles had spent many years living and working in the Dominican Republic, they were Haitian citizens, and it was well known that Dominican officials routinely denied birth certificates to children born to Haitian parents if, like Antoine and Charles, the parents couldn’t furnish passports or other legal documents.Still, Kimberly was, by law, entitled to Dominican citizenship. Yet in 2015, she was deported along with her mother.RELATEDHow Dominicans of Haitian Descent Are Paying for Their Ancestry“They found us on the street,” says Antoine, referring to the Dominican police. The two were on their way home from the house of a Dominican family where Antoine worked as a cleaner. People of Haitian heritage tend to have darker skin and can usually be distinguished by their accent. “They didn’t give us time to go home to find our things.” Nor did they allow Antoine to drop Kimberly off with her husband or even a family member or a friend, despite that the girl was legally Dominican. “Because my daughter was born there, she should have the right to live there,” Antoine told me one day in January.Kimberly and her mother now live in a lean-to hut made of sticks in a refugee camp on borrowed land in Haiti. Their predicament offers a glimpse into what happens when a nation that bestowed citizenship on people born within its territory decides to take that citizenship away. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, contenders for the Republican nomination for president, have proposed amending the Constitution to eliminate the 14th Amendment’s provision granting citizenship to anyone “born or naturalized in the United States,” but even they haven’t advocated for taking away people’s citizenship, as the Dominican Republic did with Kimberly.Last year, the citizenship of an estimated 200,000 people of Haitian heritage became international news at the expiration of the Dominican Republic’s naturalization law, titled Law 169-14 and passed in 2014, that required the vast majority of them to register as foreigners in the country of their birth. (Only several thousand were able to retain their Dominican nationality.) When the registration deadline passed in June, thousands of Haitians who had been legal residents of the Dominican Republic—and their children who, like Kimberly, were Dominican citizens—fled across the border, many leaving possessions behind. Thousands more were rounded up by police and forcibly deported, many—including Kimberly, whose father remained behind to work—separated from family members.Julia Antoine opens the makeshift door of her home in the Fond Bayard refugee camp. A Haitian who immigrated to the Dominican Republic, she was deported with her daughter even though her daughter was legally entitled to Dominican citizenship. (Photo: Jacob Kushner)The Dominican Republic won its independence from Haiti in 1844, after 22 years of occupation. Over the 20th century, tens of thousands of Haitians moved to the Dominican Republic to cut sugarcane, construct roads and buildings, and farm. Some were brought over by the Dominican government. Many were approved by border authorities to cross the border en route to a particular plantation that had recruited them. Others came illegally. Some would return to Haiti, but others never left, raising families and building lives in their new home.Despite the immigrants’ enormous contributions to the economy, Dominicans have long harbored resentment against people of Haitian heritage, often stigmatizing them as prone to criminality or low morals. Some of that prejudice has racial undertones: While Dominicans come in many shades, most Haitians have dark skin. At times, Dominicans’ attempts to differentiate themselves as more “European” or “Spanish” have boiled over into violence: In 1937, the government orchestrated the slaughter of (historians estimate) between 9,000 and 30,000 Haitian immigrants and their Dominican children in what would become known as the Parsley Massacre.We’ve been