Migrant Justice in the Time of COVID
Introduction
Migrant justice in the UK has long been a topic of controversy, particularly regarding the increased levels of surveillance and monitoring of asylum seekers. During COVID-19, this has continued – despite the strict lockdown measures put in place over the past 18 months. Four aspects of the way in which the pandemic has adversely affected migrants (advocated by the speakers of Garden Chambers event: ‘Migrant Justice in the time of COVID’) will be considered here.
Migrant Reporting Conditions and COVID-19
Brian Dikoff, founder of Migrants Organise, a non-profit organisation in which migrants can connect, build common ground and organise justice, paid particular attention to reporting conditions. These reporting conditions imposed on Migrants have existed since at least the Immigration Act 1971, and can be very restrictive on migrants. Approximately 76.4% of migrants on bail are given reporting conditions, and with just 14 reporting centres located in the UK – often involving long journeys. Rude treatment from staff is often experienced by migrants once they arrive at reporting centres, and for some this can be as often as every day – as it was for one elderly woman who Dikoff noted was instructed to report every day at 8am.
During the first lockdown of 2020, these reporting conditions were still required, despite the national stay-at-home order. It was only when Migrants Organise sent a letter to the Home Office that the reporting conditions were suspended for the remainder of the lockdown, only to be reintroduced for the second, during Autumn of 2020. The requirement for migrants to continue to make these long journeys during a national lockdown demonstrates governments’ tendency to place migrants under excessive surveillance and put their health at risk.
A suggestion was made for a change in the conditions to include telephone reporting, making this service more accessible for migrants. This however, Dikoff pointed out, can be an easy way for electronic state surveillance to be increased, as there are already potential discussions of GPS tracking to be used on migrants.
Migrant Workers and COVID-19
As well as having to attend reporting centres, many migrants in the UK were still required to go to work during various national lockdown periods over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic due to the nature of their work. Danielle Manson of Garden Court Chambers investigated this via a survey she posted online for migrant workers to fill out. The survey, which focussed on London, the West Midlands and the South of England, identified 4 key areas where migrants continued to work as being: construction, health and social care, logistics and delivery and security. Manson noted that these areas are the ones in which we as a country came to rely on during the pandemic.
The responses to the survey indicated a high level of dissatisfaction from migrant workers regarding their safety during that time, their job security and even overt racial abuse. Of those who did experience racial abuse, only 5% reported this to their manager, this is extremely low, likely due to fears of losing their job or that they will not be taken seriously. Of the respondents, 63% did not have recourse to public funds and 40% of these felt at some stage during this time they would not be able to pay their rent. Here it is obvious just how important it is that public funds are made available to migrant workers, as homelessness can be a real and daunting possibility for those who are not awarded these allowances. Given the amount the we relied on these four sectors throughout the pandemic, it is even more vital that those who provide these vital services are not only given the basic right to a home, but are duly rewarded.
Migrants and Interim Relief during COVID-19
Miranda Butler of Garden Court Chambers works on many cases concerning failed Asylum seekers with a particular attention to those without recourse to public funds. She noted some recent case law around the granting of interim relief during the pandemic. One of the most noteworthy was QBB v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ii) First Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (CO/38986) in which Fordham J granted interim relief on the 2nd October 2020. This outcome became a significant force of protection for migrants over the next few months. This was until KMI & EW v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 477 (Admin) whereby Chamberlain J refused interim relief in response to a challenge to the refusal of s.4(2) Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 – which provides for the accommodation and support of migrants. The eviction of migrants, which was suspended during the pandemic, also resumed on 19th July 2021
After Chamberlain J’s problematic judgement, Butler noted a recent case whereby it was indeed established that Local Authorities do have powers under s.138 Local Government Act 1972 and public health powers under s.2B National Health Service Act to provide accommodation during an emergency such as a pandemic. This was found in R (Ncube) v Brighton and Hove City Council [2021] EWHC 578 (Admin), and although this comes at a much later point in the pandemic than would be desirable, it does provide migrants with some protection for the rest of the duration of this pandemic.
Migrants and the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) During COVID-19
Unkha Banda from Bindmans LLP and Here for Good, an organisation providing free immigration advice for EEA citizens, focussed on the EU Settlement Scheme and the affect COVID has had on its applicants. The largest factor affecting migrants here are the changes made to the EUSS on the 15th December 2020 regarding the pandemic, this was the first guidance posted since the initial lockdown in March. An issue here was that the guidelines specified that in order to be eligible, the residence must be stated before the deadline of 11pm on 31st December 2020, which presented itself as a major issue as this was only 16 days after the guidance was posted. Banda and the team at Here for Good successful judicial review challenge of this guidance resulted in the removal of the update posted on 15th December and a new, more generous set of guidelines being introduced in June 2021.
Conclusions
The work done by speakers of this event is essential to the livelihoods of migrants in the UK. By advocating their rights in court, campaigning outside the courts, researching their experiences and creating safe community spaces, they are giving migrants a voice that may otherwise go unheard. Without their help migrants would be subjected to a mass of immoral treatment by the Government, resulting in homelessness, deportation, destitution, etc. This shows that if left to its own devices, government will continue to decrease protection and support of migrants while increasing scrutiny and surveillance. The work exhibited above has shown how the pandemic has become an opportunity for significant neglect of migrants needs and basic human rights e.g. to a home by the UK government.
By Emma Carter
Reading University Student Intern