Or, Chagos Islanders and Their Confrontations with British Citizenship

‘Unusual Immigrants’, or, Chagos Islanders and Their Confrontations with British Citizenship

Laura Jeffery

ABSTRACT: This article explores confl icting approaches to British citizenship through claims to universalism and diff erence respectively. It focuses on displaced Chagos islanders in the U.K. to show how an evidently unique case was confronted by the universalizing policies of the U.K. government. First, most displaced Chagos islanders and their second-generation descendants have been awarded U.K. citizenship, but three key limitations – concerning discrimination against ‘illegitimacy’, one’s date of departure from Chagos, and restrictions on the transmission of nationality to subsequent generations – exclude other people who are also considered to be members of the extended Chagossian community. Second, those Chagossians who decide to migrate to the U.K. face signifi cant hurdles in their att empts to establish habitual residence and integrate into the welfare system. The article reveals how Chagossian pleas for preferential treatment – in recognition of their particular history of forced displacement, dispossession and suff ering in exile – have been thwarted by the U.K. government’s purported commitment to the equal rights of all British citizens.

KEYWORDS: British Overseas Territories Act, Chagos islanders, Habitual Residence Test.

Prologue: Protesting Difference This time, they were there to att end the hearing of the U.K. government’s appeal against a In February 2007, displaced islanders from judicial review of the legislation which prevents the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean Chagossians (and all other non-authorized per- gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice sons) from entering the Chagos Archipelago. on the Strand in London. Some had come es- Outside the court, and later at a demonstration pecially from Mauritius or Seychelles; others at Downing Street, Chagossians waved ban- from their new place of residence in Crawley ners proclaiming, inter alia: ‘We’ve the right or other commuter towns in West Sussex, Sur- to live in our homes’, ‘Give us a permanent rey and Greater London. For most, it was not home or send us back to our island’, and ‘We the fi rst time they had been there: Chagossian will return to Diego Garcia! It’s our right!’ groups have held demonstrations outside the British supporters of the Chagossian struggle courts periodically since 2000, when they won also produced banners. One member of the their fi rst High Court victory against the U.K. U.K. Chagos Support Association (UKCSA) government in the form of a judicial review es- painted a banner that originally read: ‘Send the tablishing that the deportation of the islanders Chagos sians home’. Another UKCSA member from their homeland had been unlawful. half-jokingly confi ded to me that she hoped

Anthropology in Action, 18, 2 (2011): 33–44 © Berghahn Books and the Association for Anthropology in Action doi:10.3167/aia.2011.180205 AiA | Laura Jeﬀ ery

the banner would not make passersby associ- I take my lead from Charles Taylor’s contrast ate the UKCSA with the National Front, whose between what he calls the ‘politics of univer- website expounds such slogans as ‘This is our salism’ and the ‘politics of diff erence’ (Taylor country and we want it back’.1 The poster was 1992: 37–44). The principle of universalism quietly amended to read ‘Send the Chagos- emphasizes the equal dignity of all individual sians home – that’s what they want!’ citizens and therefore demands equal political, British press coverage has routinely evoked civil and socio-economic rights for all citizens. the Chagossian struggle for the right to return This principle assumes that non-discrimination to Chagos while representing the Chagossian is blind to diff erence and uniformly fair, and story as an unusual case in U.K. immigration.2 that therefore it should not be violated. The On his blog, UKCSA member and journalist recognition of diff erence, on the other hand, Daniel Simpson described Allen Vincatassin, focuses on community-level identity and de- the leader of the Crawley-based Diego Garcian mands that members of particular communi- Society,3 as ‘an immigrant with a diff erence: ties should not be forced to assimilate to the he wants to go back to where he came from dominant identity. The recognition of diff er- but the British government won’t let him. So ence indicates that the supposedly neutral he’s importing his compatriots instead’ (Simp- diff erence-blindness of universalism amounts son 2006). And in The Times, Martin Fletcher to an att empt to homogenize diverse cultures described a retired couple, whose daughter into a hegemonic mould. From the perspective Hengride Permal founded the Crawley-based of universalism, on the other hand, the em- Chagos Island Community Association,4 as ‘the phasis on diff erence and particularity violates polar opposite of most immigrants to Britain. the principle of non-discrimination (even, and They want to go home but the Government will equally, when this is ‘positive’ discrimination not let them’ (Fletcher 2007). As we shall see, intended to redress existing inequalities) and conceptualizing the Chagossians as a special can therefore lead to separate development case brought them some success, but also met policies. Taylor’s distinction is central to debates with opposition from the U.K. government, within and between groups about the relative which denied that the case was suffi ciently un- benefi ts and drawbacks of non-discrimina- usual to merit preferential treatment. tion versus positive discrimination and about Ethnographic studies of Britain have paid whether rights inhere in the individual citizen considerable att ention to what it means to or through group membership. identify, be identifi ed, not identify or not be On the one hand, anthropologists have long identifi ed as British, particularly in the context identifi ed local challenges to supposedly uni- of immigration, ethnic diversity and multi- versal values such as the concept of individual culturalism (e.g. Baumann 1996; Modood and human rights (see Wilson 1997: 4–7). On the Werbner 1997; Werbner and Modood 1997). other hand, the concept of ‘group-based’ rights While retaining a concern with processes of implies that a ‘social group’ is a stable and inclusion and exclusion, the ethnographic fo- internally coherent entity with a single shared cus of this article is somewhat diff erent: using culture, whereas anthropologists have increas- a framework of citizenship and rights – instead ingly seen culture and identifi cation as con- of culture and identity – I show how recent tested processes (see Turner 1993; Wilson 1997: British citizenship legislation and the Habitual 8–10; Cowan et al. 2001: 17). Anthropological Residence Test have given some recent immi- studies of human rights have oft en focused grants the impression that they are not quite ethnographically on the struggles surrounding full British citizens and do not quite belong in minority group claims for group-based rights the U.K. on the basis of cultural diff erence (see Eriksen 34 | ‘Unusual Immigrants’ | AiA

1997; Cowan et al. 2001: 4–11). My case study ment agreed to make Diego Garcia available diff ers in the sense that Chagossian activists to the U.S. military (Vine 2009: 87–88). In 1965 have campaigned for preferential rights on the – as part of negotiations leading to Mauritian basis not of their cultural distinctiveness per independence in 1968 – the U.K. Government se but of their particular collective history of excised the Chagos Archipelago from colonial forced displacement, dispossession and suf- Mauritius and created a new colony called the fering in exile. This article illuminates the ten- new British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). sions between universalism and particularism At the U.S. government’s request, the U.K. by exploring how the Chagossian communi- government agreed to depopulate the entire ty’s campaigns for preferential treatment have archipelago. been repeatedly thwarted by the U.K. govern- The residents of the Chagos Archipelago ment’s purported intention to guarantee the had been accustomed to making periodic voy- equal treatment of all British citizens. ages to Mauritius or Seychelles to renew work contracts, purchase supplies, receive medical treatment, give birth in a hospital, take holidays The Chagossian Case Study or visit family. From the mid-1960s onwards, Chagos islanders in Mauritius and Seychelles From the late eighteenth century onwards, were refused return passages to Chagos, with the Chagos Archipelago was administered representatives of the shipping companies by the French and later the British as a de- telling them that the Chagos Archipelago had pendency of colonial Mauritius. The Chagos been ‘sold’ and the islands ‘closed’. Mean- Archipelago was originally populated with while, proprietors of the coconut plantations enslaved labourers brought from coastal East on Chagos gradually reduced the importation Africa and Madagascar via Mauritius; later, of supplies, wound down copra production, the workforce was augmented with inden- and did not renew employment contracts once tured labourers of African and South Asian they had expired. There was a gradual exodus origin, again brought via Mauritius. Most from the islands. Eventually, the remaining labourers in the colonial Chagos Archipelago inhabitants were forcibly removed from the worked on coconut plantations producing Chagos Archipelago between 1971 and 1973. coconut oil and dried copra for export (for use Of the former inhabitants of the Chagos Ar- in the production of electricity and soap); oth- chipelago, about 1,500 ended up in Mauritius, ers were engaged in fi shing and the extraction and about 500 in Seychelles. of guano (which was increasingly in demand Successive Chagossian groups in Mauritius for use as a fertilizer on the sugar estates on have campaigned for compensation and the mainland Mauritius). right to return to Chagos. Chagos islanders in During the Cold War, the U.S. Govern- Mauritius won limited fi nancial compensation ment sought to establish an overseas military from the U.K. government in 1978 and 1982,5 presence in the Indian Ocean, favouring the but the sums they received were oft en insuf- U-shaped Chagos island of Diego Garcia on fi cient to repay the debts they had incurred in account of its administration by British allies, the interim, let alone to enable them to make its small and politically insignifi cant popula- a new start in exile. In 2004 they lost a legal tion, its central but isolated location, its natural claim against the U.K. government for further harbour and its potential to build a runway compensation (see Jeff ery 2006a).6 In 2000, a along one side (Vine 2009: 61). In exchange for judicial review launched in the name of Olivier what was in eff ect a US$14 million discount on Bancoult, the leader of the Mauritius-based the Polaris missile system, the U.K. Govern- Chagos Refugees Group (CRG), concluded that

| 35 AiA | Laura Jeﬀ ery

the U.K. government’s depopulation of Chagos ‘Unusual Immigrants’ had been unlawful since it was contrary to the laws of the territory.7 In 2004, the U.K. govern- Chagossians in the U.K. could be identifi ed as ment controversially used the Orders in Coun- ‘unusual immigrants’ for two reasons hinted cil – approved by the Queen at a meeting of at above. Firstly, most Chagossians obtained the Privy Council, thus bypassing parliament U.K. passports before leaving Mauritius or (see O’Connor 2009) – to impose new BIOT im- Seychelles, so they arrived in the U.K. with the migration legislation preventing Chagossians right to reside – an advantage when compared from entering the territory (see Jeff ery 2009). to others who arrive in the U.K. without U.K. The Chagossians’ legal team won a judicial passports. Secondly, Chagossian groups are review of this legislation in 2006, and the U.K. still fi ghting for the right to return to Chagos government lost its initial appeal of the judicial – thus implying that immigration to the U.K. review in 2007, but in 2008 the U.K. govern- forms part of a longer-term strategy that may ment won its fi nal appeal in the House of later entail emigration from the U.K. These Lords.8 The CRG’s legal team appealed to the features raise two key questions. First: is U.K. European Court of Human Rights, where the citizenship and the att endant right of abode case is pending. In 2010, in a move apparently in the U.K. necessary and/or suffi cient for in- intended to prevent Chagossians from reset- tegration, bureaucratically speaking? Second: tling Chagos, the U.K. Government designated do Chagossians envisage themselves as short- the Chagos Archipelago as a Marine Protected term ‘sojourners’ or as long-term ‘sett lers’ in Area (MPA). In response, the Mauritian Gov- the U.K.? ernment has launched a challenge under the This article addresses these questions by compulsory dispute sett lement provisions of examining bureaucratic challenges faced by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Chagossian migrants. Firstly, while native on the grounds that the U.K. lacked the juris- Chagos islanders and their second-generation diction to create an MPA around Chagos. descendants became eligible for U.K. citizen- Meanwhile, under the British Overseas Ter- ship under the British Overseas Territories Act ritories Act 2002, the U.K. government awarded 2002, any subsequent descendants and non- U.K. citizenship to Chagos islanders and their Chagossian spouses remained ineligible, and second-generation descendants born since they therefore face the successive challenges of leaving Chagos. In the context of their diffi cult applying for visas and work permits and tak- situation in exile, it is not surprising that hun- ing the Life in the U.K. Test for naturalization. dreds of Chagossians have sought to emigrate Secondly, Chagossians lost a case seeking ex- from Mauritius and Seychelles. According to emption from the controversial Habitual Resi- the Foreign and Commonwealth Offi ce (FCO), dence Test (which was established to prevent a total of 1,406 U.K. passports were issued to so-called ‘benefi t tourism’), and therefore even members of the extended Chagossian com- those who have U.K. passports still have to munities in Mauritius and Seychelles between acquire habitual residence in order to become 2002 and 2006.9 Chagossian organizations in eligible for the relevant benefi ts. the U.K. estimate that in the fi rst fi ve years I understand the issues in terms of the an- aft er being awarded U.K. citizenship, around thropology of rights and diff erence. From the one thousand people – comprising displaced perspective of the U.K. government, granting islanders and their descendants alike – mi- U.K. citizenship to Chagossians was suffi cient grated to the U.K., mostly to Crawley in West recompense for their unlawful forced displace- Sussex. ment and their history of disadvantage and

36 | ‘Unusual Immigrants’ | AiA discrimination in exile. Indeed, during the displacement from that territory rather than hearing in the House of Lords appeal, counsel choice. Accepting this logic, the government for the U.K. government, Jonathan Crow QC, introduced a supplementary section to pro- implied that the fact that the Chagossians had vide for the transmission of U.K. citizenship to been awarded U.K. citizenship with an att en- Chagos islanders’ second-generation descen- dant right of abode in the U.K. justifi ed the dants born in exile. From the perspective of decision to deny them the right of abode in Chagossians, however, there have been three Chagos.10 From the perspective of many in the main problems with the limitations on eligibil- extended Chagossian community, however, ity for U.K. citizenship laid out in the British Chagossians should receive additional entitle- Overseas Territories Act 2002 (and the corre- ments and exemptions in recognition of their sponding British Nationality Act 1981). community’s specifi c mistreatment by successive U.K. governments. 1. Privileging Marriage According to the British Nationality Act 1981, The British Overseas Territories Act whereas an unmarried British woman can pass 2002 her citizenship to her children, an unmarried British man cannot pass his citizenship to his The British Overseas Territories Act 2002 re- children born outwith marriage (unless the classifi ed the British Dependent Territories parents subsequently marry). The problem for (BDTs) as British Overseas Territories (BOTs) the extended Chagossian community is that – and awarded full U.K. citizenship to citizens of in common with other matrifocal post-slavery such territories. People born on Chagos when societies in the Indian Ocean and the Carib- it was a British colony, who were eligible for bean – the colonial Chagos Archipelago was BDT citizenship under the British Nationality characterized by female-headed households, a Act 1981, thus became eligible for full U.K. citi- relative instability of sexual relationships and zenship through their place of birth. Accord- a low incidence of marriage (Bott e 1980: 22–23; ing to the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, Walker 1986: 15–18). Although most of its in- citizens of the BOTs can transmit the entitle- habitants were nominally Roman Catholic, the ment to U.K. citizenship to their children who Chagos Archipelago did not have a permanent are also born in a BOT. This provision would Catholic priest during its period of colonial not initially have applied to the children born sett lement from 1795 to 1973. An itinerant to Chagos islanders in exile, since they were priest travelled around the Mauritius outer born not in a BOT but in the independent re- islands to perform important ceremonies such publics of Mauritius and Seychelles. as baptisms, christenings and weddings; in be- In response to this situation, the CRG staged tween these visits, administrators apparently a sleep-in protest outside the British High Com- conducted weekly services (Dussercle 1934: mission in the Mauritian capital Port Louis. 10; Dussercle 1935; Descroizilles and Mülnier Their campaign was supported in the U.K. by 1999: 26). Chagos islanders told me that they the Labour MPs Tam Dalyell (who was then did not necessarily get married to their part- Father of the House) and Jeremy Corbyn, who ners, both because they were not encouraged repeatedly put the Chagossian case on the par- to do so and because it was not expected that liamentary agenda. They emphasized that the the union would be for life. Thus many Cha- Chagos islanders’ residence outwith the Cha- gossians felt that the privileging of ‘legitimate’ gos Archipelago was a result of their forcible children in U.K. citizenship legislation dis-

| 37 AiA | Laura Jeﬀ ery

criminated against those for whom marriage a House of Lords Committ ee debate on the was not promoted by the British authorities. Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill in In particular, this rule aff ects the children born 2009, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ As- in exile to an unmarried Chagossian man and sociation (ILPA) recommended removing this a non-Chagossian woman, who comprise a cut-off date to ‘ensure that Chagos Islanders relatively common category as a result of the … born in exile before 26 April 1969 are British fl ows of people amongst all of the dependen- Citizens’.12 cies of colonial Mauritius. 3. Subsequent Generations and Spouses 2. Date of Forced Deportation Whilst the legislation provides for native Cha- The supplementary section of the British Over- gos islanders and their second-generation de- seas Territories Act 2002 covers Chagossians’ scendants born in exile, it does not include second-generation descendants only if they subsequent generations of descendants or were born in exile aft er 26 April 1969. In 2001, non-Chagossian spouses. Ben Bradshaw told Blair’s Labour government selected this cut-off the standing committ ee concerned with the date as the start of what Ben Bradshaw (then British Overseas Territories Bill that the gov- a junior Foreign Offi ce Minister) called the ernment’s rationale was that extending eligibil- 1960s Wilson government’s ‘policy of exclu- ity to subsequent generations would privilege sion’ from the Chagos Archipelago.11 Writing Chagos islanders vis-à-vis other BOT citizens this start date into the 2002 legislation was a by descent, who could not pass their citizen- way to avoid awarding U.K. citizenship to the ship to future generations born outwith BOTs.13 children of those islanders deemed by govern- In any case, he added tantalizingly, transmis- ment offi cials to have left Chagos ‘voluntarily’ sion of U.K. citizenship to subsequent genera- prior to the forced depopulation of the terri- tions would become unnecessary in the event tory. This start date gives rise to several prob- of resett lement of Chagos as a BOT, since sub - lems. Firstly, since there were limited medical sequent generations born in or resident on facilities on Chagos, it was not uncommon in Chagos would become eligible in their own the early and mid-twentieth century for ex- right.14 From the perspective of Chagossians pectant mothers to give birth in Mauritius be- themselves, however, the issue is that since the fore returning to Chagos, so place of birth is depopulation of Chagos took place from 1965 not a reliable indicator of residence since the to 1973, a whole generation born in exile has children of Chagos residents could be born had time to grow up and produce a subsequent in Mauritius. Secondly, Chagossians and their generation of children, who are not eligible supporters contest the claimed date for the for U.K. citizenship. The House of Commons start of the forced deportations: regardless of Foreign Aff airs Committ ee took evidence from when the forced deportations actually began, the leaders of three Chagossian organizations the BIOT was established in 1965, and island- in 2008, agreed that the fact that the islanders ers visiting Mauritius or Seychelles had been were no longer living in a BOT was ‘as a con- prevented from returning to Chagos from the sequence of exile rather than their own choice’, mid-1960s onwards. As a result of these anom- and recommended that citizenship ‘should alies, there are numerous Chagossian families be extended to third generation descendants in which those siblings born in exile prior to of exiled Chagossians’.15 Similarly, the ILPA 1969 remained ineligible for U.K. citizenship noted that the fact that ‘the children of Chago- whilst those born in exile aft er 1969 became ssians are born outside the U.K. or a qualify- eligible for U.K. citizenship. In its briefi ng for ing territory is no fault of their own but the 38 | ‘Unusual Immigrants’ | AiA result of their enforced exile’, and concluded Tax Benefi t, Housing Benefi t, Income Support, that ‘few can have as compelling a claim to income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, income- British citizenship as those children’.16 In rela- related Employment and Support Allowance tion to spouses, the majority of Chagossians and State Pension Credits. Eligibility is deter- who have married since arriving in Mauritius mined by a combination of factors including or Seychelles have married non-Chagossian whether the applicant has worked in the U.K., partners, who likewise are not automatically length of overseas habitation, reasons for com- eligible for U.K. citizenship. ing to the U.K., plans for self-suffi ciency in the U.K. and planned length of stay in the U.K. The eff ect of these three features – the privi- In practice, Habitual Residence seems to be leging of marriage, the 1969 cut-off date and acquired in around three to six months. Cat- the non-inclusion of subsequent generations egories of people specifi cally exempted from and of non-Chagossian spouses – is that all the requirement to demonstrate Habitual Resi- extended Chagossian families thus comprise dence include asylum seekers, British citizens individuals who are eligible and also individu- habitually resident in the Republic of Ireland als who are not eligible for U.K. citizenship. (established in honour of the economic, resi- Those who are eligible for U.K. citizenship and dential and migratory ties between the U.K. decide to migrate to the U.K. are thereby sep- and the Republic of Ireland), and those habitu- arated from family members who are not eli- ally resident in the British Overseas Territory gible. The commonest practice is that family of Montserrat who left the island following the members who hold U.K. passports travel to volcanic eruption in 1995. Exemptions were the U.K. fi rst to establish themselves before not made for British citizens evacuated from applying for visas for family members who do farms in Zimbabwe since 2000 or from the not hold U.K. passports. This process tends to Ivory Coast to Ghana in 2004.20 take between six months and one year, during In 2003, Bill Rammell, then Parliamentary which time family separations can have a det- Under-Secretary of State for the Foreign and rimental eff ect on marriage (in cases of spousal Commonwealth Offi ce (FCO), responded to a separation) and childrearing (when babies and writt en question on the nationality and resi- young children are left with relatives in Mauri- dence rights of the Chagossians as follows: ‘As tius or Seychelles while their parents emigrate regards their entitlement to state services the fi rst). Family members who do not hold U.K. Chagossians who have come to the U.K. have citizenship but who wish to sett le in the U.K. the same rights, and are treated in the same and apply for naturalization or indefi nite leave way, as other British citizens coming here from to remain must now take the Life in the U.K. overseas’.21 Thus Rammell refused to consider Test, which was introduced for naturalization that Chagossians might have a case for special in 2005 and sett lement in 2007.17 treatment. In 2004, as previously mentioned, the U.K. government used the Orders in Coun- cil to introduce new immigration legislation The Habitual Residence Test18 that prevented all non-authorized persons (including Chagossians) from entering BIOT. The The Habitual Residence Test was fi rst intro- Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn responded with an duced in 1994 to prevent so-called ‘benefi ts Early Day Motion noting that Chagossians had tourism’ by determining the eligibility of peo- been denied their right to return to Chagos. He ple recently arrived in the U.K. from abroad called for the exemption of the Chagos island- (including returning British citizens) for in- ers from the Habitual Residence Test since, come-related benefi ts.19 It now covers Council having had their right of return to Chagos

| 39 AiA | Laura Jeﬀ ery

denied, ‘they deserve to be decently treated by in Mauritius are nowhere near comparable with the U.K. if they exercise their right to travel to those faced by the people of Montserrat. They this country’.22 In contrast to Rammell, then, are not exposed to physical danger and are not compelled to leave their homes in Mauritius. Corbyn made a plea for special treatment. British citizens in Zimbabwe and the Ivory Coast Chagossians from the earliest groups to faced far more immediate physical danger than arrive in the U.K. sought housing assistance the Chagossians but that was not considered from Crawley Borough Council, but were suffi cient to justify their exemption from the ha- denied because they were deemed not to be bitual residence test.23 habitually resident in the U.K. They won leave In the Court of Appeal, the judge Wall LJ to apply for judicial review of this decision agreed, remarking that: with the argument that the Habitual Residence Test contravened the Race Relations Act 1976 The British government did not require the ap- by discriminating against them as a distinct pellants (or even encourage them) to come to the ethnic group, as compared to British citizens United Kingdom, although Parliament plainly facilitated their right of entry and abode by the habitually resident in the Republic of Ireland, grant of citizenship. But once again, in my judg- who are exempt from the Test (BBC 2005). The ment, they are in the same position as any other Chagossians lost their case in the High Court British citizen resident abroad, who becomes in 2006 and in the Court of Appeal in 2007. destitute and decides to return to the United Turning the Chagossian case about discrimina- Kingdom. For every such citizen, there will be a tion on its head, the judges ruled that the Ha- period of time in which he or she is not habitually resident in the United Kingdom … It would bitual Residence Test neither contravenes the not, I think, be considered irrational for the Race Relations Act 1976 nor discriminates spe- Secretary of State to refuse to alter the habitual cifi cally against Chagossians. Rather, it implies residence rule for any such citizen. In my judg- equal treatment of all British citizens habitually ment, therefore, the fact that the British govern- resident abroad, with the exception of those in ment has acted unlawfully in refusing to allow the Republic of Ireland, who are exempted to the Chagossians to return to the Chagos Islands does not mean that the Secretary of State is re- their advantage. quired to take the unlawful actions of the British The appellants also argued that the judges government into account when declining to alter should take into account two special features the habitual residence rules to accommodate of the case. Firstly, they emphasized that the their particular situation.24 U.K. government had previously unlawfully Despite the Chagossians’ history of discrimi- expelled the Chagossians from their homeland nation and disadvantage at the hands of suc- and sent them to Mauritius and Seychelles cessive U.K. governments, then, they were (whereas if they had been sent directly to the nonetheless unsuccessful in this att empt to se- U.K. the issue would not have arisen at all since cure compensatory preferential treatment. As they would now be habitually resident in the Allen Vincatassin, leader of the Crawley-based U.K.). Secondly, they made a case for consid- Diego Garcian Society, put it: eration of the Chagossians’ resultant suff ering (which would resonate with the way in which My people have to pass the habitual residence British citizens fl eeing the 1995 volcanic erup- test. They can’t claim state benefi ts for three tion in Montserrat were exempted from the months … This may not seem like a very long Habitual Residence Test). The plea for special waiting period to most people. But for many Chagossians, who arrive in the U.K. with next to treatment, however, was dismissed by the High nothing, it can mean the diff erence between life Court judge Bennett J on the grounds that: and death. The government says that the resi- So far as the comparison with Montserrat is con- dency rule applies to all British citizens. It was cerned, the conditions faced by the Chagossians on these grounds that the High Court dismissed 40 | ‘Unusual Immigrants’ | AiA

our claims. But we believe that we should be and living in the U.K., they do not become eli- exceptions to that rule. Aft er all, we have had gible for home fees until they have lived in the to give up our homes in the name of British na- U.K. for three years, which delays their entry tional interest. They owe us at least this much. into post-school education as they cannot af- But even in this regard, the U.K. government has so far failed us. (Quoted in Biswas 2007) ford thousands of pounds in overseas fees. For many, U.K. citizenship thus turned out not to be the kind of recompense that they had hoped Discussion: Denying Difference for: hence the plea ‘Give us a permanent home or send us back to our island’. I began this article by suggesting that Cha- In this article I have not compared Chagos- gossians could be conceptualized as ‘unusual sian experiences of immigration with those of immigrants’ because they are already eligible asylum seekers, refugees and other immigrants for U.K. citizenship and because their politi- who do not hold U.K. citizenship, against cal leadership views migration to the U.K. as whom the Chagossians’ eligibility for U.K. a short-term solution that should not distract citizenship and access to resources in the U.K. from the larger project and long-term goal of would presumably appear relatively positive. resett ling the Chagos Archipelago. Many Cha- Instead I have revealed ways in which Chagos- gossians thought that the U.K. government sians’ actual experiences of U.K. citizenship did had off ered U.K. citizenship as a form of rec- not match up to their expectations formulated ompense for the displacement, and believed in the context of their earlier displacement it would off er a solution to their problems of from Chagos. Chagos islanders were awarded discrimination, unemployment and poverty the same rights as citizens of all of the BOTs, in Mauritius and Seychelles. Some anticipated and were not additionally awarded extra enti- that this would be a temporary solution en tlements (unlike the specifi c privilege awarded route to the more permanent solution of reset- to Montserratians fl eeing the volcano, who tling Chagos, whilst others anticipated sett ling were exempted from the Habitual Residence permanently in the U.K. (see Jeff ery 2010). Test). Thus many Chagossians concluded that During my fi eldwork with Chagossian mi- they had been fobbed off once again as the grants in the U.K., I was struck by the degree U.K. government awarded them U.K. citizen- to which many Chagossians were taken aback ship – which does not, for the reasons explored by the administrative hurdles that remained, above, feel quite like ‘full’ U.K. citizenship – even aft er having been awarded U.K. citizen- but off ered neither fi nancial compensation nor ship, with regard to immigration to the U.K. the right to return to Chagos. and integration into British bureaucracy. Most This case study reveals a disjuncture be- Chagossian families have experienced separa- tween the Chagossians’ own understandings tion when an initial migrant migrates alone. of their experiences in terms of victimhood and This initial migrant faces challenges such as the U.K. government’s att empts to avoid fram- loneliness as well as having to support oneself ing the case in moral terms (see also Jeff ery fi nancially on arrival in the U.K. It then takes 2006a, 2006b). From a Chagossian perspective, several months to get a National Insurance the community’s experiences of displacement number, employment, accommodation and a and suff ering in exile should justify special bank account before having to apply for visas treatment. From the perspective of the U.K. to bring family members who do not hold U.K. government, however, the likely small costs passports. An additional concern for younger of conceding to the Chagossians’ wishes have migrants wanting to start further or higher ed- been balanced against the potentially high ucation is that despite holding U.K. citizenship costs of sett ing a precedent that could lead to

| 41 AiA | Laura Jeﬀ ery

similar cases being launched in other BOTs Acknowledgements or former British colonies. Instead, the U.K. government has denied that the Chagossians’ This article is based on research with Chagos- experiences have been suffi ciently diff erent to sian migrants in Crawley (West Sussex) in deserve special treatment. 2006–2007, supported by a Leverhulme Early This disjuncture adds diffi cult questions to Career Fellowship (ECF/2006/0122) at the Uni- anthropological discussions about claims to versity of Edinburgh. An earlier draft was pre- rights in terms of the ‘politics of diff erence’: sented at the ASA’s Anthropology of Britain how diff erent is diff erent enough? How bad network meeting at the University of Aber- does mistreatment have to be in order to be deen in 2008. I am grateful for comments from worthy of special consideration and preferen- Steve Allen, Arnar Árnason, Andrew Clements, tial treatment, especially when diff erent po- James Oliver, Alex Smith and Iain Walker. litical stakeholders will have wildly divergent opinions? Chagossians have deployed their Dr Laura Jeff ery is Lecturer in Social Anthro- particular experiences of displacement, victim- pology at the University of Edinburgh. She has hood, suff ering, impoverishment, discrimina- worked with the Chagossian community since tion and their distinction from other Mauritian 2002, and is author of the book Chagos Islanders or Seychellois citizens to considerable eff ect in Mauritius and the UK: Forced Displace- in Mauritius and Seychelles, bringing them ment and Onward Migration (MUP 2011). She signifi cant support from external groups (see currently holds an ESRC Research Fellowship to Jeff ery 2006b). But on arrival in the U.K. they explore debates about environmental knowledge in were confronted by the fact that the U.K. gov- the context of the Chagos Marine Protected Area ernment, deploying instead the ‘politics of (MPA) designated by the U.K. Government in universalism’ of equal treatment, considered 2010, which is being challenged by the Mauritian that the Chagossians’ experiences were insuf- Government under the United Nations Conven- fi cient to merit preferential treatment, and was tion on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). confi dent that the Chagossians’ political status Email: Laura.Jeff [email protected] is never likely to be powerful enough that their demands must be met in full. This is despite the fact that several senior members of the Labour Notes government (including the late Robin Cook) sought to distance themselves from – rather 1. See the National Front website: htt p://www than justifying – the uprooting undertaken by .natfront.com/nfsop.html Harold Wilson’s Labour government.25 The 2. I endorse Nicholas de Genova’s critique of the pejorative connotations, implied unidirectional amendment of the British Overseas Territories nature, and receiving-state perspective of the Act to incorporate the children born to Chagos terms ‘immigrant’ and ‘immigration’, and his islanders in exile was claimed by the govern- consequent preference of terms such as ‘mi- ment as a positive recognition of the rights of grant’ and ‘migration’ instead (de Genova 2002: Chagossians as British citizens, yet it was seen 420–421), but use the former terms here to draw by many Chagossians as a cynical att empt to att ention to their deployment by British supporters of the Chagossians. distract att ention away from the possibilities 3. Diego Garcian Society website: htt p://diegogar for what would be seen as more appropriate ciansociety.org/visithomeland.aspx redress in the form of fi nancial compensation 4. Chagos Island Community Association web- and the right to return to their homeland. site: htt p://chagos.wordpress.com

42 | ‘Unusual Immigrants’ | AiA

5. Displaced Chagos islanders in Seychelles have 8. Online at: htt p://www.ilpa.org.uk/briefi ngs/ never yet received any fi nancial compensation. BCI%20HL%20Comm/09.02.23%20ILPA%20 6. Chagos Islanders v Att orney General and HM BIOT HL%20Comm%20Chagos.pdf Commissioner [2003] EWHC QB 2222 and Chagos 17. For more information, go to: htt p://www.lifein Islanders v Att orney General and HM BIOT Com- theuktest.gov.uk missioner [2004] EWCA Civ 997. 18. See the House of Commons Library Standard Note 7. R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and SN/SP/416, online at: htt p://www.parliament Commonwealth Aff airs [2001] QB 1067. .uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/ 8. R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and briefi ngs/snsp-00416.pdf Commonwealth Aff airs [2006] EWHC 1038, Sec- 19. In 2004 an amendment added to the Habitual retary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Af- Residence Test was the requirement that ap- fairs v R (Bancoult) [2007] EWCA Civ 498, and plicants must also demonstrate that they also R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and have the right to reside (e.g. birth certifi cate, EU Commonwealth Aff airs [2008] UKHL 61. passport or ID card). This is not a problem for 9. Of these, 1,225 were issued in Mauritius and Chagossians (who hold U.K. passports), and so 181 in Seychelles. According to the FCO, a I do not dwell on it here. further 485 U.K. passports had been issued 20. However, an amendment exempts those ‘vul- to members of the Chagossian community in nerable British Nationals’ arriving in the U.K. Mauritius by the end of April 2010; no details between 28 February 2009 and 18 March were available for the number of U.K. passports 2011 who had previously been resident in issued to members of the Chagossian commu- Zimbabwe. nity in Seychelles aft er 2006. 21. House of Commons Hansard Writt en Answers 10. Case for the Appellant page 149, paragraph for 3 November 2003 (pt 6), online at: htt p:// 336.1. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/ 11. House of Commons Standing Committ ee D, cmhansrd/vo031103/text/31103w06.htm 6 December 2001 (pt 1), online at: htt p://www 22. EDM 1759, Habitual Residence Test and the .publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/ British Indian Ocean Territories, 18 October cmstand/d/st011206/am/11206s05.htm 2004, see: htt p://www.epolitix.com/Resources/ 12. Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association epolitix/MPWebsites/Images/i-l/Jeremy-Cor briefi ngs for the House of Lords Committ ee de- byn%20OctParlInterv.pdf bate (2 March 2009) on the Borders Immigration 23. R (Couronne) v Crawley Borough Council and Citizenship Bill Part 2 (Citizenship): page [2006] EWHC 1514 (Admin), paragraph 89: 1. Online at: htt p://www.ilpa.org.uk/briefi ngs/ http://alpha.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad BCI%20HL%20Comm/09.02.23%20ILPA%20 min/2006/1514.html HL%20Comm%20Chagos.pdf 24. R (Couronne) v Crawley Borough Council [2007] 13. House of Commons Standing Committ ee D, EWCA Civ 1086, paragraph 49: htt p://alpha 6 December 2001 (pt 1), online at: htt p://www .bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1086.html .publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/ 25. House of Commons Foreign Aff airs Commit- cmstand/d/st011206/am/11206s04.htm tee (2008) Overseas Territories: Seventh Report 14. House of Commons Standing Committ ee D, of Session 2007–08. HC 147-2 (Oral and Writ- 6 December 2001 (pt 1), online at: htt p://www ten Evidence): page 106 paragraph 6. Online .publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/ at: htt p://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cmstand/d/st011206/am/11206s05.htm cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff /147/147ii.pdf 15. House of Commons Foreign Aff airs Committ ee (2008) Overseas Territories: Seventh Report of Session 2007–08. HC 147-1 (Report, together with fi nal minutes): page 35 paragraph 74. On- References line at: htt p://www.publications.parliament.uk/ pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff /147/147i.pdf Baumann, G. (1996), Contesting Culture: Discourses 16. Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association of Identity in Multi-ethnic Britain (Cambridge: briefi ngs for the House of Lords Committ ee de- Cambridge University Press). bate (2 March 2009) on the Borders Immigration BBC (2005), ‘Islanders win Right for Legal Bid’, and Citizenship Bill Part 2 (Citizenship): page 1, BBC News, 18 April, htt p://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/

| 43 AiA | Laura Jeﬀ ery

england/southern_counties/4458037.stm (ac- ——— (2006b), ‘Victims and Patrons: Strategic Alli- cessed 26 January 2011). ances and the Anti-politics of Victimhood among Biswas, V. (2007), ‘The Story of the Chagossians’, Displaced Chagossians and Their Supporters’, New Statesman, 4 October, htt p://www History and Anthropology 17, no. 4: 297–312. .newstatesman.com/world-aff airs/2007/10/ ——— (2009), ‘Chagossians Refused Right to Re- british-government-chagossians (accessed 26 turn Home,’ Anthropology Today 25, no. 1: 24–26. January 2011). ——— (2010), ‘Forced Displacement, Onward Bott e, F. (1980), ‘The “Ilois” Community and the Migration, and Reformulations of ‘Home’ by “Ilois” Women.’ Unpublished report. Chagossians in Crawley, West Sussex’, Journal of Cowan, J.K., Dembour, M.-B. and Wilson, R.A. Ethnic and Migration Studies 36, no. 7: 1099–1117. (2001), ‘Introduction’, in Culture and Rights: An- Modood, T. and Werbner, P. (eds.) (1997), The Poli- thropological Perspectives, (eds.) J. Cowan, M.-B. tics of Multiculturalism in the New Europe: Racism, Dembour and R. A. Wilson. (Cambridge: Cam- Identity and Community (London: Zed). bridge University Press), 1–25. O’Connor, P. (2009). The Constitutional Role of the de Genova, N. (2002), ‘Migrant “Illegality” and Privy Council and the Prerogative. A Justice Report. Deportability in Everyday Life’, Annual Review London: Justice. of Anthropology 31: 419–447. Simpson, D. (2006), ‘Diego Garcia and the Special Descroizilles, M. and Mülnier, A. (1999), Bor’endan Relationship’s Dirty Secret’, 14 March, htt p:// Bor’déhor. Stanley, Rose Hill, Mauritius: Editions danielsimpson.blogspot.com/2006/03/diego- de l’Océan Indien. garcia-and-special-relationships.html (accessed Dussercle, R. P. R. (1934), Archipel de Chagos en 26 January 2011). Mission 10 Novembre 1933–11 Janvier 1934 (Port Taylor, C. (1992), ‘The Politics of Recognition’, in Louis, Mauritius: The General Printing and Multiculturalism and ‘The Politics of Recognition’, Stationery Company). (ed.) A. Gutmann (Princeton: Princeton Univer- ——— (1935), Naufrage de la Barque Diégo à L’Ile sity Press), 25–75. d’Aigle 20 juin 1935 (Port Louis, Mauritius: Edi- Turner, T. (1993), ‘Anthropology and Multicul- tions du Hecquet). turalism: What Is Anthropology That Multi- Eriksen, T. H. (1997), ‘Multiculturalism, Individu- culturalists Should Be Mindful of It?’, Cultural alism and Human Rights: Romanticism, the Anthropology 8, no. 4: 411–429. Enlightenment and Lessons from Mauritius’, Vine, D. (2009), Island of Shame: The Secret History of in Human Rights, Culture and Context: Anthropo- the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia (Princeton, logical Perspectives, (ed.) R. A. Wilson (London: NJ: Princeton University Press). Pluto), 49–69. Walker, I. (1986), Zaff er Pe Sanze: Ethnic Identity and Fletcher, M. (2007), ‘Islanders Who Wait in Vain Social Change among the Ilois in Mauritius (Mauri- for Justice and a Paradise Lost’, The Times, 9 tius Indian Ocean Committ ee, KMLI). November, htt p://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ Werbner, P. and Modood, T. (eds.) (1997), Debating news/world/africa/article2835903.ece (accessed Cultural Hybridity: Multi-cultural Identities and 26 January 2011). the Politics of Anti-racism (London: Zed). Jeff ery, L. (2006a), ‘Historical Narrative and Legal Wilson, R. A. (1997), ‘Human Rights, Culture and Evidence: Judging Chagossians’ High Court Context: An Introduction’, in Human Rights, Testimonies’, PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthro- Culture and Context, (ed.) R. A. Wilson (London: pology Review 29, no. 2: 228–253. Pluto), 1–27.

44 |