DOCSLIB.ORG

How UK Border Controls Are Endangering the Lives of Refugees Sile Reynolds Helen Muggeridge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How UK Border Controls Are Endangering the Lives of Refugees Sile Reynolds Helen Muggeridge Refugee Council Remote Controls: how UK border controls are endangering the lives of refugees Sile Reynolds Helen Muggeridge December 2008 Refugee Council Remote Controls: how UK border controls are endangering the lives of refugees Sile Reynolds Helen Muggeridge December 2008 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following people Parlevliet and Alexander de Châlus in London, as for their contributions to this project and the report: well as Xhemil Shahu and Mahmut Kaçan in Van for all their help and support. Firstly, we would like to thank all our respondents. In particular we are grateful to refugees in the UK and We would also like to thank our colleagues at the Turkey who shared their experiences so openly with Refugee Council. Thanks particularly to Gemma us. We hope this research goes some way to reflecting Juma and Nancy Kelley for their hard work setting your courage in such difficult circumstances. up the project, to Sarah Cutler for her guidance during the early stages, to Barbara Keating and We are very grateful to members of our International Hannah Ward, and to colleagues in the Policy and Advisory Group who generously gave their time and Development and Communications teams for their expertise; Elspeth Guild (Kingsley Napley Solicitors); expertise. Thanks also to Lisa Doyle, Megan Valsamis Mitsilegas (Queen Mary, University of McCorriston and Kavita Brahmbhatt for their London); Phil Shiner (Public Interest Lawyers); Jill valuable research expertise and to Jonathan Ellis Rutter (ippr); Dave Corlett (Latrobe University); and Jonathan Parr for all their support. We would Louise Moor (Amnesty International); Gerry Simpson like to say a huge thank you to Karl Torring and to (Human Rights Watch); Amanda Shah (BID); Barbara Georgina Pope for volunteering their time and skills Harrell-Bond (Amera); Patricia Coelho (ECRE); Jan to the project. Finally, a big thank you to One Stop Shaw (Amnesty International UK); Louise Zanre Services in Leeds and London for all their help in (Jesuit Refugee Service); Judy Wakahiu (Refugee accessing respondents. Consortium of Kenya); Reyes Castillo (ACCEM); Javier Ramirez (CEAR); Gabor Gyulai (Hungarian We are very grateful to UK government Helsinki Human Rights Committee); Katrine Camilleri representatives who generously gave their time to (Jesuit Refugee Service); Agata Forys (Helsinki respond to our questions and to assist us in setting Foundation for Human Rights); Jason Bergen up meetings in the UK and Turkey. (Oxfam); Anja Klug (UNHCR); Lord Alf Dubs; Gary Christie (Scottish Refugee Council); Mike Lewis Finally, we are particularly grateful to the (Welsh Refugee Council); and Omolade Oshunremi organisations in Turkey that enabled us to conduct (Lewisham Refugee Network). We are especially the fieldwork; in order to preserve the anonymity of grateful to Guy Goodwin-Gill (Oxford University), the respondents, we are not naming them. We Chooi Fong and Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen would, however, like to thank the Helsinki Citizens’ (Danish Refugee Council) for their contributions to Assembly in Istanbul for their invaluable assistance, this report. Thank you also to Nick Oakeshott including contributing the foreward to this report. (Asylum Aid) for his kind assistance. UNHCR in the UK and Turkey have been extremely helpful to us and we would like to thank Jacqueline 2 Refugee Council report 2008 Contents Executive Summary 4 Recommendations 7 Foreword 10 Chapter One – Introduction 12 Chapter Two – Contextual Overview 15 The legal dimensions 22 Chapter Three – Visa restrictions and e-Borders 25 Chapter Four – Outposted immigration officials 35 Chapter Five – Carrier Sanctions 44 A note on State Responsibility 50 Chapter Six – Displacement onto dangerous routes and methods 52 Chapter Seven – Refugees in permanent transition 59 Non-Refoulement 70 Case studies 72 Annexe One – Interview Schedules 74 Glossary 79 Bibliography 81 Remote Controls 3 Executive Summary This report presents the findings of a one-year Refugee Council project, which examined the impact of the UK’s border controls on refugees’ ability to escape persecution and find protection. The project was guided by an International Advisory Group of leading NGOs, lawyers, academics and UNHCR, and fieldwork was undertaken in Turkey to review the impact of border controls in a key transit country for refugees. Policy context claiming asylum, refugees are forced to travel The dramatic decrease in the number of refugees irregularly in ‘mixed flows’, and hence encounter the coming to the UK over the last 20 years is not same border controls as other irregular migrants. matched by any decrease in conflict around the world. In fact, the global number of refugees and This study explores the various overseas UK border those displaced within their own country has controls and their impact on refugees. The report increased. The Refugee Council is concerned that demonstrates that a request for documentation is the plethora of UK border controls placed overseas often the first obstacle faced by a refugee trying to and aimed at preventing irregular migration is escape. Refugee respondents explained that they preventing refugees fleeing from their own countries were unable to obtain passports when their country and getting to a place of safety. was in a state of upheaval. To compound this difficulty, visas are required for many nationalities. The Refugee Council believes that the UK Our research shows that the imposition of visas on government needs to recognise that wherever it nationals of countries such as Iraq, Somalia and operates border controls, or influences the border Zimbabwe make escape from persecution controls of other States, refugees will be moving extremely difficult. across those borders because they need to escape from persecution and human rights abuses. In order • Leading refugee law expert, Guy Goodwin-Gill for the UK Government to comply with its legal and has provided a legal analysis for this report, in moral obligations, it must ensure that its border which he questions whether anything remains controls do not result in refugees being unable to of the right ‘to seek’ asylum in 2008, the 60th escape their countries of origin or being sent back anniversary of the Universal Declaration of to persecution. Such practice, known as Human Rights. refoulement, is prohibited by the 1951 Convention Today’s ‘rights-holders’ are faced with obstacles put relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the UK in place by States to curb irregular migration. is a signatory. However, States bear responsibilities for actions taken outside their territories. Most crucially, Key findings refugees should not directly, or indirectly, be sent • The UK government’s ‘upstream’ migration back to a place of persecution or torture as a result controls risk blocking refugees who are trying of the actions of UK officials at home or abroad. A to escape their country of origin or transit. decade after the Human Rights Act, Goodwin-Gill This report focuses on the UK Government’s concludes that it is unclear whether the UK’s objective of moving migration control as far specific human rights obligations are integrated ‘upstream’ as possible in order to stop irregular sufficiently, or at all, into its migration and asylum migrants reaching the UK. Since there is no legal policy and practice. way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of 4 Refugee Council report 2008 • The protection-blind use of technology in documented passenger brought to the UK, means border control ignores the needs of refugees that individuals suspected of intending to claim who are forced to travel irregularly. asylum in the UK are classified as a threat and The UK’s use of technology in the field of border therefore likely to be refused boarding. Identification control is also examined in this report. The Refugee of such risky passengers is based on little more Council finds it remarkable and disappointing that in than ad hoc profiling by carriers, and the use of ‘gut implementing a sophisticated and expensive border feeling’ to intercept individuals suspected of control system, refugees’ protection needs have travelling irregularly or of intending to destroy their been entirely ignored. Our refugee respondents travel documents before arriving in the UK. Carriers expressed a particular fear that the use of showed little awareness of basic refugee protection biometrics to ‘fix’ individual identity leaves no room principles, including the prohibition on refoulement. for legitimate explanations for the use of irregular There is a lack of transparency surrounding private travel by refugees, as provided for by Article 31 of carriers’ immigration control activities. This makes it the 1951 Refugee Convention. difficult to guarantee that refugees’ lives are not put at risk. • Interception activities conducted by the UK’s outposted immigration officials and private • There must be a solution to the needs of carriers contain no safeguards for persons refugees in order to prevent irregular and who may need international protection, and dangerous travel to safety in Europe. could even lead to refoulement. As a result of our findings, we identified an urgent The report considers the responsibilities of need for safeguards to be incorporated into the outposted immigration officials, whose work with UK’s border activities in order to protect refugees. airlines and government counterparts throughout At the same time, the Refugee Council believes that the world aims to intercept irregular
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Refugee Children's Consortium
    Refugee Children’s Consortium Kamena Dorling Co-chair, Refugee Children’s Consortium Coram Children’s Legal Centre 48 Mecklenburgh Square London WC1N 2QA James Brokenshire MP Immigration Minister 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF By email to: [email protected] 14 th July 2015 Dear Minister, I write on behalf of the Refugee Children’s Consortium (RCC), a group of NGOs working collaboratively to ensure that the rights and needs of refugee children are promoted and respected. Several of our members recently attended a meeting where plans for the future of assisted voluntary return programmes were shared and we understand that these plans will be put to you for approval. We wish to express our particular concern at the proposal to end funding for independent, impartial advice to individuals considering voluntary return to their country of origin. RCC member organisations work closely with children and young people who, for a variety of reasons, may wish to discuss the option of voluntary return and in most cases will feel confused and in need of specialist information and advice. Children who have entered the asylum system have expressed a fear of returning to their country of origin but may be missing family members or struggling to cope with the difference in systems and culture in the UK. In seeking assistance from an independent agency they are frequently helped to deal with their concerns and the ones who go on to make a decision to return will have done so with a trusted adult helping them think through their options. Unaccompanied children in the UK have no adult to exercise parental responsibility for them.
    [Show full text]
  • Children First: the Child Protection System in England
    House of Commons Education Committee Children first: the child protection system in England Fourth Report of Session 2012-13 Volume III Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 30 October 2012 Published on 16 November 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited The Education Committee The Education Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Education and its associated public bodies. Membership at time Report agreed: Mr Graham Stuart MP (Conservative, Beverley & Holderness) (Chair) Neil Carmichael MP (Conservative, Stroud) Alex Cunningham MP (Labour, Stockton North) Bill Esterson MP, (Labour, Sefton Central) Pat Glass MP (Labour, North West Durham) Damian Hinds MP (Conservative, East Hampshire) Charlotte Leslie MP (Conservative, Bristol North West) Siobhain McDonagh MP (Labour, Mitcham and Morden) Ian Mearns MP (Labour, Gateshead) David Ward MP (Liberal Democrat, Bradford East) Craig Whittaker MP (Conservative, Calder Valley) Nic Dakin MP (Labour, Scunthorpe), Tessa Munt MP (Liberal Democrat, Wells) and Lisa Nandy MP (Labour, Wigan) were also members of the Committee during the inquiry. Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery
    [Show full text]
  • Refugees and Social Integration in Europe
    1 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) Division for Social Policy and Development United Nations Expert Group Meeting New York 15 – 16 May 2018 Refugees and Social Integration in Europe Mihaela Robila, Ph.D., CFLE Professor Human Development and Family Studies Queens College, City University of New York 2 Refugees and Social Integration in Europe 1. Introduction Refugees’ social integration in the host society is high on the international agenda. Refugees’ social integration is also in line with the Sustainable Development Goal 16 which is “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all level”, particularly target 16.10 which focuses on “Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements” (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg16 ). The goal of this paper is to examine refugees’ social integration in Europe, with a focus on their psychosocial and family functioning, and modalities to support it. Refugees’ integration is a complex and multidimensional construct, referring to integration into the economic, educational, health, and social contexts. There were 22.5 million refugees worldwide in 2017, over half of them under 18 years of age (UNCHR, 2018). More than half of refugees are from three countries: Syria (5.5. million), Afganistan (2.5 million) and South Sudan (1.4 million), and the major host countries for refugees are: Turkey (2.9 mil), Pakistan (1.4 mil), Lebanon (1 mil), Iran (979,400 people) (UNCHR, 2018). The 1951 Geneva Convention defined as refugee someone who has a “fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Safe Third Country Agreement, Irregular Migration
    The Safe Third Country Agreement, Irregular Migration and Refugee Rights: A Canadian Policy Challenge Zainab Abu Alrob (PhD Candidate, Policy Studies, Ryerson University) & John Shields (Professor, Ryerson University) March 2020 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS CBSA: Canada Border Services Agency IHAP: Interim Housing Assistance Program IRB: Immigration and Refugee Board (Canada) IRCC: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada IRPA: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada) LAO: Legal Aid Ontario PRAIDA: Programme Régional D'accueil et D'intégration des Demandeurs A'asile RCMP: Royal Canadian Mounted Police RPD: Refugee Protection Division (Canada) STCA: Safe Third Country Agreement (Canada-U.S.) 2 Executive Summary This paper examines current policy developments surrounding the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA). In 2017, large surges in irregular arrivals crossed Canadian border at points where the Agreement does not apply. This spurred political debates around a so-called “loophole” and the charge that asylum seekers were taking advantage of unauthorized crossings. Efforts to re-claim migration control have triggered more restrictive asylum policies and a colder climate towards refugees in Canada. Amendments to modernize STCA, budget cuts to the services available to refugees as well as a heavy investment into a more “effective” border strategy were presented by the Canadian government as viable solutions to mitigating the implications caused by the large volume of asylum claims and perceived threats to the resilience of the Canadian immigration system. Currently, there is an ongoing legal challenge against the legality of the Safe Third Country Agreement at the Federal Court of Canada. An exploration of the historical policy challenges to the Canada-U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Working with the UK Border Agency and Border Force
    This document was archived on 31 March 2016 Working with the UK Border Agency and Border Force archived This document was archived on 31 March 2016 Working with the UK Border Agency and Border Force UKBA works with key partner organisations Important facts Background to address key threats to the UK. These are the threats from: Controlling migration On 1 March 2012 Border Force was split from UKBA to become a separate law • terrorists; The Home Office is responsible for controlling enforcement command, led by its own migration to the UK, through the work of Border Force, Director General, and accountable directly to • criminals enabling illegal immigration which applies immigration and customs controls on Ministers. through fraud, forgery or other passengers arriving at the border, and of the UK Border organised attempts to cheat the Agency (UKBA). UKBA UKBA will protect the border and ensure that immigration system; Britain remains open for business, checking • processes visa applications overseas and people travelling to the UK before they arrive • organised illegal immigration to the applications for further stay from those already through visa checks, intelligence and the use UK; and, in the country, including students, workers, of the e-Borders system. family members and asylum seekers; • a crisis in another country that could At an operational level, Border Force ports lead to false or unfounded claims for • processes citizenship applications; and have local arrangements with the police, in asylum alongside legitimate refugee particular Special Branch, and, in Northern claims. • takes enforcement action against those found Ireland, the C3 Ports Policing Branch, for to be in the UK unlawfully.
    [Show full text]
  • Home Office the Response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Investigation Into a Complaint by Mrs a and Her Family About the Home Office
    Home Office The response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigation into a complaint by Mrs A and her family about the Home Office January 2015 Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... 2 Foreword by the Permanent Secretary .................................................................................... 4 Executive summary ................................................................................................................. 5 Summary of recommendations ................................................................................................ 6 Background to the PHSO Report ............................................................................................. 9 Current Home Office structure ........................................................................................... 10 The PHSO Report .............................................................................................................. 10 Section 1: PHSO Recommendation 1 .................................................................................... 13 Overview of Section 1 ........................................................................................................ 13 The visa issuing process – self declaration and criminal history ........................................ 13 Procedures when a criminal record is declared .................................................................. 13
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to the Common European Asylum System for Courts and Tribunals a Judicial Analysis
    European Asylum Support Office An Introduction to the Common European Asylum System for Courts and Tribunals A Judicial Analysis Produced by the International Association of Refugee Law Judges European Chapter under contract to EASO August 2016 SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION EASO Professional Development Series for Members of Courts and Tribunals European Asylum Support Office An Introduction to the Common European Asylum System for Courts and Tribunals A Judicial Analysis Produced by the International Association of Refugee Law Judges European Chapter under contract to EASO August 2016 SUPPORT IS OUR MISSION Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00800 numbers or these calls may be billed. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). ISBN 978-92-9243-863-0 doi:10.2847/695557 © European Asylum Support Office 2016 Neither EASO nor any person acting on its behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained herein. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM FOR COURTS AND TRIBUNALS — 3 European Asylum Support Office The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is an agency of the European Union that plays a key role in the concrete development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). It was established with the aim of enhancing practical cooperation on asylum matters and helping Member States fulfil their European and international obligations to give protection to people in need.
    [Show full text]
  • 4Ca57fe42.Pdf
    Contents INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 2 I. PRE -DEPARTURE : IDENTIFICATION , COUNSELLING AND ACTIVITIES IN PREPARATION FOR DEPARTURE .................................................................................................................. 3 1) Identification and selection process .................................................................... 3 a. Participation in the identification process with UNHCR ................................... 3 b. Counselling and assistance to refugees during the processing stage: Preparation of dossiers and interviews................................................................ 3 c. Assistance during the decision-making process: pre-screening of refugees, participation in identification missions ................................................................. 4 d. External referrals ............................................................................................. 5 2) After the eligibility decision.................................................................................. 5 a. Pre-Departure Cultural Orientation.................................................................. 5 b. Travel arrangements ....................................................................................... 6 II. POST -ARRIVAL : RECEPTION AND INTEGRATION ACTIVITIES ........................................ 7 1) Reception...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cost to Renew Nz Passport in Australia
    Cost To Renew Nz Passport In Australia Ripley is biyearly and empathizing loosest while anticonvulsant Ellis shalwar and surname. Hallucinogenic and triethyl Leonidas always accomplishes funny and prove his greige. Hermann is indicial and brunch gramophonically while nebulous Pepillo westers and alternates. Anyone travelling to New Zealand including New Zealand and Australian citizens must have same valid passporttravel document when entering New Zealand. Zealand and Canada viewed passports as well cost recovery exercise. 10-year passports back put a price NZ Herald. Are in to nz cost. Australian passport validity for travel Technically Australian passports are keep till their expiry date. To leaving New Zealand a passport valid defence at only one month project the intended hijack of hill is required by. Apply issue renew now than then their particular New Zealand dependent visa. You should fear for an Employment Visa along both a copy of the average letter stating the smash of internship. OCI MISCELLANEOUS, etc, therein. The nz for! This visa endorsement of professional passport and innovation visas are valid student visa application centre and cannot be no requirement, passport to cost renew nz in australia you from the application fee? PHOTOS Two Australian and New Zealand passport size recent. What documents should I realize while travelling to India? Adult may well find Child applications. Do you say a visa and passport for New Zealand. Can renew in australia. The South African Passport and Travel Documents Act of 1994 regulates the. The backup of this maple in your browser is voluntary from the version below. For australia to renew a general and hand they may check your passport? If i reapply for in to cost renew passport? New travel rules and levy for New Zealand Education NZ.
    [Show full text]
  • An Inspection of E-Borders October 2012 – March 2013
    ‘Exporting the border’? An inspection of e-Borders October 2012 – March 2013 John Vine CBE QPM Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration Our Purpose We provide independent scrutiny of the UK’s border and immigration functions to improve their efficiency and effectiveness. Our Vision To drive improvement within the UK’s border and immigration functions, to ensure they deliver fair, consistent and respectful services. All Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration inspection reports can be found at: www.independent.gov.uk/icinspector Email us: [email protected] Write to us: Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, 5th Floor, Globe House, 89 Eccleston Square, London, SW1V 1PN United Kingdom Contents FOREWORD 2 1. Executive Summary 3 2. Summary of Recommendations 7 3. The Inspection: In order to assist readers we have provided a summary of the key terms used in this report. 8 4. Background 11 5. Passenger Data 16 6. The National Border Targeting Centre 22 7. How e-Borders is used at ports of entry 32 8. Have the benefits of e-Borders been realised? 36 Appendix A – Inspection Framework and Criteria 45 Appendix B – Statutory Basis for e-Borders 46 Appendix C – Glossary 47 Acknowledgements 51 1 FOREWORD FROM JOHN VINE CBE QPM INDEPENDENT CHIEF INSPECTOR OF BORDERS AND IMMIGRATION The e-Borders programme has been in development for over a decade now, and has cost nearly half a billion pounds of public money, with many millions more to be invested over the coming years. The intention of e-borders was to ‘export the border’ by preventing passengers considered a threat to the UK from travelling, as well as delivering more efficient immigration control.
    [Show full text]
  • The EU's Role in Implementing the UN Global Compact on Refugees
    The EU’s Role in Implementing the UN Global Compact on Refugees Contained Mobility vs. International Protection Sergio Carrera and Roberto Cortinovis No. 2018-04, April 2019 Abstract The Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), adopted in December 2018 by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, expresses the political will of UN member states and relevant stakeholders to foster responsibility sharing for refugees and their host countries. Among GCR key objectives is that of expanding mobility and admission channels for people in search of international protection through resettlement and ‘complementary’ pathways of admission. The GCR provides a reference framework to critically assess European Union (EU) policies in relation to two main issues: first, the role and contribution of the EU and its Member States towards the implementation of the GCR in ways that are loyal to the Compact and EU Treaties guiding principles; second, and more specifically, the main gaps and contested issues of existing resettlement and complementary admission instruments for refugees and would-be refugees implemented at the EU and Member State levels. This paper argues that EU policies in the field of asylum and migration have been driven by a ‘contained mobility’ approach, which has been recently operationalised in the scope of EU third country arrangements like the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement. Under this approach, restrictive and selective mobility/admission arrangements for refugees have been progressively consolidated and used in exchange of, or as incentives for, third country commitments to EU readmission and expulsions policy. The paper concludes by recommending that the EU moves from an approach focused on ‘contained mobility’ towards one that places refugee’s rights and agency at the centre through facilitated resettlement and other complementary pathways driven by a fundamental rights and international protection rationale.
    [Show full text]
  • Response by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association 28 July 2006
    Response by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association 28 July 2006: Consultation Document: Private freight searching and fingerprinting at Juxtaposed Controls Introduction ILPA is a professional association with some 1200 members, who are barristers, solicitors and advocates practising in all aspects of immigration, asylum and nationality law. Academics, non-government organisations and others working in this field are also members. ILPA exists to promote and improve the giving of advice on immigration and asylum, through teaching, provision of high quality resources and information. ILPA is represented on numerous government and appellate authority stakeholder and advisory groups. We are grateful for this opportunity to express our concerns regarding the proposed extension of UK activities in France and Belgium regarding the detention and fingerprinting of individuals and the extension of UK powers of detention to companies acting in France and Belgium. ILPA provided briefings to parliamentarians and also discussed with Ministers and officials what are now sections 41 and 42 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and also the fingerprinting provisions of the 2006 Act and its predecessors. We have drawn attention in this response to comments made by Ministers at the time, which could usefully have been discussed more extensively in the consultation paper itself. We have looked at the questions posed in the consultation paper. Given that many of them are directed at those operating in the ports concerned we have not structured our response around those questions. We have, however, highlighted them where appropriate. Our concerns revolve primarily around two aspects of the legislation and its proposed implementation: (1) Private contractors will be given the power to search vehicles and any person to detect and to detain and escort such persons to the nearest immigration detention facility.
    [Show full text]