Tag Archives: migration

Why Scotland’s Treatment of Refugees is a Cut Above the Rest

Posted on by

This past week, I’ve been doing some freelance research for a British human rights charity. This experience has dramatically opened my eyes to the absolute chaos that is the British “immigration” system.

Of course, we’ve all heard about British government’s fumbling inability to handle current refugees and even integrate migrants. Windrush Scandal, anyone? Or Theresa May’s explicit wish since 2012 “to create, here in Britain, a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants”? Well, looks like it’s worked there, Prime Minister! How about the refusal to grant visas to 100+ Indian doctors, who had been especially recruited to help critical health shortages in the NHS? Or the ever-growing imprisonment of asylum seekers in British “detention facilities”? Or the fact that the Home Secretary herself had no idea that immigration quotas were used in her own department? So long, Amber Rudd.

But while I was scrutinising the absolute disorder and contradictory measures that the Home Office currently takes towards the world’s most vulnerable people – refugees, asylum seekers and victims of trafficking – I was delighted to discover that at least one portion of this Great Britain is taking deliberate, long-term steps towards helping these groups: Scotland.

Did you know that of all the UK, Scotland is the only nation that wants to give refugees the right to vote?

Hurrah! In May 2018, it was announced that plans are being proposed to the Scottish Parliament to give EU, non-EU and asylum seekers the right to vote. Let’s hope it passes!

But why is this a good thing? Giving migrants the right to vote is an absolute cornerstone of nations with a history of immigration and diversity. For example, Australia, the United States, and Canada have benefitted immensely from giving refugees, asylum seekers and other landed migrants the right to vote. Although, admittedly, this didn’t happen overnight. (For example, Japanese and aboriginals in Canada were not given the right to vote until 1949 and 1960, respectively). But in the 1970s, Canadian PM Pierre Trudeau flooded Canada with migrants and, by extension, new voters. Although it seems wonderfully inclusive, the true motive was to dilute existing Francophone and Anglophone tensions that were hitting a crisis point!

Trudeau’s strategy, however underhanded, achieved something remarkable. It meant that political parties had to include these new immigrants in their broader policy objectives. It meant that migrants were courted with initiatives that appealed directly to them. This forced politics to become dynamic, progressive and inclusive. Instead of pushing migrants to the fringes of society, this enforced that Canadians, whether new or native, were included in the most high-level decisions in Ottawa. In fact, in 2011 and 2015, the Canadian Conservative Party won a higher share of votes among immigrants than it did among native-born Canadians. Go figure.

Of course, if migrants in Scotland are given the right to vote, this allows the Scottish National Party (SNP), currently a significant minority party, an opportunity to expand its voter base. And, you know what? I don’t care. It doesn’t matter if you’re an SNP, Tory, Labour, Lib Dem or Green supporter. If migrants can vote, including EU and non-EU residents, then this only benefits greater Scottish society. Inclusivity and diversity will become ingrained in Scottish politics which, in turn, will impact Scottish voters, Scottish attitudes and broader long-term Scottish aims.  This will irrevocably enrich Scottish society.

Also, increasing the rights of people who live here does not nullify or decrease the existing voter rights of born-and-bred Scots. Equal rights for others does not mean less rights for them. It’s not pie, right?

image

Green MSP Ross Greer said in May 2018,  “What better way could we show refugees and asylum seekers that they truly are welcome and that Scotland is their home than by giving them the right to vote?” These Syrian refugees arrived in December 2017 to be settled on the Isle of Bute (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images).

Did you know that of all the UK, Scotland is the only nation to have an explicit strategy in place to integrate newly-arrived refugees?

To my absolute astonishment, England, Wales and Northern Ireland do not have any broader strategy to integrate its thousands of refugees and asylum seekers.  Stupid, no? Fortunately, after mounting pressure, England announced last March that it will invest £50m to support an Integrated Communities Strategy that will initially target five local authorities in England to improve English language skills, increase economic opportunities (particularly for women) and ensure that every child receives an education. So, I guess late is better than never, eh?

But a lack of an “integration strategy” (however bureaucratic and boring that sounds) has massive impact on migrants. For example, asylum seekers in the UK face massive problems once they’re granted refugee status. After waiting six months for a decision (while surviving on just £37.75/week for yourself and dependents, with no right to work or access mainstream benefits, and living in shady Home Office accommodation outsourced to companies with a history of poor quality compliance, like G4S), you are given just 28 days to find work, a new home, apply for benefits, and “move on” towards integration.

This “move on” period is often the worst moment for refugees in the UK. Suicide rates spike, mental health problems increase, people are forced into destitution and exploitation simply due to a lack of support and, critically, not enough time.

In fact, the Home Office often does not send critical documentation to new refugees within this 28-day period. For example, a National Insurance Number (NINo) and Biometric Residence Permit become vital to a refugee’s survival in the UK because they often did not flee war and persecution in their homeland with their passports, right? So, one or both of these documents are required for gaining employment, opening a bank account, applying for a Home Office “integration loan” (£100+), accessing mainstream benefits and securing private or public accommodation. However, the Home Office often does not send these documents until well after an asylum seeker has been granted refugee status. Seems counterintuitive, no?

For example, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees wrote in their report about Sami from Iraq. He was not sent his NINo until the day after he was evicted from his Home Office accommodation (at the end of the 28 day “move on” period). Because Sami could not claim benefits or obtain employment to secure accommodation without his NINo, he was forced into homelessness. Charity reports are riddled with stories like these, where it’s obvious that the UK’s current system is failing those it most means to help. Instead, homelessness, destitution and exploitation become synonymous with the refugee experience.

After the “move on” period, refugees now have the long-term task to integrate. Learning English is, obviously, the biggest task. Without being able to communicate, migrants cannot access NHS services, higher education or training, the job market, or even just simple things like community events! So, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes are vital, right? But in England, government funding for ESOL classes was drastically reduced by 55% between 2008 to 2015. Fortunately, Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland all currently have ESOL strategies in place. Nearly 5% of all Scots (over age of 3 years old) actually speak another language other than English in the home. Although Brits are generally notorious for not speaking other languages, at least the Scottish government is wise enough to support these refugees learning English. This, sadly, is something they’re failing to do south of Hadrian’s Wall.

Did you know that of all the UK, Scotland currently hosts the largest urban population of refugees? Yep, Glasgow.

The local authorities that currently host the largest number of asylum seekers (waiting on refugee status) are Glasgow (3,799), Liverpool (1,622), Birmingham (1,575), and Cardiff (1,317). But the largest asylum seeker populations are actually in North West (10,111), the West Midlands (5,431), Yorkshire and the Humber (5,258) and London (5,084).

JS98397454

By September 2016, asylum seekers were ten times more likely to live in Glasgow than anywhere else in the UK. Seems the ‘Weegies were okay with this! (Photo credit)

Although asylum seekers are allocated Home Office accommodations in Glasgow, decisions on their applications are not within the remit of the Scottish authorities. Everything is decided through a centralised, federal system. But while one waits on their application, one can be “dispersed” anywhere within the system without one’s choice taken into account. This means that local authorities and NGOs must compensate for shortages in financial support, issuing documentation and allocated housing.

Fortunately, there’s multiple Scottish/Glaswegian charities willing to help: Scottish Refugee Council, Refugee Survival Trust, Positive Action in Housing, and Scottish Faiths Action for Refugees, among others.

To my great surprise, I googled “Glasgow, refugees, asylum seekers, bad, 2018” to find recent negative news stories about asylum seekers in Scotland. To my shock, I found nothing that denotes a systemic problem between asylum seekers and the local populations. Instead, I googled “Glasgow, refugees, asylum seekers, 2018” and found headlines within the last 6 months like this:

JS143362104

Damascene Street Food really does look delicious, eh?

Of course, there must be bad news stories… and they appear to be coming from Scottish charities. One independent news source, called The Ferret, reported that charities had doled out record amounts of emergency grants to asylum seekers in 2017 – over £110,000 to be precise. And, at £80 per grant, that’s a huge number of asylum seekers deemed to be in crisis in Scotland.

Why is it so high, the Ferret asks? Due to delays on documentation, poor housing, no access to work or benefits while waiting on one’s application, etc. Basically everything I’ve already written. In fact, The Ferret calls it the “invisible epidemic” of refugee destitution. Evidently, Scottish charities are facing the same challenges as their brothers and sisters south of the border.

Did you know that Scotland allows asylum seekers and refugees full access to the NHS?

All refugees in the UK have immediate free access to healthcare provided by the NHS. Asylum seekers are also entitled to free “urgent care” (also called “primary care”) while in the UK. But “secondary care,” such as getting a specialist to check that never-ending ear infection, or receiving mental health support, or chemotherapy if you have cancer, all those types of long-term “secondary care” benefits are not provided to everyone.

In England, those refused asylum are required to payfor secondary health services. However, in Scotland, refugees and even refused asylum seekers (those deemed as having no recourse to public funds “NRPF”) have full access and treatment on the same basis as any other UK national. Also, all prescriptions are free! Sensational.

So what?

The broader immigration system in the UK is flawed, to put it mildly. Asylum seekers like Nesrîn, an Iraqi Kurd, and her two children, survive on just £37.75/week. She comments that:

They give us asylum benefit so we will not beg, but actually we are begging. Sometimes I cry for myself; everything is secondhand, everything is help. I can never do something for myself… When you become a mum you have everything dreamed for your daughter, and I can’t do anything. I’ve given up, actually.

I can’t imagine just how powerless an asylum seeker must feel in this country. After fleeing violence, war and persecution in their homeland, they arrive on British shores to only find a hostile and monstrous bureaucracy awaiting them.

But, fortunately, Scotland’s treatment of refugees is a cut above the rest. By giving asylum seekers the right to vote, you are giving them a voice. By giving asylum seekers access to full healthcare, you are giving them a chance to live. By creating national strategies for local governments, communities and charities, you are giving refugees a chance to learn English, get a job, find a home, receive an education and integrate into Scottish society. These are remarkable steps in a direction that is supportive, inclusive and diverse. As Sabir Zaza, Chief Executive of the Scottish Refugee Council, said eloquently in May 2018:

“
Refugees often flee their homes because their human rights are denied. For people from the refugee community to then have access to all their rights including the right to vote in Scotland is a hugely significant point in their journey towards integration, citizenship and the ability to play an active role in society.”

Refugees, Labour and Violence: Rethinking “borders” while in the Scottish Borders

Posted on by

Last month, I holidayed in a region of southern Scotland called “The Borders.” As the boyfriend was raised in one of its charming towns, I had a built-in tour guide. He showed me all the fluffy sheep, the gorgeous green rolling hills and told me stories of the Borders’ sparkling history of violence and raiding.

IMG_6164

This vantage of the Tweed valley and Eildon Hills is called “Scott’s View,” as it is reputed as one of Sir Walter Scott’s favourite views.

This lush swath of land held a contentious political boundary that separated Scotland from England. Between the 13th and 17th centuries, this magnificent countryside became ground zero in the quest to define those two nationalities. Repetitive small conflicts and systematic raiding dominated the region due to a group of mercenaries called the Border Reivers. Equipped with bows and arrows and mounted on little ponies, they were notorious for stealing, raping and fighting for live stock and lands.

Blog 7 - Borders 1200px-Reivers_raid_on_Gilnockie_Tower

Queen Elizabeth I was so impressed with the Border Reivers ruthless success, that she once said, “with ten thousand such men, James VI could shake any throne in Europe.”  (photo: wikipedia)

Today, traces of the intense violence are still present in the abandoned peel towers that dot the countryside, where residents would hide from invaders. One particular peel tower called Smailholm Tower was made popular by Scotland’s cherished author, Sir Walter Scott. As a child battling polio in the late 1700s, Scott stayed with his grandparents at Sandyknowes farm just beside Smailholm Tower and even played in its ruins.

IMG_6155

Smailholm Tower was one of hundreds of defensive fortifications that dotted the countryside. Inside was often a local laird and enough room to house the sheep and cattle, a major resource for the Border Reivers.

Due to the strong oral traditions among the local farmers and shepherds, Scott also learned about the Border Reivers’s raids through workers on the farm, including his auntie who would sing to him. Years later, Scott transcribed and modified some of these folk tales, popularising them through his writings and publications. In one fell swoop, Sir Walter Scott’s renditions of these stories soon came to define an entire portion of Scotland’s (heavily disputed) land and (blood-soaked) history into the romanticised nation we know today.

IMG_6262

Abbotsford, Sir Walter Scott’s family home, is now a B&B and museum.

While Scott’s impact upon Scotland is indisputable – he seemed to be a remarkable and eccentric man – the Scottish Borders as a specific region made me stop and think. Scotland and England would eventually find peace (to an extent) so that the violence would stop, but what do such borders achieve?

Are borders entirely arbitrary, or do they serve a useful purpose? What do borders accomplish? How do borders define a group? Do they cause more peace or more violence? Do we still need them? Or should we build more?   

I’m not the first to ask such questions, especially in recent history. Just last month, it was the 70th anniversary of India and Pakistan’s creation. Or, it was the 70th anniversary of one of the bloodiest legacies that ever came from drawing a border.

In the immediate post-war era, calls for Indian independence from British rule could no longer by ignored by Westminster. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, leader of the Congress and Muslim League, demanded the creation of a Muslim state. With British PM Clement Atlee’s strong support, Lord Louis Mountbatten and Cyril Radcliffe were responsible for hastily drawing a boundary that essentially cut Punjab and Bengal almost in half.  But the problem was that millions of Muslims lived in what would become Hindu-majority India, while millions of Hindus and Sikhs lived in what would be Muslim-majority Pakistan.

Pakistan Remembering Partition

A photo from 19 September 1947 of an overcrowded train station by New Delhi (from an article by Dawn).

The “Mountabatten Plan” was submitted just five days before India and Pakistan were partitioned (14th and 15th August, respectively). Celebrations ensued, but so did mass migration. Over 15 million Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus essentially swapped countries, leading to over a million deaths in the violence that followed. Chaos reigned at train stations, looting and food shortages were commonplace. People apparently defended themselves from discriminate attacks with knives, guns, swords. Thousands sought shelter and refuge in sacred temples and tombs. Millions died because of this arbitrary, hastily drawn line in the earth. Millions died because of a border.

Borders, essentially, divide people.

Hundreds of years ago, physical features of the land would define a people, such as river or forest. But in more recent history, borders have been politically motivated rather than geographically defined. Or sometimes both. I remember being a young Canadian elementary student in Social Studies class and asking why the US-Canada border was straight on the left (west), but squiggly on the right (east). My teacher laughed and said the St. Lawrence River was the chosen boundary in the east, while the 49th latitude was the boundary in the west. The answer confused me, but then I was told that the US-Canada border is the longest undefended border in the world. “But we’ll be okay,” she reassured me. “Okay from what?” I remember thinking.

Borders “protect” people.

They keep foreigners out. They help us to define ourselves in relation to the “other” whatever we perceive it to be: barbarity, violence, backwardness, et cetera. By doing so, borders create a sense of homogeneity, safety and order for those inside, implying further that such civilised aspects of society only exist within that border. Borders thus legitimise our identities and strengthen our communities. Evidently, borders do accomplish a great deal.

Today’s borders allow free trade, the free movement of goods to be exchanged. This allows us to create links (sometimes exploitive) with our neighbours and is one of the best things to come out of colonisation and globalisation. And yet we do not afford that same freedom of movement to people, to labour.

As British journalist Giles Fraser says, “We are so hypocritical about our borders.” We will celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall, but we will fortify Calais and the UK against the waves of eastern refugees and migrants. We will condemn Trump’s proposed wall with Mexico, but continue the oppressive system of First Nations reservations in Canada and the US. We shake our heads at the illegal detainment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but we will applaud the commendable efforts of Médecins Sans Frontières (or, Doctors without Borders).

Why such hypocrisy? 

Professor Jonothan Moses claims in International Migration: Globalization’s Last Frontier (2006), that “as distance in the world recedes with technological, social, demographic and political advances, the demand for international migration will surely grow.” The only way to solve our multiple global problems, he claims, is through free migration. It is the last frontier to be conquered by the global community. Naturally, this sounds both radical and implausible, but he assures us that eventually we would become more just and happier, as the world’s economic and political bounty would be better distributed.

A world without borders? Is that possible?  

Just imagine a world where you could visit or permanently move anywhere you wanted without restrictions. Tropical islands everywhere would become overwhelmed with the world’s richest retirement-aged elites. Many long-distance relationships could be solved. Families separated by war or migration could be reunited.  Unmarried women could backpack through Saudi Arabia! And, importantly, the global divide between the rich underpopulated North and the poor overpopulated South would rebalance. Eventually.

But a world without borders is difficult to comprehend.  So if a borderless, free-moving, global population is one radical extreme, then at the other end of the spectrum is a world with well-defined “nations”. We know this world, because we are living in it. A world with borders, barriers and walls, such as those that currently in Israel/Palestine, or those proposed by Trump with Mexico, or those proposed by Brexit with Europe. No more EU Schengen plans. No more visa-free travel. Everyone restricted to their little nation. Everyone defined by their borders.

Olympics

The closing ceremonies of the London 2012 Olympics demonstrates just how much we are defined by our borders (Photo: Daily Mail).

But then, history. History tells us that borders aren’t necessarily the best invention since sliced bread. Borders cause war, then war happens, then borders are redrawn. Repeat. For example, one of the strongest underlying factors for the outbreak of the First World War was the fact that people were angry with their borders. And this anger took the form of nationalism. Pause here.

Nationalism (generally, a pride in one’s nation) is based upon a collective identity due to ethnic, religious, and/or political reasons. It’s a massive concept that historians debate endlessly (see Anthony Smith’s Theories of Nationalism (1971), Ernest Gellner’s Nations and Nationalism (1983), anything by Eric J. Hobsbaum). Because borders keep foreigners out, legitimise citizens within, and nurture collective pride and identity, nationalism is tied inextricably to borders – real or imagined. Nationalism does not always need to exist in a community, but it does exist because that community is legitimised by, or rebelling against, its borders. Correct? Yes.

So, in the early 1900s, multiple ethnic communities in the Balkans were formulating new identities that wanted autonomy from the Austria-Hungarian state and old Emperor Franz Joseph in Vienna. Two previous localised Balkan wars had proved just how forceful these groups were becoming. But the conflict escalated into the First World War when a member of one Serbian nationalist group assassinated the nephew of the Emperor. Nationalism, aggravated by borders (that these groups felt limited by), was thus a major component of the ongoing tensions that sparked and accelerated that conflict.

After the First World War, borders were redrawn: Poland, Finland and the Baltics were born. Austria-Hungary was split into Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to the French. German colonies were transferred to the victors. The League of Nations was created to hopefully broker ongoing peace and stability after an estimated 25 million deaths.

Versailles, deutsche Verhandlungdelegation

The German delegates at the Treaty of Versailles: Professor Walther Schücking, Reichspostminister Johannes Giesberts, Justice Minister Otto Landsberg, Foreign Minister Ulrich Graf von Brockdorff-Rantzau, Prussian State President Robert Leinert, and financial advisor Carl Melchior. (Photo from Wikipedia).

For a time, it seemed to work. But the League of Nations faltered. Nationalism grew. This time Germany and Russia became massive forces that spurned many citizens to believe that their nations had not only the means but the right to reclaim lost territories and even conquer new ones. Hitler and Stalin’s fierce ambitions, and weak Allied leadership in the late 1930s heightened tensions and nurtured opportunity for conflict. The Second World War resulted in an estimated 50 to 80 million deaths.

The United Nations attempted to succeed where the League of Nations failed. European Integration became central to rebuilding a world after total devastation. A common market was created among its first four members and the free movement of goods became a cornerstone of collective European prosperity. Go, Europe!

Simultaneously, the Cold War constructed “the Iron Curtain” and, again, divided Europe and the world. The Berlin Wall was erected in 1961 and symbolised the cold, hard barrier between western capitalism and eastern communism. The last remaining right-wing dictatorships in Portugal and Spain soon dissolved. In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell and East and West Germany were finally reunited. Borders that had previously been so indestructible for decades seem to crumble in a few short months.

berlin-1-1024x683

Over 138 people died trying to escape through the Wall, and an estimated 5,000 were successful. The first to escape was East German border guard, Corporal Conrad Schumann, in August 1961 (Photo from here)

By 1993, the Schengen Agreements allowed for movement of “four freedoms”: goods, services, money and people. Millions of young people were able to study in other EU countries and the Euro currency was adopted by most EU nations. Remarkably, the EU eased gracefully into a period of prosperity and harmony. Goals to tackle climate change and terrorism unified these once national enemies. Germany, despite his historic territorial ambitions, became the world leader in accepting refugees and migrants. The EU won the Noble Peace Prize in 2012.

But then, Brexit. And Trump’s Mexico wall. It seems that some western leaders believe tightening borders, not eradicating them, is the best response to global migration.

So what’s the solution?

Rethink the nature of “borders.” Although totally removing borders is radical and implausible in the near future, global migration will only increase. As migrants move between countries, they often transition through multiple societies, adopting new identities in each and thus complicating the simple labels of “origin” and “destination.” Global migration is not only increasing, but becoming vastly more complex.

History proves that borders do not keep foreigners “out” nor keep citizens “in”. And why should they? The global economy is based upon free trade, the free movement of goods, so why shouldn’t that be extended to people, to labour? Meanwhile, current gaps between the rich and poor, the north and south, the citizens and refugees, are eroding due to instantaneous communications, faster transportation, and global infrastructures and this exact type of trade. Sorry, world, but refugees and migrants won’t just “go away,” no matter how high you build those walls.

According to the International Organisation of Migration, “Migration is an integral part of global transformation and development processes rather than a problem to be solved.” If true, then how do we improve this?

Of course, the best remedies lay in helping those on the other side of the border. Provide immediate aid to victims of war, hunger and disease. Allow those fleeing persecution and war to cross borders, with or without passports or visas. Commit to large-scale, international resettlement projects across borders. Do not underfund long-term peace projects that tackle the root causes of war, hunger and disease. Persecute human traffickers heavily. Combat all forms of racism and xenophobia at home and abroad.

The Scottish Borders unknowingly provides us a great deal of information about how this could work on a global scale. Although fighting over human and material resources could continue for centuries, strict borders will eventually disappear. People will eventually live without violence. And while pride for one’s nation is still very strong in this part of the world, and tensions between Scotland and English still certainly exist, the Borders is a serene and renowned land with its numerous peel towers and fluffy sheep.

Who wouldn’t be proud of that?  

From a Land of Immigrants to a Land of Colonisers: A Lesson in Canadian Diversity for British Policymakers

Posted on by

This is a big year for Canada. After 150 years of explosively entertaining hockey, igloo-icy winters, and deliciously decadent Timbits, people around the world will celebrate Canada’s sesquicentennial. Happy birthday, Canada.

Canada Day.png

For those who have ever travelled, studied or lived abroad, you begin to appreciate your homeland in an entirely new way. As American philanthropist Cliff Borgen said “When overseas you learn more about your own country than you do the place you’re visiting.”  The novelty of other cultures is endearing and even helpfully distracting from the monotony of your normal life. But it’s when we are forced into new cultures when we are confronted with the reality that our own customs, traditions and protocols are sometimes arbitrary, bizarre and inefficient.

In this sense, travelling is not just gazing into the porthole of another new place, but actually a much more inverted and introspective experience. You begin to realise the ways you are fortunate, and the ways you are deprived. This even makes you think differently, apparently. According to one study, “People who have international experience or identify with more than one nationality are better problem solvers and display more creativity.” But, crucially, this depends on openness, an ability to embrace other people, cultures and ideas, which also means you’re happy to accept ambiguity and a lack of closure.

But what happens if you already hail from a country that values inclusivity, openness, diversity? How does that change your experience abroad?

As a Canadian, I think I am already “open” to others. It’s part of my “culture,” eh? Just under 40% of Canadians are immigrants or second-generation immigrants, and that is expected to rise to half the population by 2036. Canada is about as diverse a country as you can experience. A true land of immigrants. Canada is not a melting pot. Unlike the USA, newcomers to Canada are not expected to shed their cultural cloaks, assimilate and promptly adopt the “Canadian Dream.” Instead, Canada’s strength is its diversity. We embrace others.

best-diversity-employers

Happy Photo of Canadian Diversity from candiversity.com

It wasn’t always like that. In 1970, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau faced a major domestic crisis due to rising French nationalism in Quebec. Separatists wanted quicker political process and to expedite their demands they kidnapped a cabinet minister and British diplomat, resulting in the FLQ or October Crisis. Trudeau enacted the War Measures Act and tanks rolled into Montreal. Martial law was controversial and when asked by a reporter how far he would take such policing, Trudeau famously replied: “Just watch me.”

PETrudeau Just Watch Me

Watch Pierre Trudeau’s steely reaction to reporters here

In the background of this domestic upheaval was the introduction in the late 1960s of a new points-based system for immigration. Applicants were awarded points for age, education, ability to speak English or French, and demand for that particular applicant’s job skills. If an applicant scored enough points, he or she was granted admission together with their spouse and dependent children.

These “landed immigrants” were given all the same rights as Canadian-born citizens. A new sponsorship system also meant that immigrants could also sponsor relatives abroad for settlement. This allowed naturalized Canadians to engage in the immigration process. And, importantly for Trudeau, immigrants were given the right to vote.

By opening the doors and flooding the country with immigrants, while espousing a strong multiculturalist ideology, Trudeau and his Liberals diluted the Anglophone vs Francophone tensions. The Liberals, predictably, courted the newly arrived voters and sought policies that would appeal to them. Politically speaking, it was superior “checkmate” move against the radical separatists. Decades later, the same maneuver was used again by Conservative PM Stephen Harper, who needed to win a coalition in order to stay in power. The newly arrived minority voters were wined and dined which, in turn, meant that anti-immigrant groups were kept on the edges of politics. In the 2011 and 2015 elections, the Conservatives won a higher share of the vote among immigrants than it did among native-born citizens.

If it wasn’t already clear from centuries of Canadian history, then such politics firmly cemented the immigrants’ place in Canada’s national identity.

Right-wing, anti-immigrant political agendas are rare in Canada. Of course, there are always exceptions. Canada still has anti-Semites and people shooting up mosques out of fear of “the other.” One study recently claimed that anti-immigration sentiment was rising in Canada, although the same study claimed that over half of Canadians still agree to allow immigrants from poor countries. (Sweden’s 75% approval for immigration is the highest of all nations studied).

But let’s also remember the difference between immigrants and refugees. In 1978, Canada instituted the Canadian Immigration Act, whereby refugees – persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution – would no longer be an exception to Canadian immigration regulations. Although there were some problems, it remains a cornerstone of Canadian immigration policy and law.

For example, the Syrian Refugee Crisis caused the United Nations High Commissioners for Refugees to call on western nations to resettle 130,000 refugees. Canada has carefully focused on selecting families, children and members of the LGBT community, while single men will be processed only if they are accompanied by their parents or identify as LGBT. From 2013 until January 2017, Canada has welcomed over 40,000 refugees, or a staggering 248% of its “share” of refugees.

The United Kingdom? It has welcomed 216 Syrian refugees under the UNHCR scheme. Through another domestic policy called the Vulnerable Person Resettlement Scheme, it has welcomed 5,423 Syrians by March 2017, or just 18% of its “share.”

Prime Minister David Cameron, under severe public pressure in 2015, promised to take on 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020. Even more mounting pressure caused him to announce the Dubs Amendment, whereby 3,000 lone child refugees from the Middle East were to be welcomed. Due to pressure from Theresa May (who was then Home Secretary), Cameron conceded child refugees should come from Europe, not the Middle East, and the number was lowered to just 350 children.

Refugees Welcome.jpg

Demonstrators in Berlin in November 2015

When Calais’ Jungle Camp was at a breaking point in 2016, and Prime Minister May was securely in control at Downing Street, more public pressure forced to her accept another 750 lone children.  (This was done reluctantly and controversially, as refugee children’s dental records were screened to “verify” their true ages. As Hugh Muir writes, “We want to do right by a handful of children, but it is really a way of shirking our duty to do the right thing”).

Calais children

Children in Calais’ “Jungle” Refugee Camp, October 2016

Welcoming 1,000 refugee children by modern day peace-time Britain stands in stark contrast to the 10,000 refugee children resettled via the Kindertransport to Britain in 1938 to 1940. As a historian, I shudder to think what would have happened to those thousands of children if they had stayed under Nazi Germany’s control throughout the war.

Kindertransport.jpg

German-Jewish refugee children arrive at Southampton in 1939

Additionally, Theresa May proposes to lower annual net immigration from 273,000 to just 100,000. But it doesn’t stop there. From April 2017 onwards, the Tories implemented a policy whereby British employers must pay £1,000 per year for each skilled migrant they hire. The Tories wish to increase it to £2000/year. That means that if your average Indian IT software engineer or Canadian postgraduate student successfully gets through Theresa May’s restricted immigration net, then they face further fiscal penalization in the pursuit of employment due to being foreign. Thanks, Britain.

As an immigrant in the UK who hails from a country where immigration is a cornerstone of my home culture, I just hang my head in shame. As a historian of refugees and modern warfare, I can say that the same self-serving, nationalist ideologies that caused so many borders to close and so many refugees to flee during the Second World War, are still true today.

So, what are some solutions?  

Political inclusion of minority voters. Enfranchisement of immigrants (including EU nationals). Open (though still selective) immigration policies. Bring back the Dubs Amendment. Invest in affordable housing. Delegate to charities (where possible). Celebrate all forms of Britishness, including minority groups. Delight in globalism and mobility.

But the best solution requires a major attitude shift. 

Britain was once a colonial and imperial superpower. Although this was by no means a peaceful power-dynamic on native populations or settler colonies, British rule also enabled enormous trade of goods, cultures and ideas. Some nations became immensely wealthy, while others were robbed of their natural and human resources. The gap in global living standards today are often a long-term result of colonialism’s exploitation.

British Empire.jpg

At its height, more than 458 million people and 23% of the world’s population were under British colonial rule

Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, Gurminder K Bhambra, claims that when thinking about today’s refugees and immigrants, we must remember that:

The economic motivation that drives poorer people to migrate has been produced and continues to be reproduced by practices emanating from richer countries and their own deficient understandings of their global dominance… The failure to properly understand and account for Europe’s colonial past, cements a political division between ‘legitimate’ citizens with recognized claims upon the state and migrants/refugees without the rights to make such claims.

It would be unfair to claim that Canadian history has been bloodless and peaceful, while Britain’s has been singularly exploitive and war-ridden. But personally moving from a land of immigrants to a land of colonisers has been an eye-opening experience.  

Canada, as a nation of immigrants, has attempted to confront its differences in an ongoing process of renegotiating and re-conceptualizing national identity, bringing immigrants to the fore with policies that directly value and embrace their diversity. Britain may have neglected to engage in such a process on their own soil, but the opportunity to do so is now arriving alongside the refugees and immigrants who greatly wish to be part of the British community. Myself included.

I am an immigrant and I love my new home in Britain.  By learning from my new culture while sharing my own, I am participating in a “very Canadian way” to integrate in society. I hope my British friends don’t mind.

Happy Birthday, Canada.

 

“Yemenite Children Affair” and Children’s Homes in the 20th Century

Posted on by

Yesterday I read an article on the BBC about hundreds of missing babies who were secretly adopted by childless couples in the 1950s, shortly after the founding of the Israeli state.  One parent, Leah Aharoni, was a Yemeni refugee who had given birth to premature twins in central Israel. Shortly thereafter, she was told her twins were moved into special clinic in Tel Aviv. She then learned that one twin had died. Although she never saw a body or grave, Leah and her husband accepted this horrific news. Years later, her 18 year old daughter was called up for national military service. However, two letters arrived – one for her living daughter and the other for the deceased twin. Apparently, this type of bureaucratic error was experienced by numerous families whose children had supposedly “died” while in state care years previously.

Now called the Yemenite Children Affair, the state archives have been opened to reveal a large government cover up. Since the 1950s, over 1,000 families have claimed their children were systematically kidnapped and put up for adoption, often abroad. Wealthy American couples, some of whom had survived the Holocaust, wished to preserve the Jewish line by adopting Jewish children. Some children, sadly, were also the objects of medical experiments, whereby they were injected with proteins, had their healthy hearts removed for US doctors to dissect, and were even tested for “negro blood.”

Three committees investigated the Yemenite Children Affair, but all reached the same conclusion: most children died in the 1960s in hospitals and were buried without notifying their families. Although this would still be a harsh reality for grieving families, the deception goes deeper.  The recent approval by the Israeli government to open state archives now allows mothers, such as Leah Aharoni, to learn the fate of their kidnapped children. It is expected that the following months will uncover many unwelcomed truths…

At the crux of the Yemenite Children Affair is the fact that Israel was a new state. Why does this matter? Yemeni refugees flooding into Israel in the 1950s were considered eastern Mizrahi Jews and not nearly as desirable to the foundation of the new Israeli state as Ashkenazi Jews, from European descent. But, so what?

In the wake of both the First and Second World Wars, nations grappled with how to create homogenous nation-states. The wartime devastation forced communities to come together to rebuild their homes, governments and cultures. In the 1920s, the creation of passports, human rights laws, and international humanitarian organisations allowed nations the ability engage in discussion about policies on both international and national levels. The unprecedented suffering of children was brought to the fore by NGOs, such as Save the Children Fund, and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1924) helped to internationalise the value of children, and called for their protection.

It was during this tumultuous interwar period that children’s value became heightened. Although some would argue that children’s social value was already well defined within Western nations (especially through labour laws as a result of the Victorian Age), the interwar period was, I believe, the crucial moment when “children” and “transnationalism” merged. Children were no longer limited to just one national boundary. Within international humanitarian circles, children’s rights were finally extending beyond national laws.  And, due to the unimaginable devastation of the First World War, children’s survival now depended on their ability to adapt to new geographies, new cultures, new identities.

Naturally, governments decimated by war began to capitalise on the fluid identities of these migrant, displaced and orphaned children. By adopting, kidnapping, brainwashing, relocating children, a nation could bolster its national image and its biological stockpile. Children, it became clear, were the biological future of the state. (For more on this topic, please see Tara Zahra’s book “The Lost Children: Reconstructing Europe’s Families After World War II”).

Children were absolutely central to this power-struggle among nations.  Governments found unusual, discriminatory, and often macabre ways to fulfil their national agendas to adequately rebuild their countries. And one such method was exploited: Children’s Homes.

Children’s Homes, or long-term (usually) state-run institutions for children, fulfilled different roles and purposes in the last century. I have compiled some of these Children’s Homes into groups. There are certainly exceptions, and categories overlap, and it is by no means entirely comprehensive but….

A) Children’s Homes that forcibly cultivated a new national identity while remaining within the original political boundaries.

This was often achieved by simply invalidating their original cultural “backward” identity. Although parents may have been aware their children were being taken away, they did not always give their consent. Some examples:

Canadian Residential School System. In the 19th century, the Canadian government wished to quickly assimilate the First Nations communities. By removing 150,000 aboriginal children from their communities and forcing them to attend 80 Christian schools throughout the country, it led to widespread physical and sexual abuse. The last school was closed in 1996.

CANADA hi-residential-schools-852.jpg

Photo from CBC News

Swiss Red Cross Children’s Homes. During the Second World War, the Swiss Red Cross founded multiple Children’s Homes in German-occupied France and Belgium. Children were considered temporary residents (maximum three-month stays for Belgian children, for example), and parents had to give consent.  Many children survived as a result of the protection they received in these homes (at La Hille in France, the Swiss nurses secretly saved Jewish children by walking them over the Pyrenees into Spain). However, the Swiss curricula taught Swiss songs, history and culture, subsequently undermining the authentic nationality of the child.

Yemenite Children’s Affair. After their kidnap into state care, some Yemeni children were eventually adopted by other Israelis and absorbed into “western” Ashkenazi Jewish family structures while remaining within Israel’s state borders.

Yemenite Childrens Affair Protest

Photo from +972 Mag Article of Israelis protesting the Yemenite children affair, Jerusalem, June 21, 2017

B) Children’s Homes that deceptively relocated children through bureaucratic channels to new nations.

This was accomplished often without parental knowledge and sought to improve the national collective identity (by either absorbing or expulsing children from the nation). Some examples:

Nazi Lebensborn Homes. These homes initially provided care for unmarried German women who had given birth to “racially pure” children by SS officers. After the outbreak of war, the drive for an Aryan state led to the kidnapping of thousands of Polish children (up to 100,000) deemed racially pure. Older children were led to believe they’d been abandoned by their biological parents. By 1946, it was estimated that 250,000 children had been forcibly removed from their parents.

Lebensborn CHild.jpg

Photo from Daily Mail Article of an “Aryan” boy who’s identity (Folker Heinecke – or Aleksander Litau) was stolen when he was placed into a Lebensborn home.

Yemenite Children Affair. See above. Some Yemeni children were adopted by childless couples abroad without parental consent or knowledge.

Yemenite Childrens Affair Protest 2.jpg

Photo from +972 Mag Article of Israelis protesting the Yemenite children affair, Jerusalem, June 21, 2017

British Child Migrants to Canada and Australia. From the mid-1800s until the 1970s, over 130,000 British children were sent to Canada, New Zealand, Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) and Australia. These children were not necessarily orphaned, but generally from poor backgrounds and, it was believed, would lead happier lives due to their ability to adapt quickly. Some parents consented with full knowledge, others were unaware as to the fate of their child(ren) abroad. Children were often shipped to rural locations as farm labourers, or state-run orphanages, or religious institutions. This led to widespread physical and sexual abuse. The British government’s motivation was to ease the burden on UK orphanages while also increasing the populations in the colonies with “good, white British stock.” 

C) Children’s Homes for Medical Experimentation and Extermination.

These homes go hand-in-hand with the overall growth of eugenics in the early 20th century, but as the Yemenite Children Affair indicates, they were not just a product of the Nazi regime. Some examples:

Am Spiegelgrund Clinic in Steinhof, Vienna . This Nazi-run institution sought to experiment on its 7,500 patients, with one particular children’s ward called Am Spiegelgrund. Almost 800 children died as the result of medical experiments between 1940-1945. The survivors’ testimonies are harrowing.

Am Spiegelgrund Doctors.jpg

Doctors of Am Spiegelgrund. According to the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP), Dr. Heinrich Gross is alleged to have selected children admitted to the hospital for deadly experiments. Like many physicians he saw the availability of children as a research opportunity available for exploitation. The experiments had no potential benefit for the child subjects. At lease half of the children who were killed at Spiegelgrund were from Dr. Gross’ infants’ ward.

Auschwitz “Kindergarten.” Approximately 232,000 children arrived at Auschwitz. Although many were shipped directly to the gas chambers, some were held in a family camp in 1943, whereby Dr. Joseph Mengele had easy access to children in the attached “Kindergarten.” No clear statistics exist to indicate how many children were victims of Mengele’s experiments. The family camp and “Kindergarten” were liquidated in May 1944.

Auschwitz Children

Children in Auschwitz after the liberation, 1945.

Yemenite Children Affair. As discussed earlier, Israeli doctors examined children’s blood in order to assess its negro qualities.

Velpke and Rühen Children’s Home. These homes were established in May 1944 to care for the infants of the Polish female forced laborers who worked on the farms near Wolfsburg and Helmstedt (100km east of Hannover, Germany). Conditions were atrocious and deaths of nearly 100 infants resulted from outright neglect and starvation. Importantly, these homes only existed as a way to placate the mothers and to increase their economic output.

Velpke CHildren's HOme.png

Only photo I could find of Velpke Children’s Home

Okay, but so what?

Remarkably, the Yemenite Children Affair could be placed in each and every category within my proposed list above. The goal of this discussion is to not just showcase the unusual qualities of such Children’s Homes, but to embed them within a broader history of the period. Some Children’s Homes existed to fulfil a racially-driven ideology, others to bolster a certain culture or language. Such Children’s Homes and migration projects were somehow fulfilling nationalist agendas, either by absorbing more children or by expulsing them from a country’s borders. And, especially after the devastation of the First and Second World Wars, governments wrestled with their own notions of nationhood, bringing children to the very fore of their post-war reconstruction.

Children’s Homes demonstrate that such governments and institutions believed fully that children’s identity was fluid and adaptable. Unlike adults, children’s nationality could be quickly (and even secretly) “switched” due to the innocence of youth and the lack of a familial structure. As long as a government got them at a young age, then their long-term economic, social and biological value in that community could be ensured. Now we can begin to understand why it’s so important that the children of Yemeni refugees were seen as undesirable “eastern” Mizrahi Jews, although it certainly does not justify their systematic murder.

As Tara Zahra states in The Lost Children (pp. 244), “The story of refugee children, in particular, demonstrates that the histories of humanitarianism and of ethnic cleansing in twentieth-century Europe are neither unrelated nor contradictory.”  Children’s Homes were one aspect of the child refugee narrative. Although these institutions were often cloaked in an altruistic declaration to “save the children,” they simultaneously served less than humane nationalist goals. We may begin to understand why institutions such as Children’s Homes were created, but their everlasting effects will continue to taint the history of nation-building in the 20th century.