At Asylum Matters, we fundamentally oppose the traumatic, costly and ineffective use of force in immigration control. The below statement is a message we’ve sent directly to the Home Office in response to the Government’s consultation on family returns, which asks how it should best expand use of force powers to children. This is a principle we cannot accept.
If you’d like to send a similar message, click here to find direct contact details and the full consultation paper.
————-
In Part 2 of its Family Returns consultation, the Government asks for feedback on its plan to expand use of force in removals, allowing children to be subject to “physical interventions”, including handcuffing and carrying. Force could be used where a child refuses to board a plane, and where “a parent refus[es] to release a child’s hand”.
We want to share our full, unconditional opposition to this proposal. But we are unable to participate in this part of the formal consultation, because it is predicated on the tacit agreement that the use of force in removals is morally justified and practically necessary.
We must be clear: it is neither of these things.
We fundamentally oppose the use of force to facilitate removals. This position is grounded in evidence: in lived experience, in public health data, in real world outcomes, and in cost terms. To ignore it is to put ideology over evidence. It is to choose “talking tough” on migration over what works, for both the human beings subject to our migration system, and for public finances.
We know that use of force:
- Is traumatic: it damages people’s physical and mental health, adding to the already disproportionately poor health of people who’ve experienced forced migration.
- Perpetuates cycles of remigration: Forcibly ejecting a person from the place they call home will not make them feel safe in a country they have had to escape. Parents will not be content to keep their children in a place where they do not feel safe – they will attempt to flee again if not supported.
- Encourages non-complicance: Fear of forced removal incentivises people to avoid the state, driving them underground and into the hands of exploiters. Expanding the use of force towards children would make this far worse, keeping vulnerable young people away from the safeguards of social services, school and other regular institutions, putting them at huge risk.
- Is too costly: Both to the people subjected to it, and in financial terms compared to evidenced alternatives, use of force costs far more than support – as the Government’s own consultation document shows (pricing enforced removal of a family of three at £95,600)
The Government knows there are better alternatives. The Choices voluntary return programme, UNHCR’s Alternatives to Detention programme and The Kings Arms project all provide detailed evidence that avoiding force reduces suffering, saves money, and maintains respect for the humanity of people who’ve migrated to the UK.
Yet this consultation continues to insist on force as the only way forward. Questions such as how officers should overcome language barriers to interpret children’s discomfort, and who post-intervention audits should be carried out by, are predicated on accepting the use of violent force to remove people from the UK.
We will not be drawn into this. We will not ignore the facts. We will not act counter to what we know to be true: humans respond best to support, guidance and care. No method of communication can justify tearing a child from their parents’ arms. No audit can make handcuffing a frightened child anything other than morally repugnant.
We cannot stay silent as successive governments ignore the compelling body of evidence that creating safety, treating people with dignity, and helping them navigate their options are fundamental to an effective asylum and migration system.
In building this proposal, our Government has chosen ideology over reason and headlines over evidence.
We demand our leaders stop funding brutality, and start listening to the facts.
