This blog was written by former PICUM’s Advocacy Trainee Alyona Samar.

Since the outset of the war in Ukraine, nearly 6 million people have fled violence perpetrated by the Russian army. The majority have crossed borders to the EU. While many have been welcomed in neighbouring countries, a number of reports have emerged of differential treatment towards non-Ukrainian nationals escaping the war.

Investigations conducted by Lighthouse Reports with The Independent, Der Spiegel, Radio France, and Médiapart, revealed that African nationals were detained in Poland and Estonia after fleeing Ukraine. While the total number is unknown, Polish police confirmed on March 15 that at least 52 third-country nationals were detained after crossing the border from Ukraine to Poland.

People apprehended at the border were denied legal aid and interpreters, and were left with no information on the circumstances of their detention. For instance, the Polish Border Guard detained a Nigerian student who was forced to sign a document written in Polish, without any appropriate translation, under the threat of five months in jail should he refuse to sign. When the student went to court, he wasn’t provided with an interpreter, and eventually found himself in an immigration detention center.

Many other students from Cameroon, Ghana, the Ivory Coast, and other African nations also ended up in detention centres. None of them had access to information, they all had their phones confiscated and very limited access to the Internet.

A student from Nigeria experienced similar treatment in Estonia. The officers claimed that he did not have the right to enter the country and threatened him with a five-year entry ban to the whole Schengen territory.

Lighthouse Reports estimated that up to 45 people were still held in the Zhuravychi immigration detention centre in Ukraine as of March 21. Many of them had been intercepted by the Polish border guards when they were trying to enter Poland, and handed to the Ukrainian authorities. After 24 February, they were all moved to a part of the centre that has no windows nor functioning power sockets: with no access to information, they were left to listen to the shelling and explosions without knowing how near they were. Mid-April reports suggest that some of the people who were released form the detention center in Zhuravychi were later re-detained in Poland.

Such discriminatory practices expose the double standards and systemic racism that is inherent within the EU and national migration policies.

These practices also stand in direct contradiction to Recital 13 of the Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 on temporary protection, which states that third country nationals working or studying in Ukraine “should in any event be admitted into the Union on humanitarian grounds without requiring, in particular, possession of a valid visa or sufficient means of subsistence or valid travel documents, to ensure safe passage with a view to returning to their country or region of origin.”

Third-country nationals escaping the horrors of war should be given care and protection instead of being discriminated, threatened, and detained. Immigration detention is always a harmful and disproportionate measure which leads to severe violations of fundamental rights. Detention has extremely harmful consequences on mental health and can exacerbate people’s vulnerability. Detaining people fleeing from war and violence can additionally trigger past trauma and constitute ill-treatment.

Rather than continuing the harmful practice of detaining people, and applying double standards to people fleeing from persecution, the European Union should ensure equal access to safety for all people regardless of their place of origin, race, ethnicity, or immigration status.

This blog post was written by Indrė Balčaitė, independent researcher, with contributions from Giedrė Blažytė, Research Director at Diversity Development Group, and Lina Grudulaitė, Coordinator at the Refugee Council of Lithuania.

In 2015, hundreds of thousands of migrants, mostly from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, landed in huge makeshift camps on the Greek Aegean islands and in South-Eastern Europe’s cities and borderlands. At the time, Lithuania failed to show solidarity with people fleeing conflict or the European Union member states where the migrants ended up. Media portrayed migrants as a threat, politicians quarrelled about the EU refugee resettlement quota, processes were slow and authorities picky. Out of 1077 refugees allocated for Lithuania, the country managed to resettle half of that number by mid-2021.

In 2021, Lithuania is undergoing its own test with undocumented migration, although on a smaller scale. Having missed the opportunity to review its reception and integration infrastructure a few years ago, the country with a population under 3 million and much more substantial experience in emigration than immigration was unprepared. Whereas previously there had been around 100 irregular arrivals reported a year, the number was 50-150 a day by July (Turkey was reporting on average 480 irregular arrivals a day in the same month). With the asylum seeker registration centre able to accommodate only around 250 people, increased numbers of migrants in a pandemic presented a formidable logistical challenge. On July 2^nd, an ‘extraordinary situation’ was announced. Citizens’ protests against opening new sites for accommodating migrants added to the tension in an already polarised society.

From the start, the Lithuanian government has been vocal about the culprit of the unprecedented situation, rallying support in the EU. Alexander Lukashenko, the illegitimate president of Belarus, had threatened to “flood” its neighbour with irregular migrants in revenge for EU targeted economic sanctions that Lithuania had lobbied for. Journalists shed light on how migrants coming primarily from Iraq end up at the Belarusian-Lithuanian border with the help of Belarusian tourist visas and migration brokers. On July 1^st,^,  Lukashenko’s presidential decree allowed citizens of 73 countries to visit Belarus visa-free for five days, ostensibly for COVID-19 vaccinations. In August, a video footage emerged of Belarusian officers in riot gear pushing migrants into the Lithuanian territory. EU condemned Belarusian actions as ‘direct attack’ on its external border and an attempt to ‘instrumentalise human beings for political purposes’ but has not acknowledged that violations of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights were being committed by Lithuania, Poland and Latvia in response to the situation.

Lithuania is also using those human beings for political purposes. Politicians have repeatedly justified severely restricting access to asylum with a toxic discourse. Migrants already intercepted or trying to cross into Lithuania (now also Latvia and Poland) are dehumanised and neglected or mistreated. While accusing Belarus of violating its international obligations, Lithuania’s treatment of migrants falls short of international human rights standards too. Curtailed access to asylum, automatic detention of all asylum seekers, including children, illegal expulsions, denying them due process and coercion, among other issues, are all part of Lithuania’s new EU external border management.

The resolution passed by the Seimas (Parliament) on July 13^th portrayed undocumented migrants as participants in a ‘hybrid aggression’ against Lithuanian sovereignty. On the same day, the Seimas hastily changed the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens so as to excise the airport transit zones, official border crossings, border zones and asylum seeker holding centres from Lithuanian state territory where more human rights safeguards apply. It also legalised the automatic detention of asylum seekers, including children, having entered the country undocumented in an extraordinary situation (or state of war or emergency). Their right of movement can now be denied for up to six months while awaiting the decision whether they will be allowed into the country, with limited possibility to appeal it. On August 10^th, the law was amended again to stipulate that in an extraordinary situation, applications for asylum by undocumented migrants would be accepted only at official border crossing points or Lithuania’s embassies abroad prior to travel. In reality, neither option is feasible. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the UNHCR, the European Council of Refugees and Exiles, Lithuanian human right advocates and civil society actors have criticised the new arrangements as violating migrants’ and asylum seekers’ fundamental rights.

The harsh reality of the new migration governance is evident. A barbed wire fence along the 679km-long Lithuania-Belarus border is under construction. Journalists and humanitarian organisations are not allowed to work in the border areas (only at the detention centres). Since early August, Lithuanian border guards no longer intercept undocumented migrants but actively prevent them from crossing into Lithuanian territory with very few exceptions. This has led to migrants being stranded at the border or rerouted to neighbouring Latvia and Poland, with officers from Belarus pushing them out and the border guards of its three EU neighbours pushing them back. In late August and early September, the European Court of Human Rights approved interim measures, demanding that Latvia and Poland provide humanitarian assistance to stranded migrants and that Lithuania halt the removal of five Afghan nationals to Belarus. On September 19^th, four bodies of stranded migrants, who probably died from hypothermia, were found along the Belarus-Polish border.

With access to asylum practically blocked for new undocumented arrivals, migrants already in the holding centres are not faring better. Over 4,100 people, a quarter of them minors, face overcrowding and very poor conditions, many freezing in military tents in dropping temperatures. They lack information about their cases and access to legal advice. All asylum applications are fast-tracked, with no consideration of individual circumstances and applicants being pressured to accept voluntary return or be deported. For independent Lithuania, this is the first serious encounter with undocumented migration flows but its government led by Ingrida Šimonytė is learning fast from the worst examples in migration management.

Cover: paulius goravicius/EyeEm – AdobeStock 

This article has been written by Aaron Gates-Lincoln who is a correspondent for the Immigration Advice Service.

The UK government has not been shy about its use of hostile environment policies to deter people from entering the UK over the past decade. These policies are a set of legislative measures designed to make staying in the UK as difficult as possible without ‘leave to remain’ status, in the hopes it will make migrants ‘voluntarily leave’. However, it is becoming clear that now more than ever, these policies are having a direct, negative impact upon the lives of migrant children in the UK.

It is being estimated that thousands of children of EU nationals who are now in the UK care system are going to be put at risk by flaws in the EU Settlement Scheme. The scheme, introduced after Brexit, allows EU citizens to apply to receive indefinite leave to remain status within the UK. For children in care, applications for the scheme must be submitted and paid for by the local authority in which they are situated in. It was expected that this process would be the easiest and most effective method in ensuring all children are accounted for under the EU Settlement Scheme.

However, a Freedom of Information request by the Children’s Society has found that so far, fewer than 40% of the 3,700 or so known eligible children in care have had their applications submitted. Numbers may be significantly higher than this, as many local authorities do not keep nationality data for children in care. These low numbers can be attributed to the failures of local authorities, as they are responsible for ensuring the applications are completed and submitted. Furthermore, with care leavers and other children not directly in the care system, they are required to offer support and guidance in submitting applications which in many cases they are not doing. Care leavers and some children do have the power to submit their own applications, but for some, the application process may be complex and require professional guidance, which should be the responsibility of the local authorities to offer. With the deadline for applications now less than 3 months away, this is extremely worrying for the stability, safety and well-being of this group of children.

Concerns are being raised that the issue could mirror that of the Windrush scandal of 2018, in which thousands of Commonwealth citizens were wrongly detained and deported due to problems surrounding documentation. With this in mind, it could be estimated that the group may apply for housing or employment in the future and only then discover their irregular status. This could seriously put them at the risk of unjust detainment and deportation, exploitation and abject poverty.

The EU Settlement Scheme has emerged and exposed itself as a covert element of the UK government’s hostile environment policies. It is unethical for children in care to be robbed of their secure residence status due to the failures of local authorities to act on their behalf, and support their best interests. The government itself has ignored calls from MPs to fast-track children in care through the process, instead opting to place the responsibility on struggling local authorities. Most of their struggle’s stem from underfunding, which leads to overstretched staff with high workloads, contributing to children in care not receiving as much support as they should be.

It is also unjust that local authorities have been encouraged by the government to place children in care on this immigration track. Evidence has shown that for children of EU nationals in care, most, if not all, could have the rights to citizenship. Instead, the children who actually have applications submitted are placed on a scheme that would offer them nowhere near the same number of rights and entitlements.

It is vital that this group of children are given the opportunity to gain the citizenship that they are entitled to. Children born in the UK, who have parents with settled status, or have lived the first 10 years of their life there, have the right to register to be a citizen. The Home Secretary also has a discretionary power to grant any child UK citizenship when it is evident that their future lies in the UK.

In most cases, children in care are not taken down these pathways due to extortionate citizenship fees. For each application, local authorities have to pay £1,000, £640 of which is direct profit to the Home Office (respectively approximately EUR 1,160 and EUR 745). These fees were recently found unlawful in a judgment by the High Court, requiring the Home Office to rethink the need for the fees. However, they have still not been reduced, prompting petitions and other pressures to be applied against the Home Office to suggest that they do so. Due to current laws, if children in care are not put on the citizenship pathway before they turn 18, they will lose their right to citizenship when they reach this age.

Migrant children are being subjected to a system that is rigged against their favour, and exposed to hostile policies that are cruel and unethical. It is clear that the UK government has not learned anything from the injustices the Windrush generation had to face, and are setting themselves up for a repetition. It is vital that the UK government changes the structural causes of the issues discussed here, by making applications for such schemes easier for children, care leavers and their guardians. This would remove pressures on local authorities to submit applications and give power back to the children, their guardians, families and surrounding professionals to obtain a secure residence status. It is also essential that the UK government lowers the costs of citizenship fees, to ensure that children in care are placed on the citizenship pathway more often, to grant them the stability and security in the UK they need.

Cover: Adobe Stock – Mongkolchon