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

Every year, more than 100,000 people are put in immigration detention in Europe.

In immigration detention, people are uprooted from their communities, and they often don’t know whether and when they will be released or if they will be deported. Often, people in immigration detention don’t have access to adequate information and interpreters, legal aid and medical care. This has a severe impact on mental health. Studies indicate higher incidence of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder than among the rest of the population, and an average of very high levels of depression in four out of every five detainees. In 2020, 51% of the immigration detainees in the Brook House centre (UK) were considered at risk of suicide.

Detention is always a harmful practice, which often has long-lasting consequences on peoples’ lives and self-perception. Sometimes, this harm adds to pre-existing situations of vulnerability, like poor physical or mental health, disabilities, past experiences of trauma, or age.

States have an obligation to protect people in situations of vulnerability. As detention severely exacerbates vulnerabilities, and creates new ones, people in situations of vulnerability should never be detained. In the EU, the 2008 Return Directive requires Member States to pay “particular attention” to these groups of people. But as of today, only few countries have mechanisms in place to assess people’s vulnerabilities before they are put in detention. Even when some mechanism is in place, like in Belgium and in the UK, people who are identified as vulnerable are frequently still detained as migration control purposes trump other considerations.

This lack of attention means that states regularly detain pregnant women, LGBTI people, people with mental health issues and even children.

In Belgium and Spain, for instance, people with mental health issues are sometimes placed in solitary confinement, which is otherwise considered a punitive measure. Isolation further deteriorates their mental health condition. Moreover, mental illnesses, despite being an important factor affecting individuals’ situations of vulnerability, are excluded by the definition of the Return Directive and several national legal frameworks.

Children are detained in most European countries, despite broad evidence of the negative impact of even short periods of detention on children health and psychosocial development, and despite consensus at the UN level that detaining children based on migration status is a violation of child rights.

In Greece, women can be held for long periods in police stations without access to basic hygiene products. In the UK, many women denounce pervasive sexual harassment, as health screenings and searches are often done by male medical professionals or guards. In Belgium, some women are held in mixed centres where they are outnumbered by the male population, thus creating discomfort among some.

Men in detention also face specific vulnerabilities, often linked to their young age, experiences of trauma and abuses, and their migratory journey. In some countries, detention centres for men are more densely populated, leading to higher risks of conflict with the staff and poorer conditions.

Transgender, intersex and gender non-conforming persons regularly experience discrimination in detention and are at risk of physical and sexual violence, solitary confinement as well as verbal and psychological abuse.

Detention creates its own vulnerabilities, which add to existing ones. This is why we need a clear legal obligation to assess people’s vulnerability, so they’re not detained in the first place.Definitions of vulnerability should be based on an open-ended list, which takes into consideration the intersectional nature of vulnerability as well as vulnerabilities caused by detention itself. This screening has to be independent, transparent and individualised. In some cases, factors of vulnerability can only be identified with time, and after a relationship of trust is established. As detention itself may exacerbate existing vulnerabilities or even create new ones, vulnerability should be reassessed regularly.