[ 
http://www.asylumpolicy.info ] A digest of asylum, anti-racism,
immigration control, oppression, conflict, war and human rights issues
1) Social Workers Should Not Be Forced To Break Up Families
2) First “failed” asylum seekers lose benefits
3) Welfare workers - defy don’t comply! - listen to children!
http://www.asylumpolicy.info ] A digest of asylum, anti-racism, immigration control, oppression, conflict, war and human rights issues
1) Social Workers Should Not Be Forced To Break Up Families
2) First “failed” asylum seekers lose benefits
3) Welfare workers - defy don’t comply! - listen to children!
1) Social Workers Should Not Be Forced To Break Up Families
Social workers should not be forced into breaking up the families of
failed asylum seekers and acting as enforcers of an unjust policy, said
UNISON the union for social workers today.
The call comes as the Sukula family from Bolton are poised to be the
first test of new legislation – Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration
Act – which provides for the withdrawal of all support for “failed”
asylum seekers.
Heather Wakefield, UNISON Head of Local Government said:
“UNISON voiced strong opposition to Section 9 of the Act because it puts
social workers in the heartbreaking situation of being expected to
oversee the break up of families. Fair and humane treatment for asylum
seekers – even when their applications have been rejected - should be
the test of a civilised society.
“The threat of removing children from the care of their parents should
not be part of the process. Social workers normally try to keep families
together unless there is clear evidence that the children are at risk of
harm. Splitting up a caring family when they already face the anxiety of
deportation may cause emotional harm to the children and would be
contrary to the values by which we expect social care staff to work.”
The Sukula family lost their appeal at the Asylum Support Adjudicators
last Thursday (August 18) and because Greater Manchester is part of a
pilot for the Act, the family may be made homeless. Five of the Sukula’s
six children would then be placed in the care of social services and
separated from their parents and 18-year-old sister.
25 August 2005
http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=696
2) First “failed” asylum seekers lose benefits
(25/8/05) The Sukula family from Bolton is poised to be the first test
of new legislation which provides for the withdrawal of all support from
"failed" asylum seekers, under Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration
Act.
The Sukula family lost their appeal at the Asylum Support Adjudicators
last Thursday (August 18) and because Greater Manchester is part of a
pilot for the Act, the family may be made homeless. Five of the Sukula’s
six children would then be placed in the care of social services and
separated from their parents and 18-year-old sister.
More than a hundred families could be affected by the new legislation.
Social workers should not be forced into breaking up the families of
failed asylum seekers and acting as enforcers of an unjust policy, said
UNISON. "UNISON voiced strong opposition to Section 9 of the Act because it puts social workers in the heartbreaking situation of being expected to oversee the break up of families," said UNISON head of local
government Heather Wakefield.
The consortium representing 10 councils in Greater Manchester, and one
in Lancashire, this week demanded an urgent review; the London
consortium meets next week to decide whether to back that demand.
The Refugee Council said yesterday that benefits have so far been
withdrawn from 17 families, with 70 of the 116 families affected having
reached almost the end of the section 9 process without taking any
action. Many could not understand the letters, which were issued only in
English.
"Fair and humane treatment for asylum seekers – even when their
applications have been rejected - should be the test of a civilised
society," UNISON’s Wakefield said.
"The threat of removing children from the care of their parents should
not be part of the process. Social workers normally try to keep families
together unless there is clear evidence that the children are at risk of
harm.
"Splitting up a caring family when they already face the anxiety of
deportation may cause emotional harm to the children and would be
contrary to the values by which we expect social care staff to work."
25 August 2005
http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=2220
Welfare workers - defy don’t comply! - listen to children!
**********************************************************************
WELFARE WORKERS - DEFY DON’T COMPLY! - LISTEN TO CHILDREN!
REFUSE TO IMPLEMENT SECTION 9 OF THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION ACT 2004
**********************************************************************
Local authority, voluntary and private sector workers hear the
children’s voices
| Stop child abductions
| Stop evicting families
| Stop deportations
The background
Asylum seekers are now totally outside the welfare state. They are
subject to a new poor law set up under 1999 legislation. Under this law
they are forcibly dispersed round the country and housed in often
sub-standard housing which can be local authority or housing association
or privately owned. The scheme is administered by an arm of the Home
Office, the so-called National Asylum Support Service (NASS).
Section 9 institutes a new form of blackmail against asylum seekers with
children contesting their deportation. Unless such families return
“voluntarily” to the country from which they fled then NASS can evict
from accommodation dispersed to. Parent(s) will be made homeless and
families split by children being forced into local authority care. This
amounts to child abduction and is against the Children Act (1989), UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the Human Rights Act
(1998) – all of which make the interests of the children paramount.
Opposition to Section 9
Section 9 is being implemented in Greater Manchester, the same area that
saw the most severe opposition to the Victorian poor laws -involving
running battles with troops, police and the poor law administrators.
Asylum seeking families and their children are now resisting. National
publicity has been given to the struggle of the Kanali family, the
Sukula family and Samina Altaf and her children.
This abduction of children, is undertaken by Social Workers. However,
the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) has said that they
expect them to strongly resist the implementation of this' 'brutal
power' and said 'BASW cannot overstate our opposition to this on the
grounds that it is a breach of our professional ethics' Neither the
dispersal scheme nor section 9 was initially objected to by any local
authority. However family and children resistance has compelled all
councils in Greater Manchester and one in Lancashire to write to the
Home Secretary opposing section 9. Likewise section 9 has now been
condemned by Association of Directors of Social Services, which has
said, 'Ideas of this sort really belongs to an earlier century'.
What should be done?
a) Raise the issue in your union and professional body. Argue that
they organise non-compliance and protect their members who follow
the British Association of Social Workers and refuse to collude in
implementing section 9
b) Confirm that every child does matter by writing to the
Children’s Commissioner for England asking him to use his powers and
hold a pubic inquiry into the effects Section 9 has on children and
their families. He can be contacted via:
support@childrenscommissioner.org
c) Pressurise your local authority to continue to house asylum
seekers evicted by NASS – and to withdraw from the involuntary dispersal
scheme. Refugees should be part of the welfare state!
No One is Illegal, Bolton Socialist Club, 16 Wood Street, Bolton, BL1 DY
Email: info@noii.org.uk Web: http://www.noii.org.uk
DOWNLOADS OF ABOVE
******************
- 1 page Word document version
http://www.asylumpolicy.info/defy.doc
- Plain text, as above, to cut and paste directly into emails
http://www.asylumpolicy.info/defy.txt
- Online web page
http://www.asylumpolicy.info/defy.htm
Social workers should not be forced into breaking up the families of
failed asylum seekers and acting as enforcers of an unjust policy, said
UNISON the union for social workers today.
The call comes as the Sukula family from Bolton are poised to be the
first test of new legislation – Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration
Act – which provides for the withdrawal of all support for “failed”
asylum seekers.
Heather Wakefield, UNISON Head of Local Government said:
“UNISON voiced strong opposition to Section 9 of the Act because it puts
social workers in the heartbreaking situation of being expected to
oversee the break up of families. Fair and humane treatment for asylum
seekers – even when their applications have been rejected - should be
the test of a civilised society.
“The threat of removing children from the care of their parents should
not be part of the process. Social workers normally try to keep families
together unless there is clear evidence that the children are at risk of
harm. Splitting up a caring family when they already face the anxiety of
deportation may cause emotional harm to the children and would be
contrary to the values by which we expect social care staff to work.”
The Sukula family lost their appeal at the Asylum Support Adjudicators
last Thursday (August 18) and because Greater Manchester is part of a
pilot for the Act, the family may be made homeless. Five of the Sukula’s
six children would then be placed in the care of social services and
separated from their parents and 18-year-old sister.
25 August 2005
http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=696 2) First “failed” asylum seekers lose benefits
(25/8/05) The Sukula family from Bolton is poised to be the first test
of new legislation which provides for the withdrawal of all support from
"failed" asylum seekers, under Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration
Act.
The Sukula family lost their appeal at the Asylum Support Adjudicators
last Thursday (August 18) and because Greater Manchester is part of a
pilot for the Act, the family may be made homeless. Five of the Sukula’s
six children would then be placed in the care of social services and
separated from their parents and 18-year-old sister.
More than a hundred families could be affected by the new legislation.
Social workers should not be forced into breaking up the families of
failed asylum seekers and acting as enforcers of an unjust policy, said
UNISON. "UNISON voiced strong opposition to Section 9 of the Act because it puts social workers in the heartbreaking situation of being expected to oversee the break up of families," said UNISON head of local
government Heather Wakefield.
The consortium representing 10 councils in Greater Manchester, and one
in Lancashire, this week demanded an urgent review; the London
consortium meets next week to decide whether to back that demand.
The Refugee Council said yesterday that benefits have so far been
withdrawn from 17 families, with 70 of the 116 families affected having
reached almost the end of the section 9 process without taking any
action. Many could not understand the letters, which were issued only in
English.
"Fair and humane treatment for asylum seekers – even when their
applications have been rejected - should be the test of a civilised
society," UNISON’s Wakefield said.
"The threat of removing children from the care of their parents should
not be part of the process. Social workers normally try to keep families
together unless there is clear evidence that the children are at risk of
harm.
"Splitting up a caring family when they already face the anxiety of
deportation may cause emotional harm to the children and would be
contrary to the values by which we expect social care staff to work."
25 August 2005
http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=2220 Welfare workers - defy don’t comply! - listen to children!
**********************************************************************
WELFARE WORKERS - DEFY DON’T COMPLY! - LISTEN TO CHILDREN!
REFUSE TO IMPLEMENT SECTION 9 OF THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION ACT 2004
**********************************************************************
Local authority, voluntary and private sector workers hear the
children’s voices
| Stop child abductions
| Stop evicting families
| Stop deportations
The background
Asylum seekers are now totally outside the welfare state. They are
subject to a new poor law set up under 1999 legislation. Under this law
they are forcibly dispersed round the country and housed in often
sub-standard housing which can be local authority or housing association
or privately owned. The scheme is administered by an arm of the Home
Office, the so-called National Asylum Support Service (NASS).
Section 9 institutes a new form of blackmail against asylum seekers with
children contesting their deportation. Unless such families return
“voluntarily” to the country from which they fled then NASS can evict
from accommodation dispersed to. Parent(s) will be made homeless and
families split by children being forced into local authority care. This
amounts to child abduction and is against the Children Act (1989), UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the Human Rights Act
(1998) – all of which make the interests of the children paramount.
Opposition to Section 9
Section 9 is being implemented in Greater Manchester, the same area that
saw the most severe opposition to the Victorian poor laws -involving
running battles with troops, police and the poor law administrators.
Asylum seeking families and their children are now resisting. National
publicity has been given to the struggle of the Kanali family, the
Sukula family and Samina Altaf and her children.
This abduction of children, is undertaken by Social Workers. However,
the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) has said that they
expect them to strongly resist the implementation of this' 'brutal
power' and said 'BASW cannot overstate our opposition to this on the
grounds that it is a breach of our professional ethics' Neither the
dispersal scheme nor section 9 was initially objected to by any local
authority. However family and children resistance has compelled all
councils in Greater Manchester and one in Lancashire to write to the
Home Secretary opposing section 9. Likewise section 9 has now been
condemned by Association of Directors of Social Services, which has
said, 'Ideas of this sort really belongs to an earlier century'.
What should be done?
a) Raise the issue in your union and professional body. Argue that
they organise non-compliance and protect their members who follow
the British Association of Social Workers and refuse to collude in
implementing section 9
b) Confirm that every child does matter by writing to the
Children’s Commissioner for England asking him to use his powers and
hold a pubic inquiry into the effects Section 9 has on children and
their families. He can be contacted via:
support@childrenscommissioner.org c) Pressurise your local authority to continue to house asylum
seekers evicted by NASS – and to withdraw from the involuntary dispersal
scheme. Refugees should be part of the welfare state!
No One is Illegal, Bolton Socialist Club, 16 Wood Street, Bolton, BL1 DY
Email:
info@noii.org.uk Web: http://www.noii.org.uk DOWNLOADS OF ABOVE
******************
- 1 page Word document version
http://www.asylumpolicy.info/defy.doc - Plain text, as above, to cut and paste directly into emails
http://www.asylumpolicy.info/defy.txt - Online web page
http://www.asylumpolicy.info/defy.htm
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
let me know if you see an empty bandwagons
26.08.2005 15:51
What a shame it is that these truly worthy causes are dived upon by the bolton SWP bandwagoners. They will suck whatever life out of the families and then move on to the next worthy cause - like some sort of political vampires.
Noel Spencer
Are all socialists now de facto members of SWP?
01.09.2005 18:26
Lots of people use the phrase "No-one is illegal", including the SWP, but this doesn't exactly invalidate it. No-one is Illegal works with autonomous groups in Manchester and have done so for a while. We get on fine with them.
El
Eleanor
Taking the State's shilling
02.09.2005 11:27
Pete