At the end of his first week in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order which placed a 120-day moratorium on refugee resettlement to the U.S., cut the number of refugees admitted annually to 50,000 and indefinitely banned the acceptance of Syrian refugees. During a speech at the Pentagon, Trump claimed that these measures were put in place to “keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America”.

A 2016 study by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, sheds light on the number of terrorism incidents involving refugees in the U.S. Between 1975 and 2015, 20 refugees – of over 3 million admitted to the U.S. – were convicted of terrorism. There were three fatalities, all from attacks committed by Cubans in the 1970s. However, the Institute notes that all these attacks occurred before the rigorous refugee screening procedures used today were put in place by the 1980 Refugee Act. They found that an American’s annual chance of dying in a terrorist attack committed by refugees is one in 3.64 billion. The report’s author, Alex Nowrasteh, has recently argued that Trump’s executive order “will have…virtually no effect on improving U.S. national security”.

Photo: Dulles International Airport (VA) Muslim Ban Protest. Photograph: Geoff Livingston. CC-BY-NC-ND

The low recognition rate for the granting of asylum to refugees from Eritrea – which suffers severe levels of repression – has long been a concern to refugee organisations, the Independent Advisory Group on Country of Origin Information and Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee.  A new Guardian report demonstrates the impact that recent updates to the Home Office's official guidance have had on children in the Calais settlement.

In a further development, SNP MP Stuart McDonald has written to the Home Secretary expressing concern at the effects of this country information for Eritrea, on which Home Office officials depend for their assessment. The new guidelines were discredited in court in October last year, but they have nonetheless effectively excluded some very vulnerable children from the scope of the transfer process. This was established after the Dubs Amendment was passed. Lord Dubs, a former child refugee, was able to secure an arrangement for unaccompanied children to be offered safe refuge in the UK.

The government determined the countries of origin from which children would be accepted under the Dubs Amendment. This decision was based on the success rate of applications for asylum. However, at the time applications were being made on incorrect information about the situation in Eritrea. McDonald argues that Eritrean children should be considered within the framework of the Dubs Amendment. He says that excluding them is “wrong in principle”.

It is believed that 10,000 children have already gone missing in Europe, and that there are 95,000 unaccompanied children still in need of help.

The Education Select Committee is looking at “the impact of exiting the European Union on higher education”, writes Gill Green of Migration Matters Trust. Individuals giving evidence to the Committee on 11 January 2017 highlighted the critical contribution of non-British staff, students and research partners to the success of British higher education. 

International students are the UK's third largest “export” - but polls show that Brexit has had a worldwide negative impact on students' likelihood to apply for UK study. EU applications are already down; student numbers may fall if their fees go up and their current free movement is replaced by cumbersome and expensive visas.

EU citizens make up 20% of the staff of the Russell Group - and a higher percentage of researchers and staff in the economically key areas of maths, science and engineering. These staff need reassurance about their positions - and the status of their families.

The UK is a world leader in many research areas; but almost half that research involves outside partners. At the moment five of our top ten partners are EU countries. One in four British research publications is joint with a European partner. So, if universities are to continue as world leaders, they need a replacement for EU research funding and a way to maintain research collaboration with European centres.

Catherine Barnard, professor of EU law at Cambridge University, warned that a “hard Brexit” would “cut off the flow of excellent people who are coming at the moment”. She quoted a 14 per cent drop in applications from the EU for undergraduate courses at Cambridge in 2017. Postgraduate applications had gone up, but there were already signs of future concern. Those who declined the offer of a postgraduate place mentioned perceived anti-immigrant sentiment post-Brexit; the falling value of bursaries with the falling pound; and the uncertainty of future cross- European research collaboration.

The full evidence sessions can be heard via the Parliament select committee website.

A recent report in the Financial Times by George Parker and Helen Warrell outlines options under consideration by Ministers to enable EU citizens to come to work in the UK post-Brexit.  

Migration Matters Trust Chair Barbara Roche is quoted in the article expressing our concern that the proposed options will not provide the flexibility required for the diversity of skill levels needed in the job market.

You can read the article here.

The Chair of Migration Matters Trust, Barbara Roche, has spoken up for EU citizens in the UK and expressed her fears for the country's economy if it loses a substantial number of them in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. The MMT Chair was quoted in the FT in an article entitled "EU citizens in UK fear for jobs ahead of Brexit talks."

Barbara Roche, a former Labour immigration minister and chair of the Migration Matters Trust, said the survey results were “very worrying” and echoed some of the concerns that she had heard from people in business. “The UK cannot afford to lose people with these skills and talents,” she said.

Ms Roche urged the government to “state unequivocally” that EU citizens would be able to remain in the UK post-Brexit, and called on ministers to “keep restating” that there was no room for abuse of migrants and foreigners in British society.

by Vaughan Jones

The United Nations first ever special Assembly on refugees and migrants was held in New York yesterday 19 September. Whilst many of the planned events by civil society were disrupted by the discovery of explosive devices, leaders of the 197 countries met to endorse a non-binding international agreement on the treatment of those who need international protection or are vulnerable as migrants.

The Assembly was the conclusion of a process initiated by the UN Secretary-General in response to the burgeoning refugee crises on Europe’s borders and in the Pacific and the start of a process leading to a new international compact on refugee and migrants. This will come to another Assembly in two years’ time.

The UK approach is based on three core principles:

Refugees should seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. This places the main burden of responsibility on developing countries. The Prime Minister argues that it would prevent onward movement facilitated by criminal smugglers. However, some of the evidence demonstrates that it is precisely when refugees feel trapped in camps with no prospect of improving their lot that they fall prey to smugglers.

There should be a better distinction between refugees and economic migrants. This is already the case in international law. However, both climate change and the nature of modern conflict blurs boundaries.

The right of all countries to control their borders and the responsibility to reduce onward flows of illegal and uncontrolled migration. Of course, there is no responsible argument being made that borders should not be controlled. But if application processes were dealt with effectively and international conventions fairly and effectively applied then there would be a massive improvement in the management of flows.

The Assembly was called because of the unprecedented numbers of refugees in the world today and the failure of the international community to manage this. The burden remains on the shoulders of the poorest countries and the suffering of the refugee continues even when they have escaped from the horrors of their own countries. 

Part of the Migration Matters Trust’s immediate role is to help focus the European debate on the facts.

Understanding the evidence on EU immigration will be critical if the UK is to strike the right deal in leaving the EU, particularly on whether Britain is to retain preferential access to the single market and the economic benefits that it brings.

All nations that are not full members of the EU, such as Norway and Switzerland, who participate in the single market, accept freedom of movement.