OpenForum – a blog by the Health and Human Rights community

[Editor's note: This is a guest post written by Ms. Katherine Moloney.]

On 17th June the Federal Government announced changes to its Support for Victims of People Trafficking Program, to take effect as of 1 July. The government has radically reformed its policy with regards to victims of trafficking after years of campaigning by non-government organizations and advocacy groups.  Previously based on the victim’s usefulness to criminal proceedings, the system recognizes the complex needs and vulnerabilities of victims and their difficulties, however willing, in providing a “significant contribution” to a criminal investigation. The program is therefore afforded to all victims regardless of their instrumentality.  Taking a human rights-based approach, the new legislation removes the temporary visa entirely and bases permanent visa attainment on any “contribution” (including a police statement) and a risk of harm if returned home.  Furthermore, the reflection period has been increased to 45 days, with the possibility of extension to 90 days to provide an adequate period over which to seek assistance and make an informed choice about their future. Read more

The international advocacy group Human Rights First has published a study documenting the increasing difficulties asylum seekers face when entering the US. Refugees seeking entry often spend months or even years in jails or other detention facilities before being granted asylum. In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security took responsibility for immigration processing and generated new policies requiring detainment of significantly more asylum seekers. Under the control of DHS, the number of beds in these detention facilities has increased by 62%, while the number of asylum seekers released has dropped by 42%. These facilities are strikingly similar to actual prisons – asylum seekers are brought into them with handcuffs and chains, wear prison uniforms, and have limited visits from family and friends. Detainees are not provided with sufficient physical or mental health care – care that is often urgently needed. A 2003 report in the Lancet found that of 70 research participants detained in detention centers or local jails, 86% showed symptoms of depression and 50% of post-traumatic stress disorder. Additionally, length of detention time was found to significantly exacerbate their psychological symptoms.

Many of these asylum seekers are human rights advocates forced to flee their own countries to avoid persecution. As one such man, Jean-Pierre from West Africa, describes, “They handcuffed me like a criminal…It was like reliving my jail in Guinea.” Because immigration courts follow different procedures than criminal ones, trials do not have to be made public and often require a lower burden of proof for conviction. Asylum seekers who cannot afford lawyers face further difficulties in detention, as immigration courts are not required to provide legal representation to defendants, even for mentally ill or mentally incompetent individuals. The hazards of these policies can be seen in the case of Xiu Ping Jiang, a Chinese woman with no past criminal record, who has spent over a year in jail. According to her lawyer (who agreed to work on her case pro bono), she is currently “suicidal, emaciated, and deprived of proper medical treatment.” Read more

Recent changes in U.K. health policy affecting asylum seekers who have been denied refugee status reflect a larger trend of decreased willingness by governments to provide healthcare to migrants. Is this vulnerable group being denied the right to health?

It depends on who you ask. UK’s National Health Service (NHS) states that its mission is “to make good healthcare available to all, regardless of wealth, as long as you are a resident of the UK.” Overturning last year’s decision, appeals judges ruled that rejected asylum seekers are no longer legally entitled to free secondary NHS care, although hospitals can treat them at their discretion if they are penniless. Lord Justice Ward argues in his decision that “failed asylum seekers ought not to be here. They should never have come here in the first place and after their claims have finally been dismissed they are only here until arrangements can be made to secure their return.” Last year, Matthew Elliot of the TaxPayers’ Alliance argued that rejected asylum seekers should not be paid for at the expense of law-abiding taxpayers, and that providing them with free care will only create a burden on the already overstretched system, especially with the flood of health migrants he believes will follow. These concerns are by no means unique to the UK, and are echoed in other countries trying to decide how and whether to provide care to migrants using public funding. Read more