Zimbabwe: it all Depends on your Colour!

     It may come as a surprise to some immigration officers, but discrimination on the basis of race is illegal in the immigration control system. Oh sure, the Home Office have retained huge areas of exemption, but the central principle, built firmly into law after the Lawrence enquiry, is clear: decisions in immigration or asylum cases must not be made on the basis of someone’s race, colour, nationality, or racial or ethnic origins unless the discrimination has been expressly permitted.

     Permission is given in two ways, either because one of the immigration laws makes it necessary, or because the Minister has personally authorized it. So for instance under the first of these nationals of EEA countries, can enter and stay under EC law, and under the second it is lawful for the immigration service to target particular nationalities for removal from the UK, if there is either statistical evidence or specific intelligence showing a ‘pattern of abuse’.

     But this leaves whole areas untouched. Let’s take an example. For well over a year now there has been a policy of detaining Zimbabweans who apply for asylum, but, like all such policies, there are exceptions to the general rule. The justification claimed for locking up whole nationalities of applicant, or treating them differently in the way their applications are handled, is that their cases are, in general, more than likely to be refused.

     For Zimbabweans the general policy of detention doesn’t apply to all of them. ‘Members of an ethnic minority’, as the Home Office puts it, are not detained. So we find that only black Zimbabweans are locked up, not white, and while white Zimbabweans are usually granted exceptional leave, black Zimbabweans are routinely refused.

    Detention usually begins with a short spell in the ‘Reception Centre’ at Oakington, but a high proportion of Zimbabweans stay in detention after their applications are refused, and are then sent to Campsfield House or one of the other Detention Centres, or to a prison, to await their appeals. The reason is only partly one of high refusal. After all, others are refused just as often. For the Zimbabweans it is also because the immigration service know it will be easy to get rid of them, because, unlike most asylum seekers, nearly all arrive with valid passports. They can do this because Zimbabwe has never been added to the visa list, whose nationals can only travel if they first apply at a British consular post for permission.

     Why not, since that has usually been one of the first responses of the Home Office to a rise in asylum applications? Could it be the sensitivity of relations with Mugabe? The government are keen not to provoke further action against Zimbabweans who may be able to opt for a British passport. Strange then, that their ‘compassion’ only stretches to white Zimbabweans.

    This policy has not yet been challenged. All detention at Oakington discriminates on the basis of nationality, and has not been authorised by the minister under the Race Relations Act. The policy will now be challenged in the House of Lords, but the case has only raised a human rights point, not immigration service racism. The point still needs to be made. The treatment of the Zimbabweans is worse, and involves clear race discrimination.

    The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group has expressed concern at the political violence in Zimbabwe "The situation in Zimbabwe constitutes a serious and persistent violation of the Commonwealth's fundamental political values and the rule of law."

Mick Chatwin