It is ten years today since @theresa_may coined 'hostile environment' in an interview with the Telegraph. In (dis)honour, a 🧵on how *we* have enabled the Hostile Environment to hit this milestone + what comes next:
(Article by @Nadine_Writes) [1/13] independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…
As @GlendaCaesar's recent experience demonstrates, Black and brown people (and migrants) exist in this country at the mercy of the government. Their rights and safeties get whisked away as swiftly and lightly as they are given. [2/13]
The Home Office now calls this portfolio of policies the 'compliant environment'. But it has nothing to do with compliance with law - if it did, it wouldn't give rise to illegal acts, such as arrest of refugees for steering boats *last Nov*, pre #NationalityAndBordersBill. [3/13]
It is, and has always been, a programme of aggression and exclusion rooted in racism and xenophobia - a set of measures bluntly designed to operate PoC and migrants as levers that can be worked in response to govt failings in *other* areas, most importantly the economy. [4/13]
Until we acknowledge that - that govts will *always* default to blaming migrants and marginalised communities to draw the eye away from their own failures, bc it provides something tangible for (some) people to hate - WE enable the Hostile Environment. We are complicit. [5/13]
IMHO, the only way to dismantle this structure is through civil resistance, including physical acts, i.e. direct action - protests. Short of sweeping electoral reform, FPTP will live on; while that is the case, voting *alone* is insufficient (but please still vote). [6/13]
We need a *coordinated*, ground-up campaign led by the victims of the Home Office and their allies: migrants, Windrush victims, migrant rights charities and think tanks, EU citizens whose lives have now been upended, Deliveroo drivers who are ceaselessly persecuted, [7/13]
the businesses who employ them, refugees, lawyers and campaigners who support these communities, protestors of all stripes - all of whom are set to lose some of their vital rights, the GRT community, faith organisations representing minority ethnicities. [8/13]
Protest is only part of the equation. Lots of normal citizens support Hostile Environment policies. They must be persuaded not to.
Some of them - many, maybe - will be lost causes. Others will respond to reason and clarity of thought. We need to do that (tiresome) work. [9/13]
The Hostile Environment is also championed by politicians, including leadership and senior members of @UKLabour.
Whatever your basic political allegiance - I am NOT making a case for any party - the substantive *issue* needs to come first. [10/13]
That might mean pressing aggressively for change within those party structures. It might be drawing a hard red line and forcefully telling your tribe that the Hostile Environment is not consistent with the basic tenets of equality or justice. [11/13]
We *all* need to be more proactive and dynamic about this, to the best of our individual capabilities. If the Partygate/Sue Gray saga shows us anything, it is that the status quo is self-propagating. Without a sharp, forceful shock from the outside, this will never end. [12/13]
The Hostile Environment can only be interrupted outside of our existing procedures - we can't rely solely on petitions, judicial reviews, report-writing. That isn't to say we must abandon those methods - but we have to look beyond them. Incremental change won't fix this. [13/13]
Post-script: Here's a worked example. If you work for @ukhomeoffice (or @metpoliceuk) and you GENUINELY feel this way - QUIT. There are no excuses. You are part of a racist, xenophobic machine, and you have a choice to make - be the problem, or get out. theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/m…
PS #2: @JacquiMckenzie6 rightly points out that the first use of 'hostile environment' predates May's usage. As above, our opposition parties are culpable to a significant degree, and we cannot lose sight of that, while holding THIS govt to account. birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-…
In this thread, I've used May's 2012 use of the phrase as the starting point. However, the attitude and policies that typify the Hostile Environment begin much earlier - the narrative of exclusion and blaming outsiders underlies the Commonwealth Migrants Act 1962, for example.
From next month, Biometric Residence Permits will no longer be accepted as proof of Right to Work/Rent. The card itself will be useless; you have to do an additional online registration to prove right to rent/work.
There are a few 'beyond-parallels' here: first, this is unnecessary, as were many of the contortions that led to the Windrush scandal. There is no good reason to scrap use of BRPs. It is entirely possible to phase into a digital world without making *existing* docs useless. [2/9]
They have been told - by other parts of government no less - that a snap-over into digital-only proof to work/rent is likely to prove a nightmare.
But this is @ukhomeoffice! Making up nonsense and doing as it damned well pleases since 1782. [3/9]
What @pritipatel and @ukhomeoffice are actually doing: 1. Required visa for Ukrainians trying to join family, therefore refused entry 2. Family’s MP intervened after publicity - did not waive 3. Still need to apply for visa; has taken a PREMIUM PAYMENT for expedited processing
Believe *nothing* that comes out of @pritipatel and @ukhomeoffice about what’s actually happening.
NABB will make this much worse; and oh yeah, they’ve been treating Black, brown and racialised grps, Windrush victims, GRT community, with this lvl of undisguised contempt forever
We are an organisation that benefit from this. We are made up of and represent some of the most marginalised people, whom the Home Office would like to simply paper over, out of existence. Without GLP, we would be light years behind where we are now.
A lot of the noise over the past 24 hours has come from mouths which would neither know Windrush victims existed, nor care to do anything to help them. Advocacy for the marginalised does have to be aggressive at times; the institutions who do the marginalising sure as sh*t are.
So while it may be fun (and maybe useful, but let’s face it) to have the intellectual arguments, do also bear in mind that we, and a lot of groups like us in other sectors, need people like GLP in our corner breathing fire at those that try to stomp us into the ground.
🌹Roses are red,
This hellscape is the opposite of irie,
The Home Office is expanding the Windrush scandal,
We urgently need an Inquiry.
🧵🚨: docs.google.com/forms/d/1Y6-AE…
1/34
(On account of the amount of swearing and rending-of-garments in this thread - I'm @JaidevRamya. Blame no one but me for what follows.)
Last week, we sent a version of this👇🏽letter, a sign-able version of which is linked above, to many MPs.
2/34
@JaidevRamya You may recall that in December, together with @GoodLawProject, we opened the process of seeking judicial review of @ukhomeoffice’s decision to keep control of the Windrush Compensation Scheme.
To explain a little futher, i.e. a meta-explainer, those two things remain distinct in statute. The power to basically *make* someone immediately stateless is only for naturalised citizens, where there the HO has rsable grounds to believe they can have citizenship elsewhere.
The confusion in discussion arises because Begum is not naturalised, and yet seems to have been made stateless.
Begum was born in the UK, to Bangladeshi parents. She is (was) in the first bracket, i.e. a UK citizen, therefore can't be made stateless.