,
33 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Rudd’s officials step up their *legal* discrimination against EU citizens. Thread. 1/
In 2016, HO began deporting EU cits reported by charities as without settled accommodation. Campaigners opposed nelmacampaigns.wordpress.com/home/ 2/
Detention is a key HO tool against these EU citizens; tho hardly a “flight risk” - will they leave the UK?? 3/
Detention helps HO make case for deportation bc it makes it harder for migrants to show they are economically active. > 4/
Under EU law, temporary work makes a citizen a worker - even if it’s a job that lasts a day. 5/
Being locked up blocks access to this work, and detainee’s find it hard to corroborate case that they would find work if released 6/
So getting released can be crucial for EU citizen to prove her/his right to live in UK as an economically active person. 7/
HO policy of maximising is detention powers means finding excuses not to release people. One of these is “s/he has no place to stay”. 8/
Over years, migrants, lawyers & campaigners countered this excuse with Section 4 of Immigration & Asylum Act 1999 legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/33/… 9/
HO policy is that s4 accommodation must be made available where lack of accomm is obstacle to release on bail 10/
But HO is often divided & conflicted about its own pro-migrant policies, with some senior & junior staff trying to weaken them. 11/
These “hardliners” look for ways not to apply policies, like delaying, ignoring or finding exceptions. 12/
One exception to Section 4 accommodation is Schedule 3 to the Nationality Immigration & Asylum Act 2002 legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/41/… 13/
Sch 3 applies to accommodation under Imm & Asylum Act 1999 (para 1(1)l) & bars providing it to ppl Schedule applies to (para 1) 14/
Sch 3 says it applies to *all EEA citizens* (para 3) - which includes all EU cits (bc EU states are parties to EEA agreement) 15/
(Using “EEA” to mean all EU + EEA states of Norway, Iceland & Liechtenstein) is common in UK laws. Bc all have same rights under EU law) 16/
But would break EU law to bar EU cits from social support in para 1 (which is most non-cash support). That’s illegal discrimination 17/
So Sch 3 doesn’t apply if it would break EU law to apply it: or break human rights law (para 3). 18/
HO letter to Romanian man they detained talked abt his EU law & human rights, because to deny s4 accommodation, Sch 3 needs this covered 19/
New legal territory for HO afaik. Policy of deporting EU cits as non-econ active is new, so denials of s4 accom to EU cits is new AFAIK 20/
But is it legal? Sch 3 says s4 accommodation can be denied to a Romanian *because he is an EU cit*. That’s blatant discrimination 21/
EU law bars governments from discriminating on grounds of nationality of an EU state: Article 18 TFEU. Unless an exception applies. 22/
EU law allows UK to deport EU cits (where strict conditions met) & to detain them pending (if necessary) even tho UK cits can’t be 23/
But does EU law allow a UK law like Sch 3 that denies accom “just because” the person is an EU cit? How is that justified? 24/
Afaik this legal issue hasnt been decided by UK courts. I argued it in High Court a long time ago against Lambeth Council > 25/
Lambeth had cut off day care to a mentally disabled Portuguese woman long resident in UK with her family. Judge heard the legal argument 26/
but when he was ready with judgment, Lambeth said wd give my client back her services & pay her legal costs if we agreed to no judgment 27/
But if Rudd really does want to keep EU cits locked up based on discriminatory denial of accomm, she may end up in court. 28/28
Update: HO respond stating Romanian man is violent offender awaiting removal 29/
Important +ve step for HO to be more open abt it’s decisions. But language of HO rebuttal is strange & hard to reconcile with Observer > 30/
Where HO acts vs EU cits on basis of risk of serious crime, use deportation (which bars their return). But HO doesn’t use that word 31/
Presumably Romanian man wanted bail while his appeal vs removal is pending: so if he is too dangerous to release, why doesn’t HO say so? 32/
But these omissions from HO rebuttal are as likely to be bc HO doesn’t want/like explaining itself, not bc decision itself is wrong 33/33
