Some Good News: Migrant women's fight back against the hostile environment

by Hannana Siddiqui and Selma Taha

Since the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 in the House of Commons, the Government's mantra has been that they regard migrant victims as ‘victims first and foremost’. However, the evidence indicates the opposite of this. The government refused to support Southall Black Sister’s (SBS) amendment to lift the no recourse to public funds (NRPF) condition for all victims of domestic abuse. In addition, they refused to support the Latin American Women's Rights Service (LAWRS) amendment to implement a 'firewall' to prevent the sharing of personal data between statutory agencies such as the police and Immigration Enforcement. In both instances, women are faced with a stark choice: domestic violence or deportation and/or destitution.

Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, stated in September 2023 that being gay or a woman facing discrimination in your country of origin does not qualify you for refugee status ‒ that you must also prove persecution. This, however, has always been the case. Women, for example, have always had to demonstrate a well-founded fear of gender related persecution. Indeed, in 1999, SBS helped to win the first House of Lords cases to recognise such persecution in the UK:  those of Shah and Islam who were fleeing domestic abuse in Pakistan. However since then, regardless of evidence, asylum on the grounds of gender related persecution remains difficult to obtain. In fact, the numbers applying under both of these social groups due to gender related or homophobic persecution are relatively small and often unsuccessful. Yet Braverman’s fear mongering at the Tory Party conference in October this year when she ‘warned’ of a ‘hurricane’ of mass migration – in small boats or otherwise ‒ will place many lives at risk.

The Hostile Environment

To win a general election, it appears that the Tories deadly ‘hostile environment’ towards migrants and asylum seekers is being whipped up into a culture war whirlwind. The Illegal Migration Act, which detains, removes and blocks the return of illegal migrants, is the most recent manifestation of a legally sanctioned campaign to obtain votes by scapegoating and ‘othering’ people. Other attacks have targeted the Human Rights Act and the Refugee Convention, both of which aim to protect the rights of asylum seekers and migrants, who are often disparagingly portrayed as anything from fraudulent ‘economic’ migrants to a potential terror threat by the government, the media and other racist commentators. Until recently, women and gay men seeking asylum were not targeted, but with the election approaching, it appears that no holds are barred. This is despite high-profile persecution of women, gay men and lesbians in many countries, notably Iran, Afghanistan and Uganda, which the UK government has condemned or will condemn. Yet, there is no safe haven here.

The Fight Back

The work of SBS and other black, minority and migrant women's groups focuses on the plight of women experiencing domestic violence in the United Kingdom or gender-based violence abroad. SBS has been campaigning for more than three decades, and despite the hostility, it has achieved significant victories that have benefitted thousands. It played a pivotal role in the introduction of the Domestic Violence Indefinite Leave to Remain (DVILR) in 2002 and the Destitution Domestic Violence Concession (DDVC) in 2012 for those on spouse or partner visas. These reforms go against the grain of the hostile environment and represent one of the most successful models in the world because they provide victims with both status and support (access to welfare benefits and housing), thereby encouraging survivors to seek help and support.

This model, however, is not available to those on non-spouse or partner visas and undocumented women. They are still faced with a harsh choice and are trapped in abusive relationships. They are considered ‘undeserving’ migrants, without the safety net available to all other victims of domestic abuse in the country. Even social services deter women with children from seeking help under the Children Act by threatening to take the children into care or return them to an abusive father or family member. Many refuges also turn away women because they are unable to pay their rent, which is required for the refuge to survive.

SBS is leading a campaign to extend the DVILR and DDVC to all migrant victims of domestic abuse and has been lobbying for an amendment in the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which is backed by Labour. At the same time, we are running a UK-wide partnership pilot project, Support for Migrant Victims (SMV), funded by the Home Office, to provide limited funds for rent and subsistence for women and their children. These are woefully insufficient because the rates paid are lower than those paid by Universal Credit, as evidenced by two evaluations of the SMV pilot project, that show the need for more money for a longer period of time. There is an urgent need for a longer-term solution, which SBS is arguing should be the extension of the combined DVILR and DDVC model. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner agrees.

While the Home Office has not yet stated what they propose as the longer-term solution, they have refused to introduce a firewall. Instead, they propose establishing an Immigration Enforcement Migrant Victim Protocol, which is not supported by LAWRS and SBS because it allows for the sharing of personal data and does not protect victims. Indeed, it is more likely that migrant women will remain locked in abusive relationships as the Illegal Migration Act reinforces their fear of being treated as immigration offenders and of detention and deportation. Despite the Government’s position, several bodies, along with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, have come out in favour of a firewall, including three independent watchdogs who upheld a super-complaint by Liberty and SBS against data sharing.

Meanwhile, Women for Refugee Women secured the maintenance of the 72-hour limit on detaining pregnant women which would have been scrapped under the Illegal Migration Bill. This was accomplished after a lengthy campaign and the passage of an amendment to the Bill in the House of Lords. This softened the edges of the Bill, which, unfortunately, remained hard in the centre, denying rights to many migrants and asylum seekers. This includes preventing women who have survived rape, torture and trafficking from seeking sanctuary in the UK, placing them at serious risk of further harm and making the UK a considerably more hostile place.

Nonetheless, black feminists continue to resist and refuse to be defeated by racist immigration policies. Dare we hope that a more progressive Labour government will repeal the Illegal Migration Act and other immigration rules after the next election?

To support the SBS campaign, write to your MP. For a template letter, visit the SBS website.