Balancing security and immigration: lessons from the United Kingdom, Iowa City, Iowa, September 13, 2005

- [James McCue] Today's program has been made possible through the cooperation of International Programs at the University of Iowa, with additional support from Technigraphics, and Mike Margolin. John and Carolyn Gross, the owners of Technigraphics, and Mike Margolin are here, could ya put your hand up so we can see who you are? Okay. If you wanna thank them after the program, why, by all means do. Okay, and now, Rudy Colloredo-Mansfeld, also a member of the program committee, will introduce today's speaker. - [Rudy Colloredo-Mansfeld] Thank you Jim. I'm very pleased to announce today's speaker, Jeremy Varcoe, who is also my father in law. Jeremy received his law degree from Oxford University in 1961, and was subsequently called to the bar in 1966, but his career went in quite a different direction when he became a district officer, that is a Colonial Administrator, in Swaziland in the years 1962-1965, which was the lead up to Swazi independence. As a colonial administrator, he was responsible for many tasks in the transition to independence, including helping to organize and oversee Swaziland's first elections. Upon returning from that job, he worked briefly in corporate law, but then took up a teaching position at the University of Birmingham to teach law until 1970. He then resumed his international career, becoming a diplomat, and working in that capacity for the next 22 years, serving mainly in Africa, but also two times in Turkey, and then Malaysia. He concluded his career with two senior postings in Africa, the first in Somalia as ambassador, where he presided as the country unraveled. Among the challenges that presented him was at one point having to evacuate British aide workers and other nationals from Northern Somalia as what was to become their civil war started to appear in politics. Upon, after that he served in Nigeria, and then returned to serve as an assistant undersecretary in London until 1992 when he took early retirement. And then went to work in international education working for a multinational educational trust United World Colleges, which runs a series of secondary schools around the world, offering the International Baccalaureate. One of the schools is in New Mexico, correct, Armand Hammer? In fact, I recently had to approve a transcript of a student from Armand Hammer here, and the International Baccalaureate is becoming increasingly recognized by US universities. He then moved from that, to his current work, which is as an immigration judge, and has been doing that since 1995 to the present on a part time basis, but is unique among judges, or almost unique among judges for combining a legal training and legal knowledge with this lengthy international experience. And he pulls those together as he decides these cases, some of which he'll share this afternoon. So please join me in welcoming Jeremy Varcoe. - [Jeremy Varcoe] Hello, I'd like to start by thanking, obviously, the Iowa City International Foreign Relations committee, or council rather, for inviting me. There is, of course, as you've gathered, a particular reason for me being here, which was I'd actually come to see my daughter and grandchildren. However, when Rudy telephoned me, some time ago, it seemed alright then to say yes, of course, I'll come and give this talk. As the time has got nearer, I wondered whether it was right. There is another, for you, disadvantage in this act of minor nepotism, which is that, of course, the introduction has oversold me as a speaker. I can only apologize for that, but as a dutiful son in law he had no option. Anyway, it is genuinely a pleasure to be here. And what I am trying to talk about is not entirely the title, because the title is slightly pretentious. Which is Striking a Balance between Immigration and Security. It's not as simple as that, as I'm sure you will all know. But, there is undoubtedly a link, and it allows me to give a British perspective and I want to stress that this is today, to be a British and European perspective. I'm neither presuming nor qualified, to talk about United States immigration law and practice. However, I'm quite sure there are parallels, which will occur to you as I unfold this presentation. I also want to make quite clear I'm speaking on a purely personal basis. As a judge, I am of course, not only, I trust, impartial and not prejudiced, but I'm not really allowed the luxury of very strong political views, though of course every judge does have political views. Some of you were tuning in, no doubt, to the questioning this morning of Judge Roberts. Anyway, let me put this now, in a simple way, of what the picture of immigration in Britain is. The government have, over the past couple of years, been increasingly accused of losing control of immigration. This started well before the tragic London bombings of the 7th of July this year. In a fairly recent poll, over 60% of Britans believed that we already have too many immigrants in the country. And, there is a danger of a backlash, if immigration is allowed to proceed at too fast a rate for manageable integration and absorption. We have a small ultra right wing party, the British National Party, who are extremely unattractive, but the fact is, that in certain inner city areas, they are beginning to gain electoral support, which is indicative, I think, of a nascent backlash. Compared to the appalling events of 9/11, or even the Madrid train bombings, the casualties sustained in London on the 7th of July, were massively relatively few. And of course two weeks later, there was happily an abortive similar round of attempted bombings, but the mixture, by that time, was too stale, I gather. And so the bombs didn't explode, didn't detonate properly. But what really made the impact on the British people, was the fact, firstly, it was the first time we'd ever experienced suicide bombings. Although, of course, we're not strangers to terrorism, having sustained and endured a fairly lengthy campaign of terrorism, and it's the only word to use, by Irish Nationalists seeking to detach Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. But, other thing was, that they spoke with English, regional accents. They were home grown terrorists, if you like. Although, they all originated from outside our shores. And, this has raised very serious questions about the nature of our society, the extent to which our policy of multiculturalism, which I don't know whether that's, would equate to what happens here, but what it means is, we have encouraged ethnic minorities to retain their own culture, to retain their sense of separate identity, and to combine that with being British. And it hasn't entirely worked. Well I'll come back to that issue later, because it's not directly part of immigration, but I think it's important not to lose sight of it. The real question, is to what extent a terrorist threat either results from, or could be reduced by, our immigration procedures. And I am going to suggest, that there is no clear and simple answer. Which may be rather disappointing to give you such a negative result, so early in the talk. But please don't go to sleep just because of that. The facts reveal the extent of the problem we would have in curbing or controlling immigration, without affecting vital economic interests and issues. So, what are the facts? Well, unlike the United States, Britain is not what I would describe as an immigrant society. Though of course there have been a regular flow of migrant groups throughout our history, ranging from the Vikings to, after the second world war, labor from the Caribbean, particularly Jamaica. More recently, there has been a combination of factors. The world mobility, Increased disparity, I'm afraid, between living standards of the wealthy countries, and those that are not wealthy. And, of course, economic progress, development, coupled with the falling birthrate in the Western democracies. This has resulted in the substantial increase of immigrants to Britain in recent years. Indeed, it may or may not be fair, but the simple fact is that the flow of migrants into Britain has trebled since Labour assumed office in 1997. And that has laid them wide open to accusations that the system is out of control. Well I think I can fairly say, standing here, being objective about it, that there's some truth in that accusation. And, they've recently adopted a slogan, managed immigration. Well, I don't know about you, but whenever politicians assume a title, like managed anything, it's usually because what they've been doing hasn't been well managed. And I think, I'm afraid, this applies in this instance. Projections, admittedly by somewhat right wing, or suspect think tanks or organizations, have projected that, if immigration continues at the present rate, Britain will acquire an extra five million people over the next 30 years. Taking it from 59 million to 64 million. And we're already a very densely crowded island. Since 1991, which was the last but one census, we had one in 1991 and 2001, there've been a net, net inflow of round about 1.2 million. And immigration has accounted for 85% of that increase. But migration into Britain is extremely uneven. It's mostly been to London, and the Southeast of the country, where the economic base has been. So, we have in some areas, in London, around London, and in some of the midland cities, a degree of ghettoization, if that's a word, which is closely approaching, the levels, I think, in some of your cities. There is, as I say, a serious issue as to the rate at which we can absorb and integrate new inhabitants. On the other hand, overall, taking the country as a whole, the population as a whole, only 7.5% were born abroad. That, I'm sure, would be much higher here. But, in London, one in four have been born abroad, which gives you and example of just the disparity. The current net inflow, each year, net inflow, of people settling as opposed to visitors and so on, is roughly 150 thousand a year, plus illegals. And of course, by definition, we don't know how many of those there are, but I suspect quite a lot. There are, of course, strong economic arguments in favor of immigration. And I would not seek for one moment to either underplay or deny those. But, the government are trying, and I think it's right, to shift the emphasis from simply accepting those people who arrive on our shores, to trying to single out those we actually want and need. The sort of system like Canada, and I think this country has, of point system, or green cards, or whatever. So, the number of work permits are increasing, and asylum seekers, about who I'm going to talk, at some length in a moment, are decreasing. But let's put this whole problem of security in context. In 2003, 93 million people arrived in the United Kingdom. Of those, the great majority were either from, well, were from Europe, and most of those were either tourists, or people on short term business visits. We also had new, as opposed to those already there, an inflow of about 320 thousand students. There've been calls to reduce the number of students But equally, there's then been squeals of anguish from the less good universities, who rely very much on overseas students, since they pay a higher fee than native British students, or resident British students. And universities who are subsidized by government, and the fees they charge are capped, which you might find strange, but they are, the consequence of that is, overseas students are welcomed with open arms. And I have to say that, of course, that can pose a problem. But so far, there's been no serious, and I'm glad that's so, no serious attempt to curb students by saying we won't accept them from certain countries. We also have problem, not a problem, we have reality, that because we have large communities already, of people, particularly from Asia, now by Asia, I don't actually really mean China, and Japan. In immigration terms, in Britain, when I talk about Asians we're normally talking about South Asia, the subcontinent. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in particular. So, of the 93 million, you will have had quite a few who had come to stay, as family members of those already here. They do have to satisfy certain tests, and one of the things I, as a judge do, is see whether, if they appeal, if they refuse and then appeal, whether they meet those criteria for entry. Nevertheless, it still leaves a large number of applications for entry clearance or visas of one kind or another. From people from, what we might loosely describe, perhaps unfairly, as rather more dubious countries in Asia, Middle East, and Africa. Now, asylum seekers. Every country, every Western country, takes some asylum seekers, you of course do here. But, it is a fact that over the last decade, more people have applied to come to Britain by seeking asylum, seeking international protection in Britain, then any other country, Despite the disparity in populations. Why? I'll try and answer that in a moment. Equally, as a result of this, in Britain, asylum seekers have attracted a disproportionate degree of opprobrium. Indeed, the term is almost one of abuse. Oh, he's an asylum seeker. Which it shouldn't be, and is very unfair to stereotype in that way. We have some good reasons why we attract more people. Partly language, our historical connection with certain countries, and the fact that there are good economic opportunities. On the whole, our economy has grown in recent years. Not as fast as here, but faster than most of the rest of Europe. But, we are also seen as a soft touch. By that, I mean that we allow more people entry, we take a ridiculous length of time, or have done, until recently, in processing applications. I, as a judge, see this. Because two thirds of my work is involved with asylum seeker appeals. And some of the people, by the time they get to me, have actually been here for eight or 10 years. Well, I mean, that's ludicrous. Not here, in Britain, sorry. Better get that right. Also, we are, have been, until recently, very generous with welfare benefits. And there's no doubt that although many people come to work, and want to work, and that's what drives them, it may not be that they are risk of political persecution, but the urge to better themselves economically. But the fact is, that some come, I'm afraid, because there are benefits available in Britain, which are not available in their own countries. And finally, and this again you will find hard, perhaps, to believe, but we're very unsuccessful at removing those who should be removed because they have no valid right or claim to remain in the United Kingdom. Of a hundred asylum seekers, perhaps 20 are successful. Either because the authorities grant them political asylum, or some lesser form of protection or right to remain, or I, on appeal, by them, overturn the government's decision and say yes, they may stay. When I say I, I or all the other judges, I don't mean myself personally of course. Even so, that leaves roughly 80, out of the hundred, who have no right to remain. Of those, in practice only 20 will be removed. This has a certain consequence for me personally. It makes me, in a way, a bit more relaxed. When I started the job I used to lose sleep about a difficult asylum case. I would feel perhaps I'm going to be sending somebody back who is going to lose his toenails, or worse. But now I feel, well if he's really at risk, then the chances are, he will somehow go underground, or he'll get another social security form and a different identity. Or, one way or another he will disappear into the woodwork, and he won't be returned, so I needn't worry if I get it wrong. Well, of course, I'm not being, I hope, either cynical or frivolous, but what I'm saying is, that we should be able to return more people. Because, of course, the failure to return gets known, and is an incentive for people to chose Britain as country of choice for seeking asylum. The cost of asylum seekers is also high, and this is noted by people that want to criticize it. Last year, 2003 I think it was, the overall cost was estimated at roughly equivalent to four billion dollars. Or, perhaps, the cost of eight hospitals. That includes the legal cost, the legal process, because they get free legal representation, quite a lot of the asylum seekers and other immigrant appellants. The cost of housing for them, and welfare benefits. As well as, as special needs for education, and demands on our health centers. However, they also bring a benefit, there's no getting away from that. The exact equation, I'm not qualified to work out. There's a demand for more research in this area. There's been a surge, there was a surge in applications for asylum between 1999 roughly and 2002. It went up to about 90 thousand a year, plus their dependents. That's now fallen, as a result of a number of factors. Partly government legislation, to tighten up procedures, partly more resources, to process applications faster. And partly, I think, that the government have made available, other means of gaining entry into Britain, so people don't need to claim asylum. I'm often asked, how many of them are genuine. Well, I always find that a difficult question. I look at it case by case, of course. I would say that probably, the number that we accept, is rather more than perhaps should, but under the special layer standard of proof which applies in asylum cases, that's right. Better that way than the other. So, probably only 20% are genuine in the sense, this is the test for asylum, you have got to satisfy the government, or in this case, the judge, that you would face a real risk, and I'll come to that in a second, of being severely ill treated if you had to return to your own country as of that date. It's artificial, because you're not returned on that date, but that's the date that is fixed, the date of the appeal, or the date of the decision. And, you have to satisfy that the persecution, or the threat, is because of your political opinion, your race, your religion, or, that you belong to some special group. For example, homosexuals in certain countries would so qualify. But, undoubtedly, there is widespread abuse. There are lots of incentives for misusing the asylum process, and that's what's attracted the criticism. And detracted from those that need, and genuinely deserve, protection. As I've said, I've given you reasons for it. Plus one other. When you apply for asylum, you cannot be removed, under international law, from that country. You cannot then be sent back. Or you shouldn't be. Some countries are not so meticulous as Britain in observing that. You have to have your application properly processed, first by the government, and then with the right of independent appeal of some kind, and that's where I get involved. That takes time. But you can apply, and this what is, in a way, wrong, I think. You can actually apply, not as soon as you arrive in the country, which is when you think you'd want to apply, if you needed protection, but you can live in Britain for four years and then be liable to be removed, and as you're about to be taken to the aircraft you say, I claim asylum. And the process stops. While that asylum application is considered. And of course, that gives opportunity for people, to escape from the net. Because we detain very few immigration people, either before they have an appeal hearing, or, indeed, afterwards, at present. We do detain a few, but not many. Partly on grounds of trust, and partly on grounds of, belief, I think, in liberty, and the fact that people should not be banged up, or incarcerated if they haven't committed a crime. Or are not awaiting trial for a crime. The two serious flaws, I think, in the immigration system, firstly, we are sorry, in the asylum system. We are receiving in Britain, and the same would be true, largely, in this country, though your customers would come mainly from Central and South America, I think. But, the problem is this, especially in poorer countries, the great majority of those who need protection, who have been subjected to persecution by tyrants, or by, whether it's in Darfur, or whether it's in Moanda, or wherever, those people, haven't got the means, to seek political asylum in Europe, or in the United States. So, I estimate, or I guess I don't, I'm relying on the figures of experts, they estimate, that over 80% of those who really need protection, cannot afford to leave either their own country or the neighboring country in which they're seeking refuge. So, the people we get are those can afford to come here. Which is not necessarily correct. And, I repeat, the second flaw is our failure to remove more people from Britain, who should be removed. For judges, the problems that we face, and I if we have time, at the end of this, I'm going to try to, I don't think we are going to have, but we might. I will give you, talk you through a particular asylum case that I had two weeks ago. But, the problems we face are, that there is a special low standard of proof. It is for the appellant to show that he or she is entitled to asylum. But all they have to satisfy the judge, is that there is a reasonable likelihood, or a serious possibility, that they would face persecution. It's not that they're more likely to face persecution than not, that's a higher standard of proof, it's a lower one. One British judge once said, when asked, I think it was an unwise comment, but he assessed it as meaning one chance in 10 that the story is true, and that the person would be faced persecution. I can't work like that. I can't say well it's nine times more likely this than that, it just isn't how I think, and I'm not sure it's how any judge would think. Second difficulty is, we only have one story. We're an adversarial system, as you have, but Europe doesn't. So there are two sides. The government says this, and the appellant, the asylum seeker, says that. But he puts forward a story, I have to decide, on the basis of the evidence before me, whether I think it's true or not, or reasonably likely to be true. That's the test. Widespread use of false documents is another problem. In some countries, you can produce any document within a matter of minutes for people. Identity cards, passports, birth certificates, everything, you name. And some of them are very good. Also, we have a problem, and I am the first to accept this, of having to deal with people from widely different cultures, and people who adopt different value systems. A country which I am familiar, Somalia, is interesting in this respect. There are lots of Somalian asylum seekers in Britain. And they are divided, as a society, into clans, rather than tribes, but the same thing. And they said to derive from different relatives of the prophet Mohammed. But these, the loyalty felt towards your particular clan, is so strong, and so powerful, that it overrides almost any other priority or consideration. This means, that where you have a group of clansmen, say in London, and they want to get another member of a family over, they believe it is their duty. If necessary, I'm afraid, to totally falsify the story. They don't see it as wrong. At all. They believe it's their duty to do that. And, I try not to see it as wrong, and I accept it, but I have to aim off for it, and allow for it, and that can be very difficult. I give that just as one example. Another, much more simple little thing is that people from the Middle East, if they are supposed to look up to a superior, they should never look that person in the face. So the idea that the appellant is looking shifty, would be totally erroneous. It simply means, he's being respectful. And you've got to understand that kind of issue. Finally, we hear all our evidence through interpreters, or most of it, and that again means that you can't rely on demeanor, and it makes, you've got to make allowances. Some of my colleges, are not as used as I am, to having lived in different countries, and different places, and having heard English mangled by lots of different people. Consequently, it means that when I hear something, I can almost, not always, almost guess what the interpreter was trying to say, even though his English may not be as good as it might be. But that, one gets, hopefully, through experience. Recently there was a further serious complication, which is, for every asylum case, and, indeed, every immigration case, we now have to look at aspects of human rights law. I say it's complication as though I am critical of it. Of course not. But it was only relatively recently that Britain actually incorporated, into our own law, the requirements of the European convention on human rights. Which is a very strict, very fair, and, ironically, was drafted by British jurists, in the late 1940's, early 1950's. And that has two things that has caused problem in asylum. First is what's called article three, I won't bore you with it, except that it is an absolute, and that word absolute is important, prohibition on torture, or on other inhuman or degrading treatment. So, I mentioned earlier when I talked about asylum, the reasons why you had to show you were at risk. Political opinion, ethnic origin, religion, etc. But this has extended it. So, if someone comes to Britain, and says, I am at risk of domestic violence. My husband beat me up terribly and if I went back to Pakistan, or wherever, he would find me, wherever I went, and he would kill me. Well, actually, I doubt whether one would find that that's reasonably likely to be true. But if you did accept it was true, even though it was domestic violence, that person, strictly speaking, would be entitled to remain in Britain, under article three. Or, if a person from Russia feared the mafia, and he could satisfy the authorities, that he had been at such risk previously that he'd been forced to flee, and that because of either what he'd done or what he knew, his life would be at risk on return, well, so you can see, it can be very wide. And laymen say to me sometimes, perhaps some of you are saying it, wait a minute, you know, what's this? It's been extended by, again, a decision in our highest court in Britain, that all women from Pakistan, are deemed to be potentially at risk. Because of extent of discrimination, ill treatment, and the failure of the government to curb abuse of women. But of course it does mean, in theory, we could have half Pakistan turning up on the shores. I don't think, I think at that point, our highest courts might change their mind. There's one interesting little corollary of article two, which is the right to life. Which is that, at the moment, if the United States seeks extradition, from Britain, of someone wanted for a criminal offense, we would not, or courts, as I understand it, would not grant that extradition request, if there was a risk that the person concerned could face the death penalty in this country. I think there may be cases where, the administration, I don't know quite how it would work between state governors, anyway, those responsible parties have given a guarantee to the British authorities that the death penalty would never be carried out. And then I think extradition might be permitted. Finally, there's article eight, which is the right to private and family life. Sounds innocuous enough. But it means, that if someone has been in Britain for some years, and has established a business, or he's married a wife and had a child, his removal can be that much more difficult, because it's considered that it would be an interference, and unjustified interference, with his rights if he is established in Britain. I won't go into depth about it, but you can see, the complications, complexity, and the difficulty in drawing the balance between the rights of the individual, and the wider communal interest. Finally, you might wish to know where asylum seekers come from, as far as Britain is concerned. At the moment, in descending order, in other words, the most first, they come from Iran, Afghanistan, although that number is falling, Iraq, which has been falling, because our courts have held that despite the, I better, I was going to use a rather impolite word, but despite the lack of security in Iraq, our courts have held that it is still considered generally safe to return people. But not all. Some people would still be able to show, that they had a particular reason to be at risk. Then, in descending order, Somalia, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Pakistan. We've got some numbers, of course, from other countries. The main security issues that arise from all of this, are how do we exclude potential terrorists who want to come to Britain, and how to we remove foreign nationals, who once they're here, in Britain, or sorry, there, in Britain, with resident's rights, are regarded as a security threat. We do accept, and I don't know whether this would be so here, but we do accept that we cannot either exclude our own nationals, once they are nationals, even if they're of foreign origin, or detain any of our own citizens, without trial. No detention without trial is permissible in the United Kingdom. That goes back to Magna Carte, and it's a right, which is still regarded as inalienable, and sacrosanct. I'm pleased and proud to say, I think. But, we do have some special British problems, about which I'm perhaps less proud. We have been too liberal in recent years, in allowing extremists into London. Several governments, including those of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and India, have warned us, that we are harboring dangerous dissidents, who are potential terrorists. In fact, sometimes, it is referred to as London-istan. The next thing, which again you will find difficult to believe is, we have no effective border control. Although we're an island, we don't check many of the people who come into our own country. We don't have a computerized system. And, what's more, we don't know who is here, or whether people who've come as students or as work permit holders, have ever left. So we can't chase them out because we don't know whether they're there or not. In other words, we have, for resource reasons, deliberately reduced our border controls and the amount of resources available for this. Finally, we don't have any form of identity cards at the moment. Although these are said to be on their way. And finally, we have really have no pre security, or, indeed, medical screening of anyone coming in. I had a case recently, very quickly, immigration case, not asylum, there's a special provision for ministers of religion, of any religion, any faith to come to Britain, if they're needed, for their own community. And I had an application from a group, and I made very sure that they were bona fide in the sense that they're a registered charity in Britain, an Islamic education trust, who wanted to bring an Imam in to help their one Imam. That was to help Koranic classes, for young members of their community, and also to take the services and supervise prayers. He met all the requirements of the immigration rules. So I had no alternative but to let this man from Kashmir in to the country. I had serious doubts. In my judgment, I did say that I wondered whether the British high commission in Pakistan shouldn't try and make some inquiries from Pakistan authorities about this individual. But that wasn't a requirement of the immigration law. He wasn't even required to speak English. Although that law has now been changed. But the case that I had was under the law before the change. I mention that simply to show the kind of extent to which we are perhaps over wide open. We've now embarked on a very interesting, but possibly damaging conflict. And this is my last point really. Between the government and the judiciary in Britain. Before the seven July we had detained, or the British government had detained, 10 foreign nationals, who were regarded as potentially a terrorist threat. Based on intelligence, which wasn't, of course, going to be revealed. Because they couldn't prejudice the sources of the information. But what was specifically peculiar about these 10 were, they were given the chance to return to their own countries, but they all said, if we return to our own countries, we will be killed or tortured. So here you had the situation that they had either, they hadn't all been granted asylum in Britain, some, one or two had, but the rest hadn't been, but they couldn't be returned to their own country, because they'd be at risk of persecution. Well, so, they were detained. The highest court in the land, the equivalent of your federal supreme court, ruled that their detention was unlawful. They ruled it on two grounds. Firstly, they said, we are discriminating against foreigners, because we can't do that to our own people. Which was an odd argument, but that's one that they put forth. The second argument was more understandable, which is, under the article three I've mentioned, there is an absolute prohibition of doing anything which might enable people to be tortured. And by sending them back, we'd be subjecting them to the risk of possible torture. So, they were released. Among strong criticism by many government ministers. And, they'd been put under various supervision orders at the moment, while the government prepare yet another round of fresh legislation. Which will involve, creating new offenses, such as incitement to racial hatred or terrorism, conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism, which is easier to prove in some sense than actual involvement. And also, undergoing military training abroad. Whether these sort of sticking plaster type measures will materially help to improve security isn't clear. Some in Britain urge far more radical solutions, such as withdrawing from the refugee convention, or even resiling from or taking a derogation from certain parts of our human rights legislation. Personally, I hope we don't do that. But, the pressure is there. Finally, I want to say, that I think we could tighten part of our immigration procedures. We could introduce more checks. But, I don't believe that you can put your finger in the dike, today, and actually, significantly curb the movement of peoples. So, we have to look inside our own society. Is our present multiculturalism, which I referred to earlier, right? How is it that you in this country here, I think, command a sense of American identity and loyalty? In Britain, we appear not to be able to do that. Why? Should we do more for ethnic minority communities? Are we letting too many people in too fast? Have we got the right affirmative action? Though all of these are questions which you're familiar with, and which we are struggling with. But, I therefore conclude by saying, as I said earlier, we don't have a simple answer. We recognize at least, however, that we do have problems. Thank you. - [Rudy Colloredo-Mansfeld] Okay, I have a number of questions here, that I'm sure we'll all be interested to hear the answers. Beginning with this one. In the US, we've been told that, post 7/7, post the terrorist attacks July 7th, Tony Blair has said the rules have changed. Well, have they changed, and is there political will available to change the rules? - [Jeremy Varcoe] Thank you. I think one has to say that Tony Blair was responding, as any politician and responsible leader, indeed, should do, to a sense of emergency, and a sense of shock. And I think that what he's trying to do, and I didn't really develop it, was to influence the judiciary, not to become so purist in their defense of human rights, as to prejudice the needs of the state, and the community at large. Now, there's this important difference between Britain and America. Here, you have a written constitution, and the divisions between the legislature, and the executive, and, indeed the judiciary, are very closely and clearly defined. In Britain, without a written constitution, the judges are in danger, I think, and I say this as one myself, of assuming a kind of, what's the word I want, a supervisory role, which lacks democratic backing. In that, judges are not elected, or at least they're not in Britain, Whereas politicians are. And I think that Tony Blair, what he's trying to do, is to say, we may have to be tougher, and the judges should not impede that. Whether, there is the, I think there is the political will, but whether there is the public support for that, I think at the moment, public mood is one of a degree of anger. And yes, I think they would sanction tougher measures. And I think the judges may have to give a bit, that's all I can say. - [Rudy Colloredo-Mansfeld] In a way, this question is a follow up to that question. What kinds of laws are being introduced to tighten immigration security? - [Jeremy Varcoe] Well, I mentioned some of them. There are certain laws to tighten up even further the immigration procedures, and to make it less attractive to apply for asylum, even more. Tough, than it is. Certain countries have been rules as being ineligible for political asylum because it's said that their governments are regarded as moderate and democratic, and therefore, by definition, there cannot be political persecution. Other measures include, as I mentioned, creating new offenses, which are easier to actually secure convictions on, bearing in mind that we have a high, as you do, a high standard of proof in criminal cases. Thirdly, there is a move to accept additional evidence, such as intercepts, phone intercepts, phone tapping intercepts. But it is our intelligence agencies that are vary of this, they're not sure that it's a good thing to reveal the methods open to them. Other than that, at the moment, I'm not aware of specific moves. The more far-reaching ones, such as seeking a derogation from human rights provisions, and so on, have not yet, in my view, been approached. - [Rudy Colloredo-Mansfeld] What role, if any, does Great Britain's past colonial ties play in your decisions? - [Jeremy Varcoe] The short answer must be none, but in reality, that's not so. Because, I think, and this where I may be a dangerous self delusion. I actually believe that I have a better understanding of where a lot of these people come from, than most of my fellow judges. I've actually lived in a number of these countries, Somalia and Nigeria, Turkey, of which we get, all of which we get, difficult asylum cases. The Kurdish, Kurds from Turkey and so on. I know where they come from. I try, every time I'm hearing a case, to say, suppose I was sitting there. I find it very helpful. So, the short answer is, I don't have sympathy because somebody comes from, I don't know, comes from a British colony in Africa, whereas, if he came from a French colony I wouldn't, no, of course not. But what I would say is, that I hope I understand it better. - [Rudy Colloredo-Mansfeld] Since the UK has no control of immigrants at it's borders with the EU, it appears that foreigners can roam the UK freely. Is the only control the restriction on the immigrant becoming a citizen? - [Jeremy Varcoe] More or less, yes. There are very liberal interpretation of the right of freedom of movement within the European Union. And since the European Union has recently been expanded, to 25 states, this has meant we have had an influx. Which again, the government totally underestimated. They said very few will come. Lots have come. Of workers from Eastern, what I call Eastern, Europe. From countries that were a part of Eastern Europe. On the whole, of course, rather like workers from certain countries near here, they come to do food processing, seasonal picking of fruit, low grade, or low paid work. The advantage of EU workers is that at least they have to comply with all the security, sorry, all the social security legislation. That means they can't be exploited so much, by unscrupulous employers, who won't pay them the statutory minimum wage. - [Rudy Colloredo-Mansfeld] Now here's one that cuts closer to home, how do you ascertain that the foreign students are in fact students and not potential terrorists? - [Jeremy Varcoe] How would you ascertain? I don't think a student's going to declare himself as a student of terrorism. But I tell you what you do do. At least what I do. I try to asses whether the student is genuine or not. Now, last week I had an interesting application, from a student, aged about 37, who wanted to study aeronautical engineering in Britan. He came from Kenya. And I believe the reason he'd chosen aeronautical engineering, was because he knew there was no course in aeronautical engineering available in Kenya. Because our embassy officials often say, oh well, if there's a course in IT in Kenya, why doesn't he study it there at much lower cost? And actually, in this particular case, I was quite certain that this was a totally false application in the sense that although he said that aeronautical engineering was his passion, he knew remarkably little about it. He didn't even have the qualifications, I think, for a degree in anything in Britain, and the British university which had granted him unconditional entry was very naughty indeed. But it doesn't mean to say that this person was a terrorist. He was just trying it on. As for how you determine he's a terrorist, I can't tell. If you can tell by looking in their eyes, good for you. - [Rudy Colloredo-Mansfeld] Okay, we have two comparative cases. Canada is assessed to be halfway between the UK and US. I suppose that means in terms of immigration law. What do they do right? - [Jeremy Varcoe] What do Canada do right? Well, I tell you what they do do. They take large numbers of people from countries where there is serious pressure. I mean, interestingly, again, Somalia, there's a very flourishing, several flourishing, Somali communities in Canada. And they've done something right, which we haven't done, the Somali's in Britain, by and large, and I recognize the dangers of generalization, are, I'm not saying they're work shy, but only 12% of them are in employment. The lowest of any ethnic group. But in Canada, they are, I understand, very valuable and contributing citizens. So, I think, what Canada has done right, is to be able to absorb, and possibly disperse, their immigrants, more effectively than we have in Britain, but I'm speaking without much firsthand knowledge. - [Rudy Colloredo-Mansfeld] Well then, continuing in that vein, with the can of worms question, what do you think about American immigration practices? - [Jeremy Varcoe] If I knew, I'd give an answer. All I would say is, that I sense that if, as with Britain, you have one thing being practiced and another being preached, it can create problems. In other words, if a blind eye is turned, to large scale illegal immigration, across the Mexican border, that creates a number of problems. Because it leaves these people wide open to exploitation, and it may also simply be a case of where, if you do clamp down, and enforce things strictly, then you will get political pressure from employers, because they haven't got the people to do the low paid work. But I'm in, I wouldn't say dangerous waters, but I'm treading in an area I don't know enough about to make any more than those rather careful comments. - [Rudy Colloredo-Mansfeld] Okay, this will be the last question. And inquiring minds want to know, do you wear a wig and a robe when you preside? - [Jeremy Varcoe] I wish. Given today's temperatures, I'm sorry I haven't brought it with me. No, of course we don't. And actually, it's an important point, not quite so silly to end on as you might think. In that, there is a distinction. I'm called a judge. Until recently, I wasn't. I was called an adjudicator. And, we try and make our immigration tribunals, 'cuz it's a tribunal rather than a court, and the distinction is a fine one, we try to make them informal. For example, if I get a young, and we get quite a lot of unaccompanied minors, I will see, 'cuz I always come down off, a sort of dais, and sit next to the boy or the girl in court, I certainly don't wear wigs, I try and explain what the process is, I try and crack a joke, put people at their ease. And the rules of procedure and evidence are what I decide they are, more or less, and so they're not the same strict rules. And that's the great difference between the tribunal and the court. - [James McCue] We've reached the time to conclude today's program. On behalf of the Iowa City Foreign Relations Council I wanna thank Jeremy Varcoe for sharing with us, and with our radio and TV audiences, his observations on balancing security and immigration, Lessons from the United Kingdom. I also wish to thank our sponsors once again, International Programs at the University of Iowa, Technigraphics and Mike Margolin, for today's program. If you have any questions about joining the Foreign Relations Council, please call the office 335-0351 If you enjoy listening to this program on the radio or TV, please consider supporting council's work by sending a contribution to the Iowa City foreign relations council, 140 International Center, Iowa City 52242. Please return your name tags, thank you very much, we're adjourned.