Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Go Home public meeting report


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

On Wednesday evening, a group of activists, lawyers and campaigners gathered in East London to discuss the Government’s ‘Go Home’ campaign and to demonstrate their solidarity with immigrant and refugee communities. The event was attended by Garden Court’s Marketing Assistant, Amy Carrington.

Amy Carrington
Amy Carrington

On Wednesday evening, a group of activists, lawyers and campaigners gathered in Stratford for a public meeting on the Government’s ‘Go Home’ campaign. The event was one in a series of meetings, organised by the Migrants’ Rights Network, which aims to demonstrate support of and solidarity with migrant and refugee communities across London, as well as galvanising support for potential future campaigns.

The catalyst for this series of workshops was the pilot scheme, run by the Government from 22 July, during which vans with the words ‘Go Home or Face Arrest’ were driven around six London boroughs in a week-long campaign. The boroughs were chosen because each one had either a particularly low or particularly high level of voluntary return amongst migrants. The evening included discussions about reactions to the ‘Go Home’ campaign, the proliferation of immigration spot checks and campaigning tips for concerned organisations and individuals.

The evening began with Sasha Rozansky of Deighton Pierce Glynn discussing the ways in which the vans compromised the Public Sector Equality Duty. She argued that “having the vans going around communities in this way clearly was not fostering good relations, tackling discrimination and harassment or promoting understanding,” all of which are duties set out in s.149 of the Equalities Act. Rozansky also explained why the vans encouraged negative reactions from many different sectors of society. At local level, Rozansky argued, the vans were reminiscent of the National Front marches in the 1980s which urged immigrants to ‘go back to where they came from.’ And at political level, local councillors were outraged that they hadn’t been consulted before the vans were rolled out throughout their boroughs, thus threatening to undo the hard work that had been carried out over the years to foster good community relations.

Estelle de Boulay of the Newham Monitoring Project (NMP) and Sophie Naftalin of Bhatt Murphy commented on another aspect of the current immigration crackdown: the vast increase in the number of immigration spot checks and their increasingly public character. Both agreed that the targeting of migrants has been “reinvigorated” since the riots of the summer of 2011 and that there has been a significant increase in visible policing and the apparently discriminatory targeting of individuals by immigration officers. Naftalin, a solicitor who specialises in civil actions against the police, was keen to deliver the message that, “there is no compulsion to respond if an immigration officer stops you in the street and you cannot legally be targeted for your accent, your race or your so-called “foreign” appearance.” She urged individuals who felt that they had been targeted in this way to pursue a claim against the police or immigration officials for discrimination.

The evening concluded with Rita Chadha, of the Refugee and Migrant Forum of East London (RAMFEL) offering advice on how individuals and organisations can rally around this cause and can make their voices heard quickly and effectively. RAMFEL, a non-profit organisation, works across London to develop new services for migrants and is dedicated to working towards eradicating disadvantage and discrimination. RAMFEL led the legal campaign against the ‘Go Home’ vans and galvanised local campaigners and, in some cases, police officers and politicians, against the campaign. Chadha advised that in order to campaign effectively, responding quickly is essential. She also highlighted the importance of fact-finding and that sharing information with interested parties must be done as quickly as possible in order to maximise support. Chadha also talked about the importance of galvanising allies from NGOS, voluntary organisations, the police, councils and community groups in order to pool resources and to amplify the collective voice of the campaign.

This sentiment was encapsulated in the words of a barrister in attendance:

As barristers, we can target this kind of discrimination through individual cases. However, if we are truly to make our voices heard and to have a greater impact across society, we need to work with organisations, with politicians, and with the teachers and doctors who are now being turned into immigration officers, to create a coherent movement with a clear and powerful message.

With the prospect of a national ‘Go Home’ campaign currently under review, the mood amongst those gathered at the event on Wednesday was one of determination. If the Government does decide to roll out the ‘Go Home’ vans nationally, it is clear that this decision will be vehemently challenged by members of the legal sector, the voluntary sector and even by certain members of the Government and the police force.

First published on the Garden Court Immigration Blog.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Amy Carrington

Amy Carrington

I graduated last year with a Masters in Human Rights from Kingston University, during which I focused predominantly on the issues of human trafficking, female genital mutilation and the potential problems that Western activists may encounter when defending women’s rights in developing countries. I have several years’ experience of volunteering in charities and campaigning organisations in the UK, the US and in South America.


3 Responses

  1. Good luck to everyone who challenges the “go home” vans. This campaign is not something which I would have expected in the UK and it does not reflect well on the UK, not to mention the problems it causes as discussed in the article. One wonders also what even non-disriminatory spot checks would achieve, this is questionable too. And it arguably introduces a de facto requirement or at least pressure to carry ID showing immigration status/citizenship.

    1. No doubt you belong to a higher than average income bracket benefitting in part from human rights legistration, and the resorces for which immigrants compete come readily to your hands. Imagine the plight of our underpriviliged having to scramble for a decent existance while our society leans over backwards to favour any and all minority groups or visitors. “Go home” notices do not begin to express the frustration of the UK rank and file.

  2. Denis I do not belong to a higher than average income bracket, neither by UK standards nor in Switzerland where I live and am now.

    Immigration control should not be conducted with scare tactics or with phrases reminiscent of extremists in the past. It should be conducted by effective border control and a fit for purpose HO and by targetting suspicious people or places, for eg. where it is suspected that someone is involved in people smuggling or manufacturing forged immigration papers.

    As regards human rights, my position is that genuine spouses of citizens and parents of citizens who have genuine parent-child relationship should be allowed to stay. That would also mean that the underpriviliged can bring in a spouse from outside the country and stay with a spouse in the country who happens to be a migrant without settled status even if they don’t earn 18,600. (Checking for a genuine relationship to a spouse is not difficult where authorities are fit for purpose.)

    As regards scrambling for a decent existence, immigration also brings social and economic benefits and either way, it is not a cause of lack of opportunity and just as migrants take jobs, they create them too. As regards housing, immigration is only one of many factors and not the primary factor. And if the millions of British citizens outside the UK were all sent back there by the countries to which they have migrated…