There has been a flurry of media stories over the past few weeks about the considerable pressures placed on some local authorities by the presence of homeless eastern and central European migrants in the UK.
Reports have also touched upon the operation of a Home Office pilot programme which works with local authorities to remove them from the country - the pilot is likely to be rolled out nationally later this year if judged a success.
There is a need, however, to put this approach under the spotlight before replicating it more widely. The rise in homelessness among these migrants is a complex issue for the government and solutions need to be found. But responding with an immigration enforcement strategy could turn out to be both controversial and problematic.
Reports from community-based organisations indicate that the slide into homelessness is often the result of a series of tough experiences for migrants. They have often been subjected to exploitation within the labour market and poor treatment in the private housing sector. Because new EU member nationals have limited access to social benefits and housing, the support otherwise available to British citizens and migrants from old EU countries is often denied to them.
Moving to expel homeless migrants from the UK will not solve these problems. Even more concerning, perhaps, is the fact that removing European migrants under these circumstances might well turn out to be unlawful under EU law - an assertion made recently by prominent lawyers in the field.
The challenges of homelessness among migrants are not going to go away and we need to form responses that address the causes and not just the symptoms.
Ruth Grove-White is a policy officer at the Migrants’ Rights Network
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (22)
Michael Read | 27/08/2010 11:06 am
A recipe for disaster.
If they can't be kicked out then
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 27/08/2010 11:26 am
Help a man up and you may have made a friend.
Beat a man down and you will have made an enemy.
Ruth is absolutely correct that we need actions that address the causes rather than just the symptoms. However, I think she is probably being niave to believe that the British Public have any interest in actions other than the popularist and drum banging kind that the media would have us aspire to. That is not to say that nothing should be done, but the process of educating the majority of ignorant 'tru-brits' needs to have had some success before there will be a worthwhile political will to resolve the causes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 27/08/2010 1:53 pm
If they have no job and are not entitled to any UK benefits they really should go home.
If I was stuck abroad with no job and no income I'd jump at at the chance for a free trip home.
(OK left wing bully boys ATTACK!)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27/08/2010 2:18 pm
I'll join Mr Bone at the pillory.
As a point of information, I am wondering what would be the position of a homeless immigrant with regard to housing if it is the case that they cannot be removed on human rights ground (presumably that's the EU bit).
Since homelessness - or S193 - makes the individual a priority candidate for statutory rehousing, wouldn't these individuals jump the housing queue. Now that's something tto get the Daily Mail on red alert.
Surely, it can't be as manifestly unfair as that?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 27/08/2010 2:28 pm
Would it be unfair to require an employer, importing cheap foreign labour into the UK market, working that labour at exploitation levels of pay - including deductions for accomodation expenses etc, should have some responsibility to fund their return journey, or even take some responsibility for their welfare when the slave escapes - sorry - when the staff member reaches the end of their contract.
Would it be unfair to require employers to treat staff fairly and pay them a respectable reflection of their worth for the role that they do and their part in producing profits. Of course not, but if that were done then we would not need to spend Billions on benefits, and where would be the fun in that.
Should we celebrate the embracing of flexible labour laws and the rejection of European employment laws, that combined have enbabled employers to reduce pay and conditions such as to create these issues.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 27/08/2010 2:49 pm
PSR Glad you agree in principle that they should go home once unemployed.
Problem is i suppose if they finish one contract and get a nother job that does not work out. Is the second employer obliged to get them home....an open ended return might be the answer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 27/08/2010 3:01 pm
If we embraced European employment legislation, treated all to fair conditions with reasonable pay, then the flexible labour market would be consistent across Europe.
I see no point to be cold, tired, hungry and homeless when one could be accomodated etc, so home seems a sensible place to be. My point is that the employers who have been keen to pay for visa's and transport to get here should also take responsibility for the entire cost of not using local labour. The way that people are thrown out into the gutter after finding that their eages have just about met the cost of the visa and fare to get here, should not be legitamised, and the exploitive employment should be banned not encouraged. Blaming the worker is wrong.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27/08/2010 9:12 pm
Never mind immigrant homelessness, mmigration has damaged the employment prospects of the indigenous population. From MigrationWatch:
The mass immigration of the past decade has damaged the employment opportunities of UK born workers in the areas most affected.
This is the conclusion of a new study, from think-tank Migrationwatch, (see Briefing Paper 3.10) issued on the eve of new unemployment figures due out on August 12. It has conducted the first comparison of labour market conditions in the 50 Local Authorities with the highest international immigration with conditions in the 50 with the lowest.
It shows conclusively that areas of the UK that have experienced the highest levels of immigration have higher unemployment levels than areas that have not.
The study also shows that employment rates in these areas are lower compared with areas that have received comparatively little immigration from overseas.
'While properly controlled immigration can be of economic benefit, this demonstrates that the 'open door' policies of the past decade have had a damaging effect on the employment, and therefore the economic prospects and standard of living, of UK born workers in the areas most affected,' said Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman.
In London, which has received the highest level of immigrants, the study shows there is a positive relationship between unemployment and net immigration from abroad
For example for every one percentage point increase in the 'international immigration rate' (NIM - Net International Migration expressed as a percentage share of the total population of the Borough concerned.) of a London borough, there is on average an increase of around a fifth of one percentage point in the unemployment rate in that borough.
It also shows that immigration from overseas into London boroughs is associated with a fall in the employment rate of UK-born inhabitants: for every one percentage point increase in the share of immigrants in London boroughs there is a fall of around half a percentage point in the employment rate of UK-born inhabitants.
'This is a very complex area and other factors such as skills levels and the operation of the benefit system are important. But too little attention has been paid to the impact of immigration on British born employment prospects,' said Sir Andrew. 'Our study underlines the importance of getting net immigration down to tens of thousands, as the present government has promised.'
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 27/08/2010 11:00 pm
Is it possible to use the term Think Tank to describe Migration Watch and still maintain a sense of expecting to be taken seriously?
'immigration from overseas' - as opposed to immigration from inside the country!?!
Do you realise that there is a direct correlation between the number of coffee bars and unemployment. London has the highest number of coffee bars in the UK, and also has unemploymnent - wow, I'm a genius and the facts a proved!
It is so sad that there really are supposidly intelligent people who believe the drivel that comes out of such transparant organisations as Migration Watch - I'm astonished they even know how to turn a computer on, let alone use a keyboard - perhaps that's why they never have a name!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28/08/2010 1:14 pm
So you are saying that 3m immigrants since 1997 has had no effect on the employment or the housing provision of the UK's indigenous population?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment