Migrant community organisations and their response to irregular migrants

A wide ranging report on irregular migrants published last week by the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) has tried to open up a debate about migrant community organisations (MCOs) and how they relate to irregular migrants. The report is addressed to multiple stakeholders with a wide set of recommendations, but with a special importance being given to the role of MCOs.

The report’s line of thinking on MCOs can be summarised in three points: 1) The voluntary sector opposes and resists returns in every single case; 2) MCOs should encourage returns in all but exceptional cases; 3) The voluntary sector should be actively involved in the returns process, including running and managing returns programmes. All three points are problematic.

MCOs do not oppose return in all circumstances

The report misrepresents a large part of the work of MCOs when it comes to returns policy. The author suggests in several sections that there is, amongst migrant support organisations, a prevalent opposition to returns in every single situation. In one passage, for example, the report says that:

just as we argue that the UKBA could be less macho in some of its rhetoric and methods, we also argue that migrant-supporting bodies need to ‘get real’. Too often they pay lip-service to the idea that return is acceptable, while finding every possible objection to it in almost every case. This approach needs to end – particularly among organisations that receive large amounts of state funding.

This depiction is far from the reality that I have encountered amongst MCOs and certainly not supported by the evidence presented in the report.* In my experience, it would be much closer to the truth to say that MCOs do put the issue of voluntary return to their clients and will be prepared to discuss its feasibility in light of the personal circumstances of each individual. They are aware of the International Organisation for Migration’s (IOM) voluntary returns programme and often refer clients. I personally have worked with MCOs where information on the IOM’s programmes is distributed through leaflets and posters and clients will be given assistance in applying for inclusion when this is their best option.

Should MCOs encourage return in all cases?

The suggestion that MCOs should encourage return as the only option in all but exceptional cases is equally problematic. Presumably this implies that clients who are set against it should be turned back. Many MCOs view return as one option amongst others that an individual can take but they will not put pressure on a client to choose that option over others. MCOs offer return and are often involved in such programmes because they further the interests and welfare of their clients in many cases. This does not mean that return is in the best interests of all clients in all circumstances. Withdrawing other forms of support and advice would undermine their fundamental mission as independent civil society organisations.

The role and motivation of MCOs in return programmes

MCOs are already often involved in the returns process by providing information and referring clients.  In a number of instances MCOs have local contracts which directly involve them in the administration of voluntary return programmes. They justify this involvement by clear reference to the interests and welfare of their clients.

Yet the ippr report seems to suggest that their involvement should respond to the needs of other stakeholders:

It is not unrealistic to expect civic society – often part-funded by the state – to support democracy and the rule of law in the UK, including when they find it uncomfortable to do so.

Suggesting that community organisations and charities should be accountable to the state rather than to their members/clients/users is a misunderstanding of what charities do and the role civil society plays. Most voluntary organisations are set up to support and offer advice to individuals who might be in a difficult position, not to implement Government policy. The commitments of MCOs are first and foremost to the individuals they wish to help.

Providing services for the state is in itself a controversial issue in the voluntary sector precisely because it can call into question the independence of charities to carry out their mission. This question is not only limited to the field of support for migrants but is more general to the voluntary sector. While some organisations may wish to run this sort of programmes (and may have good reasons to do so), it is also necessary to keep a close eye on its operation and to ensure that it does not compromise their core missions.

In summary, if we want to move forward in debating the work of MCOs, at the very least it is necessary to understand the sector. This includes recognising its diversity and varying attitudes to specific policies. Portraying the whole sector as radically opposed to returns in all cases does not do justice to this diversity. Secondly, it is important to bring into the debate the motivation and accountability of MCOs. In most cases the motivation of these organisations is to do what is best for their individual clients as long as it falls within the law. This should be respected and MCOs should not be expected to place Government policies over the needs of their clients. Keeping this in mind, there is scope, as ippr suggests, for better communication and dialogue between different stakeholders to ensure that the return process works better for all parties concerned.

* The research did not include in its methodology a survey or a wide body of interviews with MRCOs. We are told that people from MCOs were amongst a group of 22 stakeholders interviewed, but not how many of them, or what organizations they belong to. Supporting evidence of the attitudes of MCOs is limited to the opinion of staff from the International Organisation for Migration and a reference to a quote from another piece of research that is nearly ten years old.