1. This discussion focuses on Romani migrants from the Czech and Slovak Republics and to a lesser extent Romania, since these had the highest public profile in the closing years of the twentieth century. However Roma have also come to the U. K. from elsewhere, notably from Poland, Hungary and former Yugoslavia.Google Scholar

2. The term “migration” is used here in a neutral sense to refer to the movement of Roma who may have left their home countries for various motives, ranging from flight from discrimination and attack to the search for a better quality of life.Google Scholar

3. Josephine Verspaget, The Situation of Gypsies (Roma and Sinti) in Europe, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1995, p. 13.Google Scholar

4. It might seem unnecessary to reiterate this point were it not for the persistent and erroneous belief, evident in both academic and policy discourse, that nomadism is the “traditional” and universal Romani way of life, which was only terminated in Central and Eastern Europe by the Communist anti-nomadism laws of the 1950s.Google Scholar

5. Yaron Matras, “Roma Migrations in the Post-Communist Era: Their Historical and Political Significance”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 2, Spring–Summer 2000, p. 32, emphasis in original.Google Scholar

6. See Will Guy, “Romani Identity and Post-Communist Policy”, in Will Guy, ed., Between Past and Future: the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe, Hatfield: University of Herts Press, 2001, pp. 8, 29.Google Scholar

7. For example, the Brahams argue that “there may in fact be a ‘cultural script’ that underlies the ‘root causes’ of Roma migrations old and new”, which derives from “… their sense of integrity, their belief in their racial purity, and the importance that they attach to their social system”. See Mark and Matthew Braham, “Romani Migrations and EU Enlargement”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 2, Spring–Summer 2000, p. 101. There is insufficient space to discuss the simplistic equation of exclusion of Roma by majority societies and rejection of such societies by Roma as joint causes of their exclusion and discrimination. However, this stance ignores the sociological insights of Mead, Goffman and Fanon, as well as the view of leading Romani sociologists Andrzej Mirga and Nicolae Gheorghe, who see such self-rejection as a “defensive mechanism”. See Mirga and Gheorghe, The Roma in the Twenty-First Century: A Policy Paper, Princeton: PER, 1997, p. 4.Google Scholar

8. The only comparable groups to Roma in terms of extreme push factors were citizens of former Yugoslavia, fleeing the ravages of war—and even there Muslims and Roma were the main victims.Google Scholar

9. See Donald Kenrick, “Foreign Gypsies and British Immigration Law after 1945”, in Thomas Acton, ed., Gypsy Politics and Traveller Identity, Hatfield: University of Herts Press, 1997, pp. 108–110.Google Scholar

10. There are great difficulties in measuring the scale of Romani migration in general, and to the U. K. in particular. In published statistics about migration, claimants are not categorised by ethnicity but by country of origin. However, asylum seekers from the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland can safely be assumed to be Roma. This is more dubious in the case of Romania. A further problem in the case of the U. K. is that Home Office figures show “claims”, often for a family group in the case of Roma, rather than individuals. Statistics from whatever source must be viewed with caution and compared with alternative versions in the likelihood that none are wholly accurate. In 1997, a total of 32,500 claims were lodged in the U. K., which UNHCR calculates as amounting to 42,250 persons {Refugees and others of concern to UNHCR, 1999 Statistical Overview, Table V.2 Asylum applications submitted in selected countries, 1990–1999, UNHCR, Geneva, 2000).Google Scholar

11. A liberal daily broadsheet carried a front page headline worthy of the more chauvinist tabloids: “Gypsies invade Dover, hoping for a handout”, The Independent, 20 October 1997. For a comprehensive discussion of media reaction, see Colin Clark and Elaine Campbell, “Gypsy Invasion: A Critical Analysis of Newspaper Reaction to Czech and Slovak Romani Asylum Seekers in Britain, 1997”, Romani Studies, series 5, Vol. 10, No. 1,2000, pp. 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. For example, “Giro Czechs hit London”, Evening Standard, 13 November 1997 an insulting play on words, as U. K. benefit payments are generally paid by Post Office (Giro) cheques.Google Scholar

13. Daily Telegraph, 28 November 1997.Google Scholar

14. Matras, “Roma Migrations in the Post-Communist Era”, p. 39. Also see Braham and Braham, “Romani Migrations”, p. 115, endnote 42 (citing RNC, Report on the Situation of Roma in Europe, Hamburg: RNC, 1996, pp. 19–20).Google Scholar

15. Germany's previously liberal policy on refugees was revoked in the early 1990s. See Susan Tebbutt, “Germany and Austria: the ‘Mauer im Kopf’ or virtual wall”, in Will Guy, ed., Between Past and Future, pp. 275–276.Google Scholar

16. Among these migrants were also Roma who were citizens of the Slovak Republic. For a full discussion, see Ronald Lee, “Post-Communism Romani Migration to Canada”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 2, Spring–Summer 2000, pp. 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. Lee, “Romani Migration to Canada”, p. 55. However, Renata Weinerová points out that the term “middle class” is misleading when applied to CEE Roma since it refers to “the former ‘socialist’ middle class … literate but unqualified people” who, “in relation to overall stratification in society … still formed part of the lower class” (Renata Weinerová, “Slovakia and Romani Migration after 1989”, paper delivered at international roundtable, Roma Migration in Europe: Trends, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Ethnology, Prague, 24–25 November, p. 5 and endnote 7. See also Imrich and Michal Vašĕka, “Recent Romani Migration from Slovakia to EU Member States: Romani Reaction to Discrimination or Romani Ethno-Tourism?” in this issue of Nationalities Papers. Google Scholar

18. Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1998, 27 May 1999, Home Office. In 1998, there were 70 asylum claims by Slovak Roma in Ireland but none the following year {Refugees and Others of Concern to UNHCR, 1999 Statistical Overview, Table VI.8 Asylum applications submitted in Ireland, 1996–1999, UNHCR).Google Scholar

19. CTK (Czech Press Agency), 29 July 1999.Google Scholar

20. Asylum Statistics: August 1999, United Kingdom, Home Office. Braham and Braham report that “255 Czechs and Slovaks … applied for asylum in the UK in August” (“Romani Migrations”, 1999, p. 98) but the Home Office lists them all as Czechs.Google Scholar

21. Refugees and Others of Concern to UNHCR, 1999 Statistical Overview, Table VI.1 Origin of asylum applicants, 1999, UNHCR and Provisional Statistics on Refugees and Others of Concern to UNHCR for the Year 2000, UNHCR, Geneva, 2000.Google Scholar

22. For fuller discussion of this research, see Will Guy, “Recent Roma Migration to the United Kingdom”, paper delivered at international roundtable, Roma Migration in Europe: Trends, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Ethnology, Prague, 24–25 November 2000.Google Scholar

23. C̆lovĕk v tísni (People in Need), Zpráva z Doveru (Report from Dover), January and April 2000 (funded by the EU Phare programme to provide aid to applicant countries), C̆lovĕk v tísni, Prague, 2000.Google Scholar

24. For example, it was noted that many Roma were unwilling to take up the offer of free English-language courses from local charities, even though many complained of being bored.Google Scholar

25. Report from Dover, January, p. 3.Google Scholar

26. The presence among migrants of relatively well off and better educated Roma, including some with university qualifications, is confirmed from the Czech Romani refugee community in London (personal information).Google Scholar

27. Braham and Braham, “Romani Migrations”, p. 98.Google Scholar

28. Matras's analysis (“Roma Migrations in the Post-Communist Era”, pp. 37–39) is based on various reports by UNHCR, NGOs, etc.Google Scholar

29. Schools for children with learning disabilities (previously referred to as mentally handicapped). For more information about this phenomenon, see various articles on the European Roma Rights Center website, www.errc.org.Google Scholar

30. Report from Dover, January 2000, p. 6.Google Scholar

31. Almost simultaneously with the People in Need research in Dover, a nationwide public opinion poll was carried out by this project's umbrella organisation in the Czech Republic, which included a question on the assumed motivation of Romani refugees. This revealed that 62% of the Czech public thought the main reason for emigration was economic betterment, while a further 32% thought that it had been organised by Romani activists to gain political advantages. Only 2% believed it was a consequence of discrimination in the Czech Republic (Emigrace Romů, Project Tolerance, http://www.vlada.cz/ASC/vrk/rady/rlp/project-tolerance/vyzkuml/sld055.htm, accessed 19 June 2001; Report from Dover, January 2000, p. 6).Google Scholar

32. Expressed as “jen malĭkosti” (only small matters) in Czech (Report from Dover, April 2000, p. 4).Google Scholar

33. All European states, even in supposedly more liberal Scandinavia, showed comparable determination in expelling Romani asylum seekers. For the example of Belgium, see Claude Cahn and Peter Vermeersch, “The Group Expulsion of Slovak Roma by the Belgian Government”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 2, Spring–Summer 2000, pp. 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Lee, “Romani Migration to Canada”, p. 61.Google Scholar

35. See Lee, “Romani Migration to Canada”, pp. 61–64. Nevertheless, the success rate of below 12% for claims by Hungarian Roma was still far higher than elsewhere in the West.Google Scholar

36. Lidové noviny, 8 July 1999.Google Scholar

37. “7,800 people (36% of decisions made under normal procedures) were recognised as refugees and granted asylum in 1999”, Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1999, Home Office, 12 October 2000, p. 1. However, this was a high point as the corresponding figure for the previous year (1998) was 19% and in the following year, perhaps related to heightened sensitivity about the issue of asylum seekers, it plunged to only 10%, Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2000, Home Office, 25 September 2001, Table 1.2.Google Scholar

38. Normally granted for four years, this is a special status granted to those who the government considers do not qualify for full refugee status, but who nonetheless deserve protection.Google Scholar

39. For examle, the U. K. government introduced more and more fast-track procedures and the “One Stop Procedure”, which effectively put an end to “repeat” claims by different members of the same family.Google Scholar

40. Matras wrote of Roma feeling “lack of confidence in the social structure and institutions of their countries of residence, and a consequent loose attachment to those countries” (Matras, “Roma Migrations in the Post-Communist Era”, p. 35).Google Scholar

41. Report from Dover, April 2000, p. 5.Google Scholar

42. Report from Dover, April 2000, p. 4. For Canadian examples see Lee, “Romani Migration to Canada”, pp. 60–61.Google Scholar

43. Report from Dover, April 2000, p. 5.Google Scholar

44. The main reason for poor school attendance was “mostly from lack of places” (Report from Dover, April 2000, p. 5).Google Scholar

45. More serious researchers have linked some migration from Slovakia to debt repayment. See Michal Vašĕka, “Roma”, in Grigorij Mesez̆nikov, Michal Ivantyšyn and Tom Nicholson, eds., Slovakia 2000: A Global Report on the State of Society, Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 2001, p. 186; Zdenĕk Uherek, “The Czech Republic and Roma Migration after 1989”; and Renata Weinerová, “Slovakia and Roma Migration after 1989”, both papers delivered at international roundtable, Roma Migration in Europe: Trends, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Ethnology, Prague, 24–25 November 2000. It was even suggested by Vincent Danihel, the Slovak government's Commissioner for the Solution of the Problems of the Romani Minority, that the party of the former Slovak premier, Vladimir Mĕiar, may have been involved in organising the mass arrival of Slovak Roma in Helsinki on Finland's accession to the EU presidency, following Mĕiar's recent defeat in the Slovakian presidential elections. See Jolyon Naegele, “Slovak Authorities Suspect ‘Plot’ behind Romany Exodus to Finland”, Radio Free Europe, 14 July 1999.Google Scholar

46. Vašĕka, “Roma”, p. 185.Google Scholar

47. Regular Report on Slovakia's Progress towards [EU] Accession, European Commission, Brussels, 8 November 2000, p. 21.Google Scholar

48. See furious media and politicians' reactions to the suggestion that the term “British” can carry racist connotations, made in the Runnymede Trust Report on the future of multi-cultural Britain. See Alan Travis, “British tag is ‘coded racism”’, The Guardian, 11 October 2000.Google Scholar

49. Steve Fenton, “Counting Ethnicity”, in Ruth Levitas and Will Guy, eds., Interpreting Official Statistics, London: Routledge, 1996, p. 148.Google Scholar

50. Successive Immigration Acts to restrict entry to the U. K. were passed in 1962, 1968 and 1971.Google Scholar

51. Refugees and others of concern to UNHCR, 1999 Statistical Overview, Table VI.7 Original of asylum applicants by year of application, 1990–1999, UNHCR.Google Scholar

52. Refugees and others of concern to UNHCR, 1999 Statistical Overview, Table VI.1 Origin of asylum applicants, 1999, and Table VI.8 Asylum applications submitted in Ireland, 1996–1999, UNHCR.Google Scholar

53. Asylum applications submitted in Europe, 1998 and 1999, Figures 2 and 3, Distribution of asylum applicants, UNHCR.Google Scholar

54. Refugees and others of concern to UNHCR, 1999 Statistical Overview, Table VI.1 Origin of asylum applicants, 1999, UNHCR.Google Scholar

55. Asylum applications in Europe in 1999, Table 5 Origin of asylum applicants in Europe, 1999 (Top 20 and by region), UNHCR. The situation in Ireland was rather different, for although the total numbers were comparable with those for the U. K., the proportion represented by Romanian asylum seekers was far higher (29% in 1999), displacing Nigerians from first place in that year (Refugees and others of concern to UNHCR, 1999 Statistical Overview, Table VI.8 Asylum applications submitted in Ireland, 1996–1999, UNHCR).Google Scholar

56. Asylum applications submitted in Europe, January–July 2000, Table 3 Main origin of asylum applicants in Europe, UNHCR.Google Scholar

57. Refugees and others of concern to UNHCR, 1999 Statistical Overview, Table V.2 Asylum applications submitted in selected countries, 1990–1999, UNHCR.Google Scholar

58. Asylum applications submitted in Europe, January–July 2000, Table 3 Main origin of asylum applicants in Europe, UNHCR.Google Scholar

59. Refugees and others of concern to UNHCR, 1999 Statistical Overview, Table V.2 Asylum applications submitted in selected countries, 1990–1999, UNHCR.Google Scholar

60. Monthly Asylum Applications Submitted in Europe (all nationalities) Table 1, UNHCR. According to UNHCR figures for 2000–2001, the U. K. remained the main destination for refugees in Europe. See The Guardian, 21 May 2001, G2, p. 7. However, in April 2001, U. K. asylum claims fell to a two-year low, see The Guardian, 26 May 2001, while asylum seekers as an election issue dropped to ninth place, see The Guardian, 30 May 2001.Google Scholar

61. Claude Moraes, Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, in The Guardian, 22 October 1997, quoted Clark and Campbell, “Gypsy Invasion”, pp. 28–29.Google Scholar

62. Asylum Applications in Europe, First Quarter 2000, Table 4: Top 20 nationalities by country of asylum in Europe, January–March 2000, UNHCR. The U. K. figure for January 2000 was 280, for February 305 and for March 255; for Ireland the figures for these three months were 286, 199 and 328 respectively (Asylum Seekers in Europe, Tables 3 and 4 Origin of asylum applicants in 14 main European asylum countries, January and February 2000 (“Top 20”), UNHCR).Google Scholar

63. For example, “Town that lives off London's beggars”, Evening Standard, 29 March 2000, “Romanians send home £20K a day”, Sunday World, 14 May 2000.Google Scholar

64. Information from people working with Romani refugees in England.Google Scholar

65. The only exceptions were more liberal newspapers such as The Guardian which in 2000 published articles on myths about refugees (17 February), the need of the West for immigrant labour (22 March) and the positive contribution of immigrants to British life (19 April). Also see endnote 69 below.Google Scholar

66. Moller, “Are we a tolerant nation?”, Reader's Digest UK, September 2000, http://www.readersdigest.co.uk/magazine/tolerant.htm, accessed 19 June 2001.Google Scholar

67. Moller, “Are we a tolerant nation?”Google Scholar

68. Moller, “Are we a tolerant nation?”Google Scholar

69. Report from Dover, April 2000, p. 6.Google Scholar

70. See Clark and Campbell, “Gypsy Invasion”, pp. 41–42.Google Scholar

71. Report from Dover, April 2000, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

72. Ian Katz, “Leave the back door ajar”, The Guardian, 12 June 2001. This series was called “Welcome to Britain”, The Guardian, 21–23 May 2001.Google Scholar

73. Those countries thought to have laws in place to protect the rights of individuals were regarded as “safe” and were consequently placed on what is termed the “white list”. However, although this list was technically abolished in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, this procedure still remains in practice as a procedural matter at the discretion of the government rather than existing in law. Jeanette Buirski reports, “[a]n unofficial White List seems to be in operation, and Roma asylum seekers appear to be singled out for deportation regardless of any official or unofficial White List” (Jeanette Buirski, “The Rom [sic] and U. K. Immigration and Asylum Law”, The Legal Protection of Rom in Contemporary Europe, conference at European Information Centre, Prague: Charles University, 28–29 June 1999, pp. 9–10).Google Scholar

74. Daily Telegraph, 28 November 1997.Google Scholar

75. Ian Black, “U. K. ‘most racist’ in Europe on refugees”, The Guardian, 3 April 2001.Google Scholar

76. Hugo Young, “Labour's law of ethnic punishment shames us all”, The Guardian, 8 May 2001.Google Scholar

77. “Gypsy rulings put pressure on ministers”, The Guardian, 1 December 1998.Google Scholar

78. “Lords dismiss Roma asylum test case”, The Guardian, 1 July 2000.Google Scholar

79. Young, “Labour's law of ethnic punishment shames us all”. There is not space in this article to describe the human rights situation in each of these countries but the situation of women in Afghanistan, as documented by the Afghan feminist movement (RAWA), is one example {Beneath the Veil, Channel 4, 26 June 2001).Google Scholar

80. “British Officials Resume Checks at Prague Airport”, Radio Free Europe report, 13 November 2001.Google Scholar

81. Yet Roma keep arriving in the U. K. Home Office statistics showed a total of 75,680 applications for asylum in 2000, of which 1,815 (2.4%) were from Romania, 1,000 (1.3%) from the Czech Republic and 790 (1.0%) from Poland. Most from Romania and all from the Czech Republic and Poland can be assumed to be Roma (see note 10). {The Guardian, 21 May 2001).Google Scholar

82. Jeremy Harding, “On the Move”, The Guardian, 23 May 2001.Google Scholar

83. Don Hill, East: Poor Conditions for Roma Harm all Citizens, reporting statement by J. Verspaget, head of the Council of Europe Specialist Group on Roma, Prague: RFE/RL, 27 January 2000. Also see Guy, “Romani Identity and Post-Communist Policy”.Google Scholar

84. Braham and Braham, “Romani Migrations”, pp. 107–109.Google Scholar

85. Braham and Braham, “Romani Migrations”, p. 112.Google Scholar

86. Martin Kovats, “The Emergence of European Roma Policy”.Google Scholar