My relief about the cancellation of Rahila's deportation was premature. She is still in the UK, but has been moved from Dungavel Detention Centre to Yarls Wood - which is in England, near Bedford. She was moved without prior notification, so she could not tell her friends that this was happening, She was woken up and simply taken to a van, at 7am in the morning, and they arrived 12 hours later in Yarls Wood. Her case, in the meantime, is awaiting judicial review, which may take about a month. This means she cannot be deported in the next month, but may be deported if the judicial review is rejected/fails.
During this time, she and her 4 children under 7 could be released on bail, if two guarantors are found who present at the detention centre and have a significant amount of money as a security.

For the next month, there are two scenarios. Either the two guarantors are found and she will be released on bail and returned to her home in Glasgow, or she will remain in Yarls Wood, and the Home Office will yet again detain children for a significant period of time.
 There is no apparent reason why she and her very young children (the youngest about the age of my own baby, 9 months) should be moved from a Scottish detention centre to an English one. There is no benefit. Dungavel is a nicer place compared to Yarls Wood. It's in the middle of nowhere, but at least close enough for people to visit. If she was in Dungavel, local guarantors (who know her) could bail her out - bail would be easier to obtain. Also, her Glasgow lawyer could have continued to deal with her case.

So why was she moved?

Of course I can only speculate. There is a very strong lobby in Scotland that families should not be detained for immigration purposes, that a detention centre is no place for a child. There have been numerous demonstrations, and as soon as a family is detained, there will be a campaign to get them out. The Home Office has reacted to this recurrent pattern by issuing guidance that children should never be detained for more than 72 hours. In Scotland. We pride ourselves in this child friendly policy. We're doing it better than England, or are we?

As becomes apparent with Rahila's case, the 72 hours guidance is adhered to (well, almost) but only formally, not in spirit. After 72 hours, families are moved to an English detention centre, which is even more like a prison, and there they can stay for much longer, deprived of proximity of friends, deprived of their solicitor (if resident in England, they need to find a new solicitor in England who isn't familiar with their case), deprived of power that campaigners and a sympathetic media may have. Once in England, the Scottish Children's Commissioner no longer has the power to voice concerns. Once in England, the MP can no longer represent the interest of his/her constituent.

Clearly, if detention is deemed to be necessary, it would be in the family's interest to remain in Scotland. But because we Scots don't want to detain families, they are moved to England for this purpose. All the goodwill has created a monster.

So for now, if we want Rahila and her kids to spend Christmas at home, she needs to find two guarantors who both have £5000 in their bank accounts and are able to make a quick trip down to Bedford, only a 6-7 hour drive away. That's the price of freedom for a single mum and 4 small kids. 10 grand and two sugar daddies with a bit of time on their hands. Where, Jacqui Smith, do you think Rahila might abscond to? With four small childen, come on, get real. Did you really have to put up two hurdles at once, distance and a ridiculous amount of money?

Above all, no child should be detained for immigration purposes. It is wrong. And it doesn't matter if it's in Scotland or England. If you want to know what children think about it all, watch this.