Immigration, Nationality and Asylum in British Law - Essay Example

Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Law (British Law Does UK immigration law take sufficientaccount of British residents' wish to maintain their family life in the UK The EU makes laws which must be respected by all member states. Since the aim behind the creation of new European laws is often to standardise laws between the different member states, it is inevitable that EU laws are passed which some member states do not like. Even if they do not like them, however, all member states have to obey EU laws. For member states of the EU, it is no longer the case that only national government can make laws within their territories. According to the public opinion poll, 56 percent of people mentioned it as an issue of concern. Additionally, the population of Britain is rising for the first time because the number of those who stay minus those who leave is positive and the trend is going to continue. Green claims that Britain already has "a severe congestion" (1). Because the density of population is higher than in India and in some places out measures the Netherlands. Moreover, the system of immigration is hugger-mugger by letting in all the kinsfolk and "quadruple [icating] the number of works permits" (Green 2). According to him migration has no limits and "the character of our society, and especially our cities, is being radically alerted." (2). Green also mentions that immigrants have been seeking to influence Britain's political parties; consequently Government should use severe policies to curb migration. Although Green is right worrying about the loss of national identity he overlooks very important facts as to why the migration is useful to Britain. The migration has always existed and will exist and "in both directions is natural and welcome" (Green 1). The fear to lose national identity is somewhat worth considering, but it depends on citizens themselves if they want to uphold the traditional country's values. Great Britain was the only country, which didn't impose any restrictions for the new EU members and it now is clearly seen that it has been the opportune policy. However, in this case the world-wide migration will not be considered because migration between European Union countries is more appealing to us as the competent citizens. One of the most appreciable pluses of immigration is that "the greater mobility of labour which comes with EU enlargement is beneficial to [Britain's] economy" (Clark 1). Migrants are not only useful for country's economy but also better, cheaper and harder- working. They come here to feel the free-market economy and are not spoiled as British, "who treat their workplace more as a social club" (Clark 1). Moreover, it is useful because the labour force from the new EU countries tend to stop the gap of British labour market. According to Tony McNulty, the Immigration minister: "Workers are contributing to our economy, paying tax and national insurance and filling key jobs in areas where there are gaps. We estimate registered workers contributed approximately Pounds 500 million to the UK economy between May 2004 and March 2005." Consequently, Britain will economically benefit; however the British workers may lose their jobs too. In addition to that, creating boundaries for the new EU countries is disadvantageous and irrational because it "prolong[s] economic stagnation" (Rossant 1). Great Britain is the only one country which can improve the economic growth of the region, regenerate aged and spoiled workers and ensure the right of the promised free mobility. Closing door policy is also irrational because "continental economics can't respond flexibly to macroeconomics shifts" (Rossant 1). It means that in nowadays world we can't rely only on our countries' economy and the economy should be integrated world-wide. To sum it up, Green is right that immigration worries local people but they should understand the fact that it is useful for the economy and that's why they are able to live better. Green also asserts that immigration is like infinity and will never decrease. However, certain surveys draw a different conclusion. According to the study of European Commission, only one percent of people were considering the fact of working abroad even if they had been able to move without any restrictions before entering European Union. Other studies showed similar results. Another reliable source is Home office statistics, which conclude that "Applications have fallen from their peak in the summer of last year to an average of between 13,000 and 14,000 a month currently." (Ford 1). It means that instead of 176, 000 immigrants entering Britain after almost a year of EU expansion the figure will drop to about 150,000 next year and this tendency is going to continue. All in all, Green should not have relied only on his expectations but to find out about the most recent statistics. One of the facts that Green was right about is that "the administration of the system is a shambles" (1). There were certain violations of immigration system rules, which made it possible for many inadequate migrants to enter Britain. It happened because many people misinterpreted the rules and didn't notice the fact that they should have sufficient money, profitable business plan etc. Unfortunately, wanton immigration and nationality officers decided to mitigate the rules granting all applications with business plans in order to get rid of backlogs. Government didn't comment because it would have been beneficial to offenders and simply hired more people but not softened the rules. However, Green should not worry about the fact that the number of entering spouses is unlimited. According to Home Office statistics, "just 5 per cent registered dependants, such as spouses and children" (Ford 2). Furthermore, these immigrants made only few demands to public services such as schools and etc. Consequently, it is illogical for them to ask grants for settlements if they are not planning to stay. Green relies on Home Office statistics that "grants of settlements have doubled since 1997" (1). However, it can't be directly related to the immigration as we know from science that correlation does not suggest causation. The grants may have doubled because of other factors such as improvement of leasing system and general economic growth. To conclude, Britain should definitely improve the immigration system even though it has not caused intense problems by now. Taking everything into account, Britain should not fear the immigration because it is useful to country's economy and it is not going to infinity as some may expect. However, the problem of multi-cultural society has become clear nowadays and it is the main reason why people look at immigrants with distrust. This problem can't be solved quickly and effectively and people should decide whether to be tolerant and acceptable or reserved. There are several reasons why the amount of individuals migrating to Britain improved for the duration of the thirty years following the Second World War. Many soldiers from Britain's overseas communities were made to join armed forces. Many men from the Indian sub-continent and the Caribbean islands contributed to the war effort. This therefore emphasised their view of themselves as loyal British Citizens fighting for their country. The majority of the men were based in Britain for the war and were able to have a first-hand experience of the British life. Several of them decided that after the war they would remain in Britain. The Caribbean and Asian soldiers assumed that if they came to Britain they would be treated equally as Britain tried to illustrate that all the cultures had united as a team. People felt like they were encouraged to come to Britain because they considered Britain as their mother country and they sensed a stronger loyalty towards Britain. From 1948 to 1952 about 1000 West Indians established themselves in Britain. Around 60% came from Jamaica. There was a sudden increase after 1952. From 1956 London Transport began recruiting staff in Barbados, Trinidad and Jamaica. The feeling of encouragement didn't last too long and therefore was a short-term cause of the increasing population in Britain. The Caribbean Agency persuaded people to come to Britain by advertising good-quality employment in England. There were numerous economic reasons for the increase in migration. Firstly In 1947 India regained its independence from Britain and the two states India and Pakistan were created from the old Indian Empire. This partition led to social and economic struggles with a lot of Hindus and Sikhs losing their homes and land in Pakistan because they were forced across the border into the Indian province of East Punjab. This region couldn't bear the abrupt increase in population and thus, many Sikhs and Hindus were forced to look to Britain for employment. Soon after, there were many secure jobs offered to people from Punjab and as a result, a massive number of people came to England to earn a better life. As Africans became more independent, South Asians felt insecure. And for financial reasons they left to settle to Britain. This was a short term cause as most of the people found jobs once they settled down in Britain. Britain had a good reputation and especially to the West Indians who believed that they didn't have their own identity and considered themselves British. Anything that the British did was always right and Britain's word was always taken for gospel. From the Caribbean, very few of the migrants only intended to stay in Britain for a few years because during the war, thousands of men and women from the Caribbean had been recruited to serve in the armed forces and by 1961 there were almost 172,000 West Indians in Britain. The word went around that people were taking passengers to Britain and it was common knowledge to them that Britain had good jobs to offer just after the war. Some teenagers from Jamaica felt that their land was too small and moving to Britain was a good thing as they had freedom from their parents and Britain was much larger. A factor which encouraged large scale migration to Britain was that the government was forced to prepare stricter regulations on immigration to Britain. Once people knew about this, there was a major rush to beat the new controls. It was estimated that 40% of Jamaica's population was under 21 and the unemployment for the Jamaican youth led them to coming to Britain. Once people found employment they brought their families to Britain. They thought that the opportunity for jobs in Britain was better than in Jamaica. Another reason is because in Britain the idea of equality was known and brought the country respect, therefore people came to Britain. A Jamaican girl's parents said that the Education system in Britain was bound to be better than the one in Jamaica and they eventually sent her to study. This was a long term cause as it takes quite a long time to build up a good reputation. Some people came to Britain to escape from danger and eviction. Here are some reasons why. When Poland became Communist, the Polish pilots defected to the UK. Around 114,000 Poles decided to remain in Britain rather than return to Poland after the war. When Idi Amin (AKA "The Butcher of Africa") came to power in Uganda and was determined to make Uganda "a black man's country". The South Asians who lived there were harassed and were therefore forced out of the country and Britain was willing to help them as well as other countries such as Canada, Australia and India. He expelled the country's 40,000-80,000 Indians and Pakistanis. Their businesses, homes and possessions were left behind and were distributed without compensation to Amin's military favourites to secure his regime. Soldiers forced Indian Ugandan shopkeepers to leave. This was a trigger cause as most people came to Britain looking for a safe place away from their country. The other reasons were that people had many friends who had already settled in Britain. Another reason was that there was a big hurricane which left the Jamaicans homeless. Finally a woman's husband sent for her to join him in Britain as they were in love. This was also a short-term cause. After considering all the evidence and have given reasons of what helped make the population of Britain increase rapidly during the three decades after the second world war, it is clear that the main causes were that the people needed employment and the people felt they were being encouraged to come to Britain. Also, Britain's reputation was extremely good, and some people tried to escape from the dangers of their home-land. This seems to be a main cause as most people came to Britain for that very reason. 2. Kamal is an Algerian national who entered France illegally. While in France, in 2005, he met and married Rebecca, a British citizen working in France as an accountant. Rebecca is now returning to the UK and Kamal wishes to accompany her. According to the immigration laws of the European Union both Kamal and Ana can enter and reside in the United Kingdom. But as Kamal and Ana has different situation and circumstances, they need to fight different legal battles for their entries. As in both cases Kamal and Ana have married to British national, they have rights to become British nationals. The European Court of Justice has given the provisions on citizenship added substance beyond the mere restatement of previously existing rights as reflected in the Maastricht Treaty. Thus, there now exists a bundle of rights branded 'citizenship of the Union' including, to a degree, a right to free movement and residence, active electoral rights in the municipal elections and, as European citizens, we may even petition the European Parliament and refer matters to the European Ombudsman. Furthermore, as citizens of the Union, we can now express our European identity by parading the array of symbols of European unity including, the European flag together with our own European song of praise, and not forgetting the Europe Day on May the 9th. Yet, while some members of the UK and Irish general public may be conscious of a European flag, those who are aware of a Union anthem or the Europe Day on May the 9th would be few and far between. But, even if the majority of the population were fully aware of these symbols together with their rights as Union citizens, would it really make a difference as to how they subjectively viewed their own status within Europe Thus, despite the various agreements and declarations geared towards European harmony and citizenship, it is submitted that one key element is missing - the citizen. Indeed, the true question remains whether or not the people of Europe consider themselves as 'active' European citizens. For the citizens of Europe themselves, citizenship is still a question of nationalism rather than supranationalism. In the cases of Kamal and Ana, Treaty of Rome can play a great role. Although the Treaty of Rome, in Article 6 indirectly refers to equality and non-discrimination, there was no legal basis for the application of such basic individual rights. As the Union progressively matured through its Treaties, Regulations, Declarations and Conventions, more and more of these egalitarian rights have been introduced to build the concepts of a United Union and the 'Euro-citizen'. The EC Treaties reflect social equality principles in a number of different ways that have been applied by the ECJ and have become imprinted in case law. Article 12 contains a general prohibition of 'any discrimination on the grounds of nationality' and the European Parliament is a co-legislator in this field by provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty. Article 13 in the Amsterdam Treaty empowers the council to take appropriate action to combat 'discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation'. The Council has adopted two directives and two decisions based on this article. The Nice Treaty empowers the Council to support Member States in such matters. In other words, we still identify with our nation more than with the European Union, and accordingly one might agree with Reich to the effect that Union citizenship is simply a metaphor. Elizabeth Meehan quotes Commissioner Lord Jenkins as saying that he "could not foresee the day when citizens of Member States of the EC would say in Japan that they were European instead of French, German or Italian". It might be argued that British and Irish citizens are not been asked to surrender their entire national identity in favour of European citizenship. Indeed, following the Treaty of Amsterdam citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship. Nevertheless, on first appearance, the draft EU Constitution has raised the concerns of many over the further loss of national identity. At the beginning of the constitution it will say that every citizen has dual citizenship of the EU and their own country. Yet, this could have more meaning depending on the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution gives a legal force to its provisions. The Charter had been adopted in December 2000 but had not binding legal force. More than just a list of civil and political rights, the Charter covers important areas for business such as social rights of workers, the protection of personal data and bioethics. Following a meeting in Brussels in June last year in relation to the draft constitution, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin proclaimed 'we are setting up a new political age, more efficient, more democratic, and assuming Europe's full role on the world stage...this project proves that a united Europe is possible'. His view, however, is too optimistic. On top of the daunting task of establishing a super-nation with a stable economy and compatible institutions, the EU authorities are faced with the task of uniting its citizens under one banner. This is both a legislative and psychological affair since not only must all these citizens be treated equally, it is felt that they must also be persuaded to recognise their equality and readily relate to it. The situation is not helped by the fact that the consequences of nationalism in the past have on occasion been quite bad, and it still makes its way in the political arena to this day. The French Front National is an example. The Belgian Vlaams Blok, the British BNP, and the German Neo-Nazis are further examples of nationalistic politics. It is submitted that the goal of a peoples Europe, despite the advances in terms of broadening the scope of Union citizenship, remains somewhat distant. Indeed, the problematic question remains as to how a concept usually associated with a single nation state be carried over to a higher level, that is, within the supranational confines of an organisation such as the European Union However, this essay is not denying the progress that has been made, particularly from the input of the European Court of Justice. Yet, a true, tangible and equitable EU citizenship felt and enjoyed by the people of Europe is only possible if the people themselves are brought out of their national shells and fully educated on European social integration. Works Cited Clark, Ross. "Let them come in." The Times 24 Feb.2004: 18. Newspaper Source. EBSCO HOST Research Databases. Otonas and Raimonda Balciunai Lybrary, Klaipėda, Lithuania 4 Oct. 2005. http://search.epnet.com Ford, Richard. "Number of East Europe Immigrants Seeking Work Tops 176,000." The Times 27 May 2005: 29. Newspaper Source. EBSCO HOST Research Databases. Otonas and Raimonda Balciunai Library, Klaipėda, Lithuania. 4 Oct. 2005. http://search.epnet.com Green, Andrew. "Let them in is a dangerous immigration policy." The Times 28 August 2004: 28. Newspaper Source. EBSCO HOST Research Databases. Otonas and Raimonda Balciunai Library, Klaipėda, Lithuania 17 Oct. 2005. http://search.epnet.com Rossant, John. "EU: Choking Off Its New Blood" Business Week 15 Mar. 2004: 48-48. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO HOST Research Databases. Otonas and Raimonda Balciunai Library, Klaipėda, Lithuania, 4 Oct. 2005. http://search.epnet.com Read More