The Countrys Immigration Policy - Essay Example

THE COUNTRY’S IMMIGRATION POLICY Introduction The immigration policy of England aims at dealing with all the immigration problems that the country faces and ensures that the country can only win the positive effects of immigration. The new developments in the immigration laws introduce changes in both the removal and appealing system. This will facilitate the process of deportation of all people who are residing illegally in the country and prevent illegal immigration. The strategy also aims at ending the idea of abusing Article 8 of the convention of Europeans on human rights as well as preventing illegal immigrants from accessing and misusing communal services and the country’s labour market. Background of the immigration policy By 1980s, the immigration policy of the United Kingdom had two spikes where there very serious controls to the entry as well as strict protection of the rights of minority groups. The two prongs had contradicting effects on the position of the immigrant communities as well as their children born in Britain. As a result, the decline in manufacturing caused difficulty in obtaining work permits for both unskilled and semi-skilled workers but easier for high skilled professional workers (Bauer, Lofstrom & Zimmermann 2001: Jones 1973). This means that the largest percentage of the immigrants was coming from America, who invaded the industries and the banking sector. Australia, New Zealand and South African citizens were entering the country by taking the advantage of family ties. People from the South Asian region such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were entering the country as medical practitioners (Spencer 2002). The riots that took place in the year 1981 mostly occurred on racial lines. In the city of Brixton, which was the spiritual home of the afro-Caribbean community living in Britain, the rioting youth were claiming that the police were targeting black people believing that they were going to stop crime in the streets. There were also similar riots in the cities of Midlands and Liverpool (Steiner, Alston & Goodman 1996). In 1987, the appearance of British politics changed after the election of four politicians who were not white. This was the first time for this to happen during the same general election. Campaigners suggest that for equal representation of all people means that the number on non-white members in the House of Commons should at least be fifty-five. New legislation against discrimination in the year 2000 came in response made about the manner the police handled the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence who was a black teenager. After the collapse of the Iron Curtain in the following years, new immigration began with most of the immigrants running away from political maltreatment and others looking for better employment opportunities. The growth of the number of people seeking asylum caused an increase in the number of immigrants to the United Kingdom. Between the year 1998 and 2000, about fouty five thousand people from Africa had arrived in the country. About twenty two thousand people from India and about twenty five thousand from Asia had also arrived. About twelve thousand people who had arrived from America added the number to approximately one hundred and twenty five thousand people allowed to settle in the United Kingdom in the year 2000 (Algan et al. 2010; Zaslove 2004). The increase in the number of people looking for asylum in the country led to an increase in the tension created along racial lines. In 2002, the British National Party won three seats in the local council. This happened just one year after the tensions established along racial lines, which also caused the riots in the northern cities. Therefore, the government strategies for new immigration and nationality legislation encountered new storm. Many years after the beginning of mass immigration into the United Kingdom, there were still many questions on whether or not to make England a country consisting of a society characterised by multi-ethnicity. Rational behind legislation of the Immigration Act 2014 The Immigration Act of 2014 that acquired royal assent on May 14 in 2014, aimed at introducing many changes at the immigration laws of the United Kingdom. It also aimed at marking an important step in the ongoing program of the coalition government to completely, reform the country’s immigration system. The government aimed at addressing what it described as the most serious failure of the then current system. The government aimed at moving from tough procedures to intercept façade marriages all through to the simplification of appeals and the procedure for the removal of such appeals. The government also took the opportunity to pass into prime legislation its vision to consideration of the public interests to provide guidance to the judges listening to immigration cases. The judges will have guidance on what they should consider on whether the deportation of a person will be a legitimate interference with the private or family right according to the provision of the international laws regarding immigration (Lexis Nexis 2004). As the bill was progressing through the parliament, much of the attention of the press was on the several issues including the fact that most people viewed the bill as having clear intention on establishing an unfriendly atmosphere for the people coming outside the European Union. This included the introduction of the checks on the property owner immigration for tenancies regarding residence as well as the addition of the disputed deprivation clause in the last minute. It means that the bill passed in the various stages of legislation without any notice by the majority of the public and without the important amendments. The changes included therefore, because of the efforts made by the association of the immigration law practitioners and the other lobby groups (Lexis Nexis 2004). For the immigration law experts, the most important story of the immigration act of 2014 was and is still the radical changes on the rights of appealing. Specifically, right from the pertinent date of commencement, all individuals with the intention of making a leave application to entry or remain clearance under the rules of immigration will not enjoy the right of appealing to an autonomous tribunal unless with a prior protection or human rights claim such as that of an asylum. In contrary, they will have to look for an administrative appraisal of the decision through which the office at home will have the responsibility of marking its personal work. A system similar to this already existed for the entrance authorization applications presented under the system of point-based. The fallback tonic of the judicial appraisal is to remain and acquired eminence in the impact assessment of the appeals of the government. However, judicial review has considerable overheads implications since the loser must pay the costs on both sides. In addition, the foundations of the challenge have limitation to the law of the public heads of the review rather than a complete merits appraisal (Lexis Nexis 2004). About the fees, the immigration Act of 2014 has chopped off the original system of yearly charges as well as the previous foundation of charging to pave way for changes in the levels of fees at any time in the year. It also provides means for what the secretary of state should have concerning the time she determines the fees. This means that the home office is capable of bringing new services on rivulet nearer but with an increase in the fees (Migration Watch UK. 2014). In addition, there is no publication on the manner of implementation of the provisions, as either secondary legislation, guidance, codes of practice or any other means. In some conditions, it will include the major considerations that will influence how to arrive at the technical conclusion. For instance, the manner and the place where human rights assert will have more significance in making the decision. It thus appears that the government wants individuals to make their choices from an outset. This raises the question whether an individual is making an application under the rules governing immigration or he or she is making he is making application on human rights. Hence, the intention appears that one cannot chop up and later on change. This also raises questions on how one can protect his position in the most appropriate manner and what will happen when a person has a disputed case regarding both the two matters. There is also controversy on the manner of working on a refusal of an application regarding the family (Migration Watch UK. 2014). The immigration Act of 2014 in the eyes of the government is a collection of measures. In case the administrative appraisal of a person does not succeed, they will not have any leave under the immigration Act of 1971. Therefore, so long as they may have the interest of applying again if they can have the chance of doing so or making the application of human rights or applying for the judicial reforms, the unfriendly atmosphere created by the Immigration Act 2014, shall kick inside. This therefore means that these individuals may have nowhere to live, they may lose jobs, their health care services may, they may be subject to removal as well as revocation of their driving licenses. These issues will have to play an important role in determining the manner of challenging the refusals. They also play a significant role in establishing whether to challenge the refusal or not. Indeed, the unfriendly atmosphere is only applicable to the individuals applying for up to twenty-eight days upon the expiry of the original leave, allowed in most of the categories of the rules (Hepple 2004). When considering specific issues, one must not forget to look at the foregoing consultations as well as the several preparatory documents circulated by the original office before laying the bill and during the progression of the bill. These provide a useful idea on the manner the government envisions that the introduced changes are going to work in practice. It also includes the possible pathetic spots that include any challenging jurisprudence, which the team that was drafting the bill tried to follow when they were drafting the bill. The provision of section 71 of the immigration bill 2014 does not limit the duty imposition on the state secretary or any other person by borders, citizenship as well as the Immigration Act 2009. This is the duty of safeguarding and promoting the wellbeing of children, who are residing in the United Kingdom (Cohen, Humphries & Mynott 2014: Chiswick, 1986). The comprehensive immigration searching powers concerning the persons in detention mirror the provisions used for the persons under the immigration Act 1971 (Couper, & Santamaria 1984). The aim of the power is to provide safety and prevent the escape of such detainees. It is not for fishing mission associated to impending breaches on immigration. The power is significant when the immigration officer has good reasons to believe that the person has some items that can cause damage or can assist him in escaping. However, there is the worrying possibility for the use of this power as a weapon for intimidation. This threat is likely going to lack monitoring. The bill allows the immigration officers to look for a warrant to search the sites of a third person, including a family member or a colleague, where the person is in detention under the immigration Act 1971 provided there are certain conditions applicable. The conditions incorporate a situation where it is not practical to communicate with any individual with the permission to enter into the premises or where the reason for the search is complicated or faced with serious prejudice. This means that only an immigration officer who can easily access the premises. The immigration officer has the mandate of entering and searching premises occupied by a detainee or the premises from which the person was living or believed to contain some relevant documents about the detainee. They now have the power of retaining any document found in searching for the specific premises where there are good reasons for believing that the detained person may be responsible for the removal of the retention of the document can facilitate the removal. The major problem associated with this change is the test on reasonable grounds that are most likely going to cause tentative searches of homes belonging to third parties, which can incorporate the ones belonging to real citizens of Britain. The immigration bill 2014 prevents repetition of bail application within a period of twenty-eight days and imposes regulations on the grant of surety where there is a direction for exclusion within a period of fourteen days. The changes are amendments to the immigration Act 1971 (Freeman 1995: Wodak & Sedlak 2000). The result is that where the orders necessitate the removal of an individual within a period of fourteen days of his decision on bail, then the release of the individual is only with the consent of the state secretary. The immigration bill 2014 has some changes on the acquisition of biometric data as well as the embarkation verifications by third party individuals. There are already existing powers acquire biometric data provided by UKBA 2007 as well as NIAA 2002 but the changes in the bill aim at enhancing the powers and enabling the biometric data to come from individuals that currently are not capable of providing it. The powers of conducting embarkation verifications were present in the Immigration Act 1971 but phased away in 1998. The Immigration Act 2014 aims at re-introducing the checks as well as increasing the scope (Lexis Nexis 2004; Bell, 1997). Finally, another important question is on what will happen for those persons that will not have the right of appealing. The filling of this gap will be by administrative appraisal that will involve the state secretary and the officials under the rules on immigration. Experts have the relevant experience on the administrative appraisal with good points that base on the system entrance-clearing refusal. Conclusion Only the moderate immigration will help in the stabilisation of the population hence this should be a long-term target. It is common knowledge that certain class of immigrants is very beneficial to the United Kingdom. Significantly, they are responsible for filling the skill gaps created by the expansion in production activities, building a prosperous business environment and contribute to the vibrant fabric of the society of British. Now, it is important for the government to maintain a net target on migration to provide a focal point for the government strategy. To obtain the necessary reduction in immigration, it is important for the government to look for some ways of limiting European Union migration that is currently, significant but the government is not capable of regulating. Action on the benefits of out of work including tax credit, child tax credit and housing benefit can be very helpful. However, even with the removal of the benefits, the take home payment of the immigrants coming from poorer countries is higher than the amount they will receive at home. This calls for the need of modification in the international law on migration of labour. Bibliography Algan, et al. 2010, ‘The Economic Situation of First and Second‐Generation Immigrants in France, Germany and the United Kingdom’, The Economic Journal, Vol. 120, no. 542, pp. F4-F30. Bauer, T., K., Lofstrom, M. & Zimmermann, K. 2001, ‘Immigration policy, assimilation of immigrants, and natives sentiments towards immigrants: Evidence from 12 OECD countries’, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies. Viewed 11, November 2014, < http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/shared/shared_levevents/conferences/2000_July_IEA/bauer_and_zimmerman.pdf > Bell, B., D. 1997, ‘The performance of immigrants in the United Kingdom: evidence from the GHS’, The Economic Journal, Vol. 107, no. 441, pp. 333-344. Chiswick, B. R. 1986, ‘Is the new immigration less skilled than the old?’, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol 4, no 2, pp. 168-192. Cohen, S., Humphries, B,, and Mynott, E. eds. 2014, ‘From immigration controls to welfare controls’, Routledge, London. Couper, K., & Santamaria, Ulysses. 1984, ‘An elusive concept: the changing definition of illegal immigrant in the practice of immigration control in the United Kingdom’, International Migration Review, Vol 18, no 3, pp. 437-452. Freeman, G., P. 1995, ‘Modes of immigration politics in liberal democratic states’, International migration review, Vol 29, no 4, pp. 881-902. Hepple, B. 2004, ‘Race and law in fortress Europe,’ The Modern Law Review, Vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 1-15. Jones, K.. 1973, ‘The migration of workers in the United Kingdom and the European Community’, European Demographic Information Bulletin, Vol.83, no. 329, pp. 286-288. Lexis Nexis 2004, A summary of the key practical implications of the Immigration Act 2014, Lexis Nexis, Viewed 10 November 2014, Migration Watch UK. 2014, What is the problem?, Migration Watch UK, Viewed 10 November 2014, < http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem> Spencer, I. 2002, British immigration policy since 1939: the making of multi-racial Britain. Routledge, London. Steiner, H., J., Alston, P., & Goodman, R. 1996, International human rights in context. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Wodak, R., & Sedlak, M. 2000, We demand that foreigners adapt to our life-style’, Political discourse on immigration laws in Austria and the United Kingdom, Berg, Oxford. Zaslove, A. 2004, ‘Closing the door? The ideology and impact of radical right populism on immigration policy in Austria and Italy’, Journal of Political Ideologies, Vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 99-118. Read More