The Increasingly Changing Immigration Policies - Research Paper Example

Immigration that is the physical movement of people from the place of their origin to a foreign territory has existed throughout human history. But with developments of man the norms and principles governing immigration and other related issues have also been subjected to a long period of transition. With the advent of the 20th century and the independence of a number of European colonies the subject of human movement over territorial boundaries began to receive more interest from governments worldwide. The occurrence of the two great wars led to an upsurge in transnational movement of people and forced the, still fresh, United Nations to address the matter on a global forum with the objective of providing welfare to the economically and socially suppressed immigrants. ‘The Geneva Convention’ A meeting of the member states was thus held at Geneva on the 28th of June 1951 and is popularly regarded as the Geneva Convention. This summit initially constrained the scope to shielding European refugees in the aftermath of World War II but a 1967 Protocol detached the conditions of geographical and time restrictions, escalating the Convention's objectives. Article 1 of the Convention as modified by the 1967 Protocol provides the definition of a refugee: "A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events ,is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.." The ‘Geneva Convention’ provided refuge to a millions of Refugees in the post world war period until the Cold War of the 1980’s and it set the basis of immigration policies and laws in most of the countries. But in the post Cold War period till today it has been faced with a number of issues and as a result a number of member states specially the European countries have begun straying away from the basic policy, in order to block the huge flow of migrants every year due to the insufficiencies of the convention. It is an undeniable fact that the ‘Geneva Convention’ was the foundation of the Refugee protection regime and was the one truly universal instrument that gave basic principles on which the international protection of Refugees was built. But the essence of disapproval of the 1951 UN refugee Convention is that it is archaic. The treaty was formulated in and for a specific era. While Western countries' refuge structures might have managed well enough until the end of the Cold War, they were not intended to counter the current mass refugee outflows and migratory activities. Problems with the Geneva Convention A research conducted by the parliament of Australia outlined the following issues to have popped up as a result of the inadequate principles of the Geneva Convention. The setback of the Convention is that it was developed in and for a different period. A number of consequential problems in its execution in today's very diverse world have been recognized by academics and researchers: the Convention explanation of refugee is outmoded, as is its notion of banishment as a solution to refugee problems it bestows no right of assistance on refugees unless and until they reach a receiving country, it inflicts no compulsions on countries not to persecute or expel their citizens, and it imposes no requirement for burden sharing between states the asylum process is providing an path for irregular migration and is connected to people smuggling and criminality the Convention does not recognize the political, financial and social impact of large numbers of asylum seekers on signatory countries There is imbalance of result between 'camp' and 'Convention' refugees. Precedence is given to those present, on the basis of their mobility, rather than to those with the greatest requirement. there is a gross discrepancy between what Western countries expend on processing and sustaining asylum seekers, and what they contribute to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for the global refugee effort asylum seekers do not obtain public sympathy in the way that 'obvious' refugees do the Convention has promoted crude and untoward characterizations of asylum seekers as either political and thus 'legitimate' and deserving, or economic and thus 'abusive' and undeserving1 UK Immigration Law United Kingdom had a long custom of migration. Due to its ownership of a large amount of colonies all over the world UK has been the centre for asylum seeker, working immigrants and refugees. Despite the huge influx of refugees in UK even in the post cold war period the policy system was rather reactive in nature and a decentralized approach was maintained to the refugee issue until 1993. Politicization of the migration policies in most of the European countries since 1970’s was rather less intensified in UK’s case. Notwithstanding a huge inflow of refugees from Uganda, Chile and Vietnam in the 1970’s and 1980’s (Robinson, 1985) the UK government continued to show reluctance in formulating an integrated approach towards asylum problem. Unlike the other principal EU member states UK is particularly new to organized reception and dispersal procedure of asylum seekers. The first ever legislation regarding immigrants was introduced in 1971, as the Immigration Act of 1971, which identified the norms and procedures underlining the entry of an immigrant based on the Geneva Convention 1951. The legislation was a loose structure and was subjected to a number of modifications till date. The latest changes were proposed in a combined Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act introduced on 20th of June 2006 and it combined the legislature for immigrants, asylum seekers and nationality applicants. UK chronology of the immigration policy was subjected to a number of factors and modifications. In view of the discrepancies of the Geneva Convention and large scale human inflow into the country in the mid 1990’s strained the governments into taking strict measures in trying to regulate and discourage the asylum applicants. In the meantime a number of authorities including the immigration police, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal were developed to centralize the approach towards handling refugee cases. In the following section a specific phase of the UK immigration policy has been demonstrated through a critical analysis of an appeal made at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal by a Turkish citizen against the orders of deportation. This case was heard under the Section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1971 before Mr. C M G Ockelton, Deputy President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, Senior Immigration Judge Drabu and Senior Immigration Judge Grubb. A verdict was given after a detailed review of the matter. Case Law: UK Immigration Law in practice The petitioner, Muntazir, was a citizen of Turkey, who arrived in the United Kingdom on 28 January 2004. He claimed for an asylum unsuccessfully, and consequently was rejected on the liberty to live as a businessman in United Kingdom.. On 11 May 2005 in the Crown Court at Gloucester, on a appeal of guilty, he was convicted on denunciation of two cases of sexual attack on a female and on 2 August 2005 he was vindicated to a restrictive discharge for two years, required to sign the Sex Offenders' Register (SOR) for 2 years and he was suggested for deportation. On 23 January 2006 the Secretary of State took the decision of deporting him under the Section 3(6) of the Immigration Act of 1971, which him the right to do so if he felt that the deportation would be conducive to public good.2 Muntazir plead against that decision which was allowed by the panel of the Asylum and Immigration. This appeal was heard in order to enable the Tribunal to give direction on the approach to paragraph 364 of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC 395 following its alteration in July 2006, and on the range of appeals against deportation decisions taken on the ground that the appellant's deportation would be conducive to the public good, with the benefit of submissions made by counsel for the Secretary of State who was fully instructed to deal with all relevant issues. The appeal was made before 20th June 2006 and was therefore reviewed in accordance to the older version of paragraph 364 of Section 3 on Immigration Act. Under the new act the decision to make deportations were carefully distinguished and needed to be explained. Legislation Section 3 and 5 of the Immigration Act 1971, regarding the deportation of a non UK citizen are headed "General Provisions for Regulation and Control". Subsections (5) and (6) of the Section 3 as in force are as follows: Section 3 (5) A person who is not a British citizen is accountable to deportation from the United Kingdom if – (a) The Secretary of State considers his deportation to be conducive to the public good; or (b) Another person to whose family he belongs is or has been commanded to be deported. (6) Without discrimination to the process of subsection (5) above, a person who is not a British citizen shall also be accountable to deportation from the United Kingdom if, after he has achieved the age of seventeen, he is found guilty of an offence for which he is punishable with imprisonment and on his conviction is recommended for deportation by a court empowered by this Act to do so. Section 5 Section 5(1) regarding further action under deportation is as follows: (1) Where a person is convicted under Section 3(5) or (6) above liable to deportation, then the Secretary of State may make a deportation order against him, that is to say an order wanting him to leave and prohibiting him from entering the United Kingdom; and a banishment order against a person shall invalidate any freedom to enter or remain in the United Kingdom given him before the order is made or while it is in force. Immigration Rules Immigration rules regarding deportation appear in the Section 10 of the Immigration Act of 1999, primarily in the paragraph 363 and 364, in the advent of July 2006 the paragraph 364 has been modified, but in view of the appeal on hand the older version is utilized. Paragraph 363 expresses the circumstances in which a person is liable to deportation I. The Secretary of State deems the person's deportation to be conducive to the public good; II. The person is the spouse or civil partner or child under 18 of a person ordered to be deported; and III. A court recommends deportation in the case of a person over the age of 17 who has been convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment. Moreover paragraph 364 offers the basis on which a fair decision can be made in the context of the case, the provisions that existed before 20 July 2006 were utilized in accessing the case. Paragraph stressed on the Secretary to consider a number of points before going on to make the deportation decision. These parameters included Age Length of residence in the United Kingdom; Strength of connections with the United Kingdom; Personal history, including character, conduct and employment record; Domestic circumstances; Previous criminal record and the nature of any offence of which the person has been convicted; Compassionate circumstances; and Any representations received on the person's behalf3 Appeal An appeal regarding an immigration decision by law can be heard and allowed only under three circumstances I. The Decision is found to be erring with respect to the Immigration Laws II. The decision Violates The Race Relations Act 1976 III. The decision is found unlawful under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act of 19984 Critically Analysis of the Case utilizing above procedures The decision against which Muntazir’s appeal was made was recorded on 23 May 2006, during which the old version of paragraph 364 was in force, the new version of paragraph 364 had no relevance to the appeal. It was therefore concerned with whether the Tribunal panel which heard the previous plea made a material error of law, as asserted by the grounds, in allowing the appeal. The Tribunal panel had set out the appellant's history, noting that he was 21 years old and also recorded his asserted asylum and his application for permission to remain as a businessman. They also noted that the appellant had a number of relatives in the United Kingdom including his sister and her husband, with whom he was a partner in business, whether the alliance was lawful or unlawful was thus not known. The Judge of the Crown Court adopted a moderate attitude after the analysis of Muntazir’s situation and remarked that the acts of indecency committed were not of the serious crimes and were result of his distance from his family, loneliness and immaturity and he was released on conditional basis for two years. The Judge further expressed his apprehension that the appellant's behavior had been very parallel in respect of the two crimes, which were committed in less than two weeks He thus completed his sentencing with apprehensions of serious risk in future and recommended deportation. The Recommendation of deportation was the point that was of concern to the tribunal panel in trying to decide whether the appeal should be heard or dismissed. The Suggestion of being deported was given on the basis of the fact that Muntazir was not eligible for the Sex Offender’s Training Program as he was not 21 then. This point required analysis and it was necessary to see whether the decision of deporting the appellant should be materialized or no. One of the major points of concern was Muntazir’s behavior following the two year restriction that he was subjected to, in this regard records reflected that he was not found guilty of any further offences and that he had learnt from his past mistake and served to be a positive point in his plea. Considering other aspects of the appellant it was recognized that Muntazir was an illegal immigrant and that he had not been awarded with either the asylum or the leave to remain in the country as businessman. Under these circumstances by law and under Section 3 he was liable to leave the country as he was an illegal immigrant. Moreover evaluating the paragraph 364 of the older version of the Immigration act it was important to analyze the Judges decision of recommendation of deportation while at the same time vindicating a 2 year sentence. In order to reach a decision the terms in paragraph 363 and 364 were reconsidered and it was found that as the appellant at the time of sentence was above 17 years and had committed rape which was an offence of imprisonment hence the recommendation of deportation by the judge was not unlawful. Next step was to consider that whether deportation of the appellant would violate the Human Rights Act of 1976. The Appellant lived in Turkey, the country of which he is a national until he was over 18 years old he then came to the United Kingdom. He has been here only two and a half years, and has had no authorized immigration status here. Other than his sister and her husband, the majority of his family, including in particular his parents, remains in Turkey. As the sentencing Judge took the view that his offences were partly prompted by isolation from his family in Turkey, although it cannot be whether that was part of the mitigation advanced on his behalf. As far as his privileges under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are concerned, there will be some hindrance with his private and family life if he is deported to Turkey, but the interference will be minimal. He will lose contact with his sister and brother-in-law, but will receive instead closer contacts with the other family members. Moreover he will be able to legally work in Turkey and there is no reason to assume that he cannot maintain his private and family life there. He has a scandalous conviction, but even apart from that it does not appear to us that there is anything in his case showing that he has a right to live in the United Kingdom He is consequently not a person whose deportation is subdued by Article 8 or by paragraph 380 of the Immigration Rules. Recent Developments in the UK Immigration policy In the last decade or so a number of changes have been brought about in the UK immigration policy and a number of articles were added that would discourage the flow of applications from the asylum seekers. A wide array of changes have been made since the first legislature regarding UK immigration policy was introduced, these include Introduction of finger printing for asylum seekers Rights to housing were reduced which meant that homeless asylum seekers did not qualify automatically for housing with local authorities Introduction of a strategy by which immigration decision will not be repealed Widening of powers of the immigration police with rights as checking without warrant Safe third world country national not allowed to take refuge Charges against employers employing illegal immigrants Withdrawal of benefits for asylum seekers Detention and arrest of illegal immigrants All the above changes were aimed at curbing the flow of asylum seekers and employment hunters into the country. But various analysts view these policies as violation of human rights as a review conducted by the BBC news revealed the perilous conditions of the overseas nationals and they further accused the government of incorporating racism in its strategies, instead of heeding to the problems of the immigrants. Many thinkers are of the view that inflow of immigrants helped UK as it continued to supply it with cheap labor and kept it away from problems of employment. Besides the fear of reducing quality of life due to immigrants have been seriously rejected and government is being pressed to cover the loopholes of illegal people smuggling and to get hold of the people responsible in these acts. Conclusion Europe has been marked by the growing interest in its harmonization policies. These would further increase problems for UK as flow of population through transnational borders will become easier and is expected to meet opposition for UK. High degree of variation in migration policies exist within European countries the idea of a common policy thus seems theoretically in this regard as well. The increasingly changing Immigration policies are also in a way challenging the UNHCR as it is continually observing straying from basic policies. The economic regime, globalization and various other factors will heavily affect the immigration regime for UK in years to come. Bibliography 1. Zetter, R., Griffiths, D., Ferretti, S. & Pearl, M. (June 2003) An assessment of Impact of asylum policies in Europe Home Office research Development directorate 2. Ockelton, CMG (12 JUNE 2007). UNITED KINGDOM ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL. Retrieved July 25, 2007, from DEPORTATION APPEALS SCOPE AND PROCESS Web site: URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2007/00062.html Read More