Kaylene Leong Immigration is defined as a process through which individuals become permanent residents or citizens of another country1. Immigration happens for a multitude of reasons ranging from escaping conflict to educational purposes, however it brings social, economic, and cultural benefits. However, despite the benefits, the UK has been actively working to tighten immigration laws for many years. This essay will argue that the laws on immigration in the UK are too strict.
Firstly, the UK has enacted many statutes over the years to control immigration. One of the earliest modern statutes was the Alien's Act of 1905. This Act was created to control mass Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe which was occurring because of religious persecution. This Act made certain provisions about what made an undesirable immigrant such as ‘if he cannot show that he has in his possession or is in a position to obtain the means or decently supporting himself and his dependents2’ or ‘if he is a lunatic or an idiot or owing to any disease’3. The act was repealed in 1919 and is arguably avoidable but nevertheless it demonstrates the beginning of the strictness and exclusion of UK immigration laws which came at a time where immigrants were suffering from religious persecution.
When the UK joined the EU in 1973, their position on immigration became more flexible for citizens of EU member states as a condition of joining was allowing the free movement of people. However, the UK still implemented laws to control immigration such as the Home Office hostile environment policy in 2012, as said by Theresa May, aimed ‘to create, here in Britain, a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants’4 and the policy undoubtedly succeeded in this. Some examples of what this policy set out to do include creating a more complicated application process based on the principle of ‘deport first, appeal later’, supporting voluntary deportation through billboard vans featuring the message ‘go home or face arrest’ in what was called Operation Vaken and adverts placed in minority ethnic newspapers and in buildings used by faith and charity groups. This policy resulted in the Windrush scandal which revolved around people, particularly those who originated from the Caribbean countries who were known as the Windrush generation, being wrongly detained, deported and threatened5. This scandal resulted in many people being wrongly deported, and many later were not allowed to reenter the UK. Others who remained in the country were detained, denied healthcare, housing, employment and many other rights6. It was found that this policy broke equality laws which resulted in a legal duty to review these policies. This demonstrated how strict and xenophobic the immigration laws were, however, these laws were still in place for long enough that they already affected many people in a very unforgiving way.
Post-Brexit UK’s effort to control immigration is not subjected to EU scrutiny and has become even more forceful. This can be seen with the Nationality and Borders Bill which has just passed the House of Commons and is now in the House of Lords. The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, this bill is meant to create a ‘firm but fair’ asylum system and help the UK ‘take full control of its borders7’ however, it will do the opposite.
There are many major changes that the bill plans to implement. Firstly, immigration laws for asylum seekers would become extremely harsh as a two-tiered system which would differentiate between migrants who enter legally and illegally would be introduced under this bill. Migrants who enter illegally will not be entitled to the benefits under the Refugee Convention of 1951 which will deny them many rights such as family reunion. This heinous division demonstrates how the immigration laws in the UK may soon become not just overly strict but also inhumane. Furthermore, a new criminal offence of imprisonment of up to 4 years has also been proposed for those arriving in the UK without permission and another offence for anyone who helped the asylum seekers come to the UK even if it was not for their own gain. These are strict laws which will discourage people from seeking asylum in the UK and criminalize their passage. If migrants were to seek asylum through the proper channels, with this new bill they would then face the possibility of externalization which is sending asylum seekers to other countries that the UK designates as safe8. This defeats the entire purpose of immigrants going to the UK to seek asylum and send migrants off to another unfamiliar country in a noticeably fleeting period. This also means that asylum processing will be much shorter and asylum seekers will not be granted the same thorough application which could potentially result in them being wrongly sent to another country. This anti-refugee bill is the UK turning their backs on asylum seekers, criminalizing their passage and casting them out to other countries as they please.
Another major change is that Clause 9 of this Bill would give the government the right to deprive citizens of their citizenship without any warning or informing the citizens, if it would ‘not reasonably practicable’ or if it was not in the interest of national security, interest of the relationship between the UK and another country or in the public interest9. This affects human rights and could result in people being left stateless. This is arguably reminiscent of the Windrush scandal where people would be deported, unable to re-enter the country and would be left stranded. There are many other proposed changes but the few discussed make immigration laws far too strict, give the UK government too much power and impact human rights to an unjustifiable extent.
The process of asylum is already difficult enough without the Nationality and Borders Bill. Previously, the Dublin Regulations meant that the UK could only reject an asylum claim after another country claimed responsibility for that person’s asylum. However, after January 1st, 2021, the UK government no longer follows Dublin Regulations. Currently the UK government can reject a claim without another country claiming responsibility. The current process of asylum, if migrants can enter the UK and claim asylum, entails firstly a screening interview to collect basic information. After the screening interview there will be a substantive interview, however the time between the two interviews can take months or even up to a year. After the substantive interview it can still take a substantial amount of time for the asylum decision to be made. In 2019, most decisions took more than six months and asylum applications can be rejected. Although appealing the decision is a possibility, it is a very onerous one. However, whilst asylum seekers await their decision, their conditions are impoverished. They often live on Home Office support money, approximately £5.66 a day since most are not allowed to work. As a result, they often live in poverty, are vulnerable to violence, at the risk of being detained for an undetermined period or being deported.
The immigration laws and the difficulties in achieving asylum have very real-life impacts which are reflected in the deaths of immigrants trying to enter the UK. This can be seen in records from 2000 when 58 Chinese immigrants suffocated in a lorry10 to 2021 where 27 migrants drowned trying to cross the English Channel11. There has been a steady increase in migrant Channel crossings with a record number of 1,185 migrants in one day in 2021 crossing the Channel12. These deaths and the missing migrants who were trying to enter the UK exhibit the strictness of the immigration laws such that they feel the need to risk their lives as opposed to entering through safe routes and there are only plans to make it more difficult to achieve asylum.
The rule of law, as stated by Bingham, means that the law ‘must be accessible and so far, as possible intelligible, clear and predictable’ however this essay has demonstrated how the laws on immigration are not only confusing but also unreasonably strict. Regardless of how strict immigration laws are migrants will still try to enter the UK but instead they will be forced to go through illegal and dangerous means. To be able to effectively control immigration, the UK should loosen the laws on immigration. In conclusion, the laws on immigration are far too strict and it can be very clearly seen through the UK’s history and what it intends for the future
Sources:
1 'Immigration | Definition, History, & Facts' (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2021) <https://www.britannica.com/topic/immigration> accessed 24 December 2021. 2Aliens Act 1905, s 1 (3) (a) 3Aliens Act 1905 s 1 (3) (b) 4 Amelia Hill, 'Hostile Environment': The Hardline Home Office Policy Tearing Families Apart' (the Guardian, 2022) <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/28/hostile-environment-the-hardline-home- office-policy-tearing-families-apart> accessed 3 January 2022. 5 Ann Stenhouse, 'What Is The Windrush Scandal - And How The Windrush Generation Got Their Name' (mirror, 2018) <https://web.archive.org/web/20180502023219/https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/what-windrush- scandal-how-windrush-12383743> accessed 20 January 2022
6 Harriet Agerholm, 'Windrush Generation: Home Office ‘Set Them Up To Fail’, Say Mps' (The Independent, 2018) <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/windrush-home-office-set-them-up-fail- mps-affairs-select-committee-a8428041.html> accessed 20 January 2022. 7 Lisa O'Carroll, 'Priti Patel To Reveal Proposals For Offshore Centres For Asylum Seekers' (the Guardian, 2021) <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/05/priti-patel-to-reveal-proposals-for-offshore- centres-for-asylum-seekers> accessed 20 January 2022. 8 'The Nationality And Borders Bill' (UNHCR, 2021) <https://www.unhcr.org/uk/uk-immigration-and-asylum- plans-some-questions-answered-by-unhcr.html> accessed 20 January 2022. 9 Ben van der Merde, 'What Does The Nationality And Borders Bill Mean For You?' (New Statesman, 2021) <https://www.newstatesman.com/the-explainer/2021/12/what-does-the-nationality-and-borders-bill- mean-for-you> accessed 20 January 2022.
10 Julie Hyland, '58 Chinese Migrants Found Dead In Lorry At Dover, Britain' (World Socialist Web Site, 2001) <https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/06/immi-j21.html> accessed 26 December 2021. 11 Aurelien Breeden, Constant Meheut and Norimitsu Onishi, 'At Least 27 Dead After Migrant Boat Capsizes In English Channel' (Nytimes.com, 2021) <https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/24/world/europe/migrants-boat-capsize-calais.html> accessed 26 December 2021. 12 Jamie Grierson and Rachel Hall, 'Priti Patel Urged To Rethink Asylum Approach After Record Day For Channel Crossings' (the Guardian, 2021) <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/12/about-1000- people-reach-uk-in-single-day-across-channel-in-small-boats> accessed 26 December 2021.
Comments