Immigration law a step in the right direction

Immigration has always been a contentious issue, and Theresa May’s new plans for deportation are about to make it even more so.
May has decided that she wants judges to take into account the wider needs of the public in ruling that the right to family life is “not absolute”.

At the minute, foreign criminals can escape deportation or extradition if members of their family live in this country. This means that hundreds of foreign criminals are able to delay or even completely cancel their deportation date, living of the tax payer’s money in the meantime. If things change, this could only happen under exceptional and rare circumstances, putting a stop to national scandals similar to Qatada’s shambled case.

While some may judge that it is unfair to separate a family, regardless of criminal activity, the point remains that the perpetrator of the crime has been taken in by a country, and then broken that country’s law. It could be argued that, should you commit a crime, you lose your claim to certain rights and privileges, and what is stopping ‘the right to family life’ being one of them?

You commit a crime, you lose your claim to certain rights

May’s ruling will also directly affect normal, non-criminal citizens. Foreigners wishing to move to England to live with their partners or family must be supported by a sponsor earning more than £18,600, or £22,400 for families with children. May proposes setting up a minimum probationary period of five years, to deter sham marriages, and setting a minimum requirement of skill in understanding and using English, to ensure that immigrants are able to integrate.

While the wage requirements may to some seem unfair – if your partner/parent does not earn enough, you can’t live with them – the above moves are for the greater good. The economy cannot stabilise and grow with a continuing influx of dependents on it, and thousands of immigrants every year enter the country and sign up for benefits.

The priority is making sure that our country’s needs, and those of the native population are put first; we should offer a helping hand and shelter where possible, but not to the detriment of those born here.

These moves should also help to alleviate some of the problems associated with immigration, for example British anger towards the subject. It’s not an issue that’s going to go away, but it can be helped by the rulings May proposes. They may be baby steps, but they’re positive enough for now.

10 comments

  1. “It could be argued that, should you commit a crime, you lose your claim to certain rights and privileges, and what is stopping ‘the right to family life’ being one of them?”

    Perfect. Punish the whole family for the actions of one. Why not go that one step further and give them the choice? ‘We can deport you on your own, or you can take your family with you.’ Happily, you did not leave the handwavey “greater good” argument out of this piece, else it might have been confused for journalism.

    It was nice, though, to see that Google decided to place an advert for “Immigration Indefinite Remain Visas UK” at the bottom of the piece.

    Reply Report

  2. Good job Nouse doesn’t set policy then. Last night’s Liberation and Welfare Assembly voted unanimously to urgently oppose the wage requirement and demand that the university’s senior management speak out on the issue.

    Reply Report

  3. 19 Jun ’12 at 11:30 pm

    Sean Anderson

    The European Court of Human Rights is an annoying hindrance. We should be defiant and just deport whomsoever we wish to. Abu Hamza, for example, is not our problem. Why should we keep people who come from abroad, live in this country, possibly receive our benefits and yet only speak hatred against our nation and push Islamisation on us. Send them home.

    I’ve had enough of the EU (I used to be pro-EU); I’ve had enough of our weak, liberal walkover state; I’ve had enough of our secularism and enough of our pandering to minorities.

    Down with hatred, but down also with weakness.

    Reply Report

  4. These proposals will split up families – including those of British citizens who happen to marry a non EU citizen – when they have committed no crime. The JCWI has a lot to say on this : http://www.jcwi.org.uk/policy/united-love-divided-theresa-may#overlay-context=po

    Quote : ‘The economy cannot stabilise and grow with a continuing influx of dependents on it, and thousands of immigrants every year enter the country and sign up for benefits.’

    The above statement is simply untrue. All new migrants to the UK on a fiance, spouse or family visa (i.e. those affected by these measures) have the words ‘NO RECOURSE TO PUBLIC FUNDS’ stamped on it. They do not ‘sign up for benefits’ – this is a myth.

    Reply Report

  5. “I’ve had enough of our secularism”

    What on earth would you suggest as an alternative? A theocracy?

    Reply Report

  6. Immigration provides more jobs for ‘native’ people than it takes away from this thoroughly abstract group. This is indisputable. Any restriction is a barrier in the way of labour mobility and will create unemployment and further misery in a recovering global economy (which the UK is clearly a part of). Any suggestion that immigration creates a burden on the taxpayer equal or greater in value than it’s contribution to the economy is false.
    Criminality exists within every society, and has done since the beginning of time. If the CPS has to process and lock up foreign bad-eggs while we benefit from foreign labour filling short term skill-gaps, then so be it. As long as these people are in jail, I am not bothered which country they are in; ultimately our justice system and jails are far fairer, more efficient and humane than the rest of the globe. Deportation is merely shirking responsibility to the ideal of jutice on so many levels and should be avoided. If the British public hold views to the contrary rooted in xenophobia and not fact, then I would be inclined to ignore their wishes and take a political loss. Clearly theresa may is either a xenophobe, a populist or simply too simple to have made a logical thought process before reaching her conclusion. Im worried she is in government however one looks at it.

    Reply Report

  7. I couldn’t agree more with the comments of Anon above, and hence disagree more with this extremely poor article. The unsubstantiated and wholly false suggestion that immigrants are simply coming to Britain and signing up for benefits is, as has been pointed out, a myth. As is the suggestion that the economy is being weakened by a “constant influx of dependents”. In fact, immigrants not only pay more taxes on average than those who have not migrated recently; the supposed ‘native’ (native since when, precisely?) population, but have in many cases been successful entrepreneurs who have come to create jobs and employ others. For a study into this, and examples, I recommend the following article:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/immigration-does-not-cause-unemployment-6287404.html?fb_source=timeline_news&fb_action_ids=840686163254&fb_action_types=news.reads#access_token=AAADWQ6323IoBAHxRl9afINaYjcpCkPBUmphJc9RdwajfWoTz6UxCqIeZAaCEFreF6jlN58rzyxqOhCq54qbRMiFZBcJNuRwlJDIAy1CwZDZD&expires_in=5044

    Unlike this one, the linked articles has some facts in, rather than being a lazy and unquestioning repetition of tabloid apocrypha. This is far below the standard I’d normally expect from Nouse.

    Reply Report

  8. Immigration may well provide some economic benefits to the UK in terms of taxation and jobs, but excessive immigration can cause social instability due to language and cultural barriers. The impact of these on a community should not be underestimated.

    Furthermore, even if immigration boosts jobs and government revenue, what is the cost in terms of pushing up demand for housing? If the population goes up (as it has done) without a similar increase in housing (as it has done), then there will be greater demand for housing, meaning rents and mortgages will go up. Of course, if many more houses were built, the impact of immigration on this would be reduced. Part of the problem, no doubt, is also rich landowners, NIMBYs and environmental groups preventing the construction of new housing developments.

    Reply Report

  9. Following up on the above comments, I’d like to put some actual numbers on this.

    Oxford University’s Migration Observatory has produced a great report at http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press-releases/women-young-people-and-non-londoners-are-most-affected-changes-family-migration-polic – ‘Women, young people and non-Londoners most affected by changes to migration policy’ – with some real statistics. I quote :-

    ‘These changes will mean that, of British citizens in employment:

    47% will not qualify to bring in a family member.
    58% of people aged between 20 and 30 will not qualify to bring in a family member compared to 35-45% of people aged between 30 and 60.
    61% of women and 32% of men will not qualify to bring in a family member. •
    48% of people in Scotland will not qualify to bring in a family member.
    51% of people in Wales will not qualify to bring in a family member.
    46% of English residents will not qualify to bring in a family member.
    29% of Londoners will not qualify to bring in a family member.
    The areas of England with the lowest eligibility are Mersyside, where 56% of people will not be eligiable, North West England (53%) and Yorkshire and Humberside (52%).’

    In other words, large proportions of the UK population will now no longer be able to raise a family with a non-EU partner in the UK.

    In supporting these measures, you are denying your own right to fall in love and raise a family with the person you choose. As university students, you should know how this will affect you if you dare to fall in love with a non-EU classmate.

    Furthermore, I’d like you to think about the following cases :-
    – People who fall in love with those from countries with similar regressive laws. E.g. the US. These couples may have NOWHERE to live. Where do they stand?
    – People in civil partnerships with a partner from a country where homosexuality is persecuted. Should they emigrate?
    – People whose partner comes from a country (such as Syria) where the Foreign Office advises against travel. The Home Office will force them to either endure family breakup or emigrate to a country which the Foreign Office advises against travel to!
    – Retired people who may have low incomes but also have low outgoings and can afford to support themselves. Is the government seriously propososing to discriminate against them in the twilight of their lives?
    – Couples where then non-EU partner is the primary earner. A Japanese banker where the wife is a homemaker, for instance. The new rules do not take into account the earnings of the non-EU partner, therefore (unless they have sufficient savings – which are no small chunk of change – they fail).
    – British expats who are currently overseas, who have raised a family (e.g in America) and wish to return.

    There are gaping holes in these new rules, covering all of the above, and more. I’m sure it’s not too difficult to envisage yourself or someone you know in these situations.

    Furthermore, the rules discriminate against BRITISH people because non-UK EEA citizens do not have to fulfill them to bring their partners into the UK!

    The government needs to think again.

    Reply Report

  10. Well,

    I read the posts here with interest rather than the article , I mean there seems to be a repeat of the history here – Papists in power kill away the reformists and vice versa.

    Tories are destroying the country and they know no matter what they at least a re out for next 20 years from power.

    UK as a matter of fact looks like Pretoria ! Where British citizens liberties are totally crumpled away !

    Old are left without means ….children driven into poverty !

    To make matters worse the banks are throttling creation of any jobs in the market , and the Goverrnment is attempting to look like a dick in international as well as national arena cooking up the asturity while attempting lame attempts to woo the right wing.

    And there is not much of a reaction now but the fire is caught on ! I think if they think it will not matter well they are already in their grave !

    Now we need harnessed and assessed immigration for even trade benefit, especially when we can easily import at a better relative by lateral advantage and rexport the goods imported to EU which individual EU countries cannnot compared to UK due to lack of political understanding with the non EU world . Only if we play the cards right !

    At the moment its a double fold loss just because Government is sleeping with a classy whore ( Banks ) , they were just turning latin american slush money in white for ages and no one gave a fcuk.

    Chinese hedge funds had their share out of it !

    it was plain brokering from top to bottom.

    Well I believe Britain will rise ! It will rise like a tsunami ! Against sectarian oppression and tyranny !

    Reply Report

Leave a comment



Please note our disclaimer relating to comments submitted. Please do not post pretending to be another person. Nouse is not responsible for user-submitted content.