HomePortalLatest imagesRegisterLog in

altText
altText
altText
altText
altText
altText

Share
 

 UK May put controls on EU migrants

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Admin
Administrator
Administrator
Admin

Posts : 6136
Join date : 2009-08-15

UK May put controls on EU migrants Empty
PostSubject: UK May put controls on EU migrants   UK May put controls on EU migrants Icon_minitimeSun Oct 07, 2012 6:18 pm

[size=55:22hg8pni]The Sunday Times

Migrants from the EU face visa controls as Tories launch a fresh challenge to Brussels


Border controls could be introduced to block European immigrants flocking to Britain, Theresa May revealed today.
The Home Secretary unveiled the dramatic proposal which will be seen as a direct challenge to one of the central principles of the European Union. The freedom of movement directive, which allows 500million people to move freely between member states, is under now review as part of a study into Britain’s relationship with Brussels. Europe is likely to dominate much of the Tory party conference in Birmingham this week, with David Cameron vowing to block any ‘outrageous’ increases in the EU budget from 2014. Ms May expressed concern at an expanding EU and work restrictions on migrants from Romania and Bulgaria being lifted from next year. William Hague, the foreign secretary, is carrying out a strategic review of the UK’s relationship with the EU which Euro sceptics hope will lead to the renegotiation and repatriation of significant powers. Ms May revealed it would look at immigration controls. We are looking at this whole area of the abuse of the freedom of movement. But we will go further on this, and the issue of free movement will be part of the review,’ she told the Sunday Times.
‘It will be looking at where the decision-making powers are between the EU and the UK, how they are operating and what the impact of those are.
‘That will then enable us to have a good evidence base on which to look at these issues.
‘I was very clear that we wanted to make sure the free movement of persons was in that because I think it is an important issue that we need to look at.’
Visas could be introduced for migrants from some countries while others will be able to come to Britain freely.
However, it would mark a major challenge to the free movement of people which is one of the four ‘fundamental freedoms’ enshrined in the EU’s founding treaty in 1957.
Back to top Go down
http://www.ourbulgariaforum.com
Blink
Super user
Super user
Blink

Posts : 909
Join date : 2010-02-11

UK May put controls on EU migrants Empty
PostSubject: Re: UK May put controls on EU migrants   UK May put controls on EU migrants Icon_minitimeSun Oct 07, 2012 10:10 pm

Citizens, I sincerely hope that you won't be fooled. This talk about renegotiating terms is meant to catch us off guard and could be the work of the EU officials - preparing the ground for a yes vote when the referendum is eventually held. The British establishment will say we have won some concessions and we should vote yes. The truth is that the Euro project is about loss of sovereignty and we should decide on whether we would rather be governed by the unelected technocrats or choose our own way as a country. What we need is honest debate about this issue.
Back to top Go down
varnagirl
Super user
Super user
varnagirl

Posts : 1196
Join date : 2009-10-24

UK May put controls on EU migrants Empty
PostSubject: Re: UK May put controls on EU migrants   UK May put controls on EU migrants Icon_minitimeMon Oct 08, 2012 1:50 pm

Bulgarian Foreign Min: UK Won't Introduce Visas for Us
Diplomacy | October 8, 2012, Monday
Novitine News

There is no possibility whatsoever of the UK introducing visas for Bulgarians, Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov declared on Monday.

Mladenov has reminded that all labor restrictions for Bulgarian citizens in the EU will be lifted in 2014.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, UK Home Secretary Theresa May stated that the EU's freedom of movement directive, which guarantees the right of its 500 million citizens to travel freely within the EU, should be reviewed.

However, Mladenov has described her statement as "
election campaigning."


In an interview for the Btv channel, Mladenov also refuted recent rumors that his late father was a spy for the communist regime's secret service, saying the rumors were "
communist propaganda."
Back to top Go down
itchyfeet
Mega user
Mega user
itchyfeet

Posts : 2268
Join date : 2010-09-10
Age : 68
Location : Paskalevets

UK May put controls on EU migrants Empty
PostSubject: Re: UK May put controls on EU migrants   UK May put controls on EU migrants Icon_minitimeMon Oct 08, 2012 3:51 pm

It is all very well the UK moaning about EU migrants, Mr Cameron ought to see to it that restrictions are placed on people arriving from the rest of the world and demanding asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are dealt with through the legal system in the swiftest of time.
Back to top Go down
Daisy
Super user
Super user
Daisy

Posts : 1121
Join date : 2010-02-11

UK May put controls on EU migrants Empty
PostSubject: Re: UK May put controls on EU migrants   UK May put controls on EU migrants Icon_minitimeMon Oct 08, 2012 7:51 pm

This "
dramatic proposal"
, we are told, "
will be seen as a direct challenge to one of the central principles of the European Union"
, as the "
freedom of movement directive - which allows 500 million people to move freely between member states - is under review as part of a study into Britain¿s relationship with Brussels"
. However, a minor problem emerges here. There isn't a "
freedom of movement directive"
. It doesn't exist. Freedom of movement is one of the four freedoms, enshrined in the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union . Furthermore, not only is that a fundamental treaty obligation, it forms the basis of the single market framework, alongside the free movement of goods, services and capital, which Mr Cameron has pledged to uphold. Never in a million years, therefore, is Mrs May voluntarily, or with knowledge of forethought, going to abolish the treaty. And that is what she would have to do in order to limit freedom of movement. s
Back to top Go down
bigsavak
Super user
Super user
bigsavak

Posts : 756
Join date : 2009-09-16

UK May put controls on EU migrants Empty
PostSubject: Re: UK May put controls on EU migrants   UK May put controls on EU migrants Icon_minitimeMon Oct 08, 2012 8:31 pm

The joke is, it is the UK that fought hardest to expand the EU so fast by allowing the former Commuist countries in. It was the UK that voluntarily let all the citizens of the new member states in straightaway when all other member states except Ireland and Sweden imposed transitional controls, and it is the UK that fought - and still fights - for the 'single market' to be preserved. Yet, free movement across the EU to live, work and set up business is one of the fundamental parts of the Single Market. Even non-EU Swtizerlandand Norway, held out by Euro-sceptics as role models subscribe to the free movement principle. A move like this would also backfire very badly on the millions of UK nationals who live and work all across Europe. May has been a disaster in her current post and the sooner she goes the better, she even got heckled at her own conference with the police..
Back to top Go down
Gimp
Super user
Super user
Gimp

Posts : 863
Join date : 2010-02-12

UK May put controls on EU migrants Empty
PostSubject: Re: UK May put controls on EU migrants   UK May put controls on EU migrants Icon_minitimeTue Oct 09, 2012 9:00 am

Believe this when it really happens!!! DC should start by putting his foot down on the sale of BAE to that lot for a start! Boris at least shows gumption and says what he thinks and means. If she had not used the word could, then maybe, just maybe I would have taken notice, but until she can be more specific re what she intends to do, I will not be convinced.!!!!
Back to top Go down
Admin
Administrator
Administrator
Admin

Posts : 6136
Join date : 2009-08-15

UK May put controls on EU migrants Empty
PostSubject: Re: UK May put controls on EU migrants   UK May put controls on EU migrants Icon_minitimeWed Oct 10, 2012 9:58 am

[size=55:39vkwzoi]novinite

UK Embassy Confirms No Curb on Bulgaria, Romania Migrants

The British government has no intentions of limiting the access of Bulgarians and Romanians to the country, according to the UK embassy in Sofia's temporary director Catherine Barber.

Tuesday Bulgarian Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Ivan Naydenov talked to Barber regarding the matter, and said the interim head of mission confirmed that UK Home Secretary Theresa May had not mentioned the two countries in her recent statement.

The UK minister had told The Sunday Times that the EU's freedom of movement directive, which guarantees the right of its 500 million citizens to travel freely within the EU, should be reviewed.

European Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd reacted by saying that such topics are normal for British political discourse, but that no formal request for revision has been tabled by the UK.

"
A position as the one voiced by Secretary May does not correspond to the UK's government stated will to boost growth in the EU by reinforcing the common market,"
stated vice-minister Naydenov Tuesday.

"
What is more, any meniton of Bulgaria and Romania in this context would have been inadmissible, as it would be a sign of inequality amongst EU member states,"
added he.

Bulgaria's Minister of Foreign Affairs Nikolay Mladenov had stated Monday that he sees no possibility for the UK to reinstate visas for Bulgarian citizens.
Back to top Go down
http://www.ourbulgariaforum.com
Daisy
Super user
Super user
Daisy

Posts : 1121
Join date : 2010-02-11

UK May put controls on EU migrants Empty
PostSubject: Re: UK May put controls on EU migrants   UK May put controls on EU migrants Icon_minitimeFri Oct 12, 2012 8:54 am

I found this which is sort of related to what has been written above, I was quite shocked to read this, I know here in Bulgaria you often see people hanging around in groups all looking for work like this but I didn't realize it was going on in England, this is something you would have seen after the war I expect. s

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... ng-britain

Cheap, and Far from Free: The Migrant Army Building Britain

The men gather in the shadow of the Wickes hardware store, looking out for the odd jobs that keep them in the UK and for the police that periodically moves them along.

As day laborers on the margins of Britain's sprawling construction sector, they provide a cheap supply of ready manpower, useful yet often unwelcome.

Their presence provokes frequent complaints from the residents of Seven Sisters, a north London neighborhood where the cafés offer a greasy "
builder's breakfast"
for less than five pounds.

With no offices or agencies supporting them, the day laborers crowd the pavement and advertise their trade through their attire – grubby tracksuits spattered with paint and plaster.

When potential clients pull up, they haggle over rates and hitch rides. When the police show up, they run.

Across the road on a sunny July morning, Jarek collects his groceries and stops for a chat with some friends.

"
Illegal people,"
is how he describes the 30 or so men waiting outside Wickes. Like them, Jarek is an immigrant. Unlike them, he comes from Poland and does not panic when he sees the police.

He too is a builder, but he does not do business on the pavement outside Wickes. Instead, he travels on a moped fitted with a toolbox, dispensing glossy flyers advertising "
cheap and reliable contractor services"
in ungrammatical English.

Jarek is one of around a million workers who moved to the UK as a result of the EU's expansion into Eastern Europe in 2004. The scale of the migration, most of it from Poland, prompted a backlash against the British politicians who had failed to anticipate it.

The day laborers are mostly Romanians and Bulgarians, and relative newcomers to the UK. They arrived after 2007, when Romania and Bulgaria – the so-called A2 countries – joined the EU.

Despite Jarek's suspicions, the men's presence in Britain, or indeed outside Wickes, is not in itself illegal.

All that separates him from the newcomers is a web of restrictions, designed to deny A2 migrants the many advantages that helped Jarek and his compatriots establish themselves in the UK.

Free to stay but not free to work, the Romanians and Bulgarians fulfill a narrow function – meeting Britain's need for underpaid and unprotected labor.

Nervous and suspicious

The construction sector accounts for more than 10 per cent of Britain's GDP. It is the centerpiece of the government's plan to revive the struggling economy, and the recipient of regular subsidies and stimuli.

Critics say the government's restrictions on A2 workers have benefited the construction sector by boosting the ranks of poorly paid and loosely regulated laborers. They accuse Britain of trying to build its way out of a double-dip recession by undercutting pay and conditions for other, relatively well-established, workers.

A Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) investigation shows that A2 workers are generally prepared to work for lower wages and in worse conditions than others in the construction industry. Many interviewees spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not wish to attract the attention of the authorities.

Unions and safety officials agree that the A2 workers' immigration status has driven them into the highly casual end of the building trade, where procedures are more likely to be ignored and injuries and grievances are less likely to be reported.

The UK government justifies its restrictions, arguing that they have protected the British workforce by preventing another surge of immigration of the scale that brought Jarek to the country.

Statistics from the Department of Work and Pensions show that around 210,000 Romanians and Bulgarians have received a National Insurance (NI) number since their countries joined the EU five years ago. This figure offers a very rough indication of how many migrants from these countries may be working in Britain, without taking into account those working illegally and those who have since returned home.

By comparison, some 640,000 Poles have received NI numbers over the last five years, from the total of more than a million over the last decade.

Large construction guilds, meanwhile, insist that their members are bound by law to ensure working conditions are safe and fair. When the rules are broken, they say, the migrants are often complicit.

Some migrants interviewed by BIRN seemed to confirm this, saying they worked in the grey economy to avoid taxes. But as many are underpaid, the incentive for doing so is also greater.

If caught working illegally, the migrants face a fine of up to £1,000 pounds (about €1,300) and a possible prison term.

However, the day laborers in front of Wickes are in little danger of being busted, as they can always claim that they intend to declare any earnings.

Their nervousness around the police stems less from a genuine fear of prosecution than from a general suspicion of the state.

Facing severe restrictions in the job market, they have been funneled towards a zone where there is no clear distinction between the lawful and unlawful, or between the exploitative and the cost-effective.

"
The police have asked me for ID... Sometimes they say you can stay, sometimes they make you leave,'' says a middle-aged day laborer from Bulgaria who gave his name as Neven. "
I stay,'' he adds. "
What are the police going to do to me?''

Numbers game

Upon arrival in the UK, all foreigners in search of work are expected to apply for an NI number.

The number is a prerequisite for anyone seeking legitimate long-term employment. It is effectively the code upon which the state builds each individual's record of taxes, pensions and benefits.

When Jarek came to Britain in 2004, Poles like him had little difficulty acquiring an NI number. But by the time Neven migrated five years later, Romanians and Bulgarians were finding it harder to register.

A2 nationals are automatically allocated NI numbers only if they have traveled to Britain on a type of work permit that is issued with direct offers of employment.

However, these migrants are in a minority. Most Romanians and Bulgarians travel to the UK without work permits or any firm promise of employment.

Eager to start earning, they gravitate towards the construction and hospitality sectors, where they can eventually skirt the need for a work permit by registering as self-employed.

Migrants who fail to prove they are self-employed, and therefore fail to get an NI number, often end up on the margins of these sectors, getting paid cash-in-hand for casual jobs that require minimal paperwork.

Bulgarian and Romanian embassy officials in London told BIRN that their citizens were finding it harder to get an NI number, in some cases logging five unsuccessful attempts. Many of the day laborers outside the Wickes at Seven Sisters fit this category.

"
No money, no job in Bulgaria,"
said a 45-year-old migrant who did not give his name. He said he had twice applied for an NI number, and had been refused both times. He had not found work for two months and was living off his savings.

"
Smaller sites, bigger risks"


Undocumented workers are more likely to be seriously injured on the job, according to trade unions and safety experts.

A young Romanian man, whose name has been withheld on the advice of his lawyer, told BIRN he had been electrocuted while operating a jackhammer at a site in London. "
I don't remember much,"
he said. "
There was smoke. My arm was burned."


The man had been working in Britain without an NI number and had learned about the job from a friend. He says he was not asked to provide any documents or sign any contracts before starting work, and was paid cash-in-hand. Although he received some basic safety instructions, he says he had trouble following them because of his poor English.

Construction unions estimate that some 80 per cent of workplace accidents go unreported. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the UK watchdog that monitors safety in the workplace, does not keep any data recording the nationality of injured workers.

However, it acknowledges that migrant workers are more exposed to accidents and less likely to report them, even though they cannot be deported or penalized for doing so.

Richard Boland, the HSE's head of operations for construction in southern England, says "
the vulnerability that comes with having restrictions on when and where you can work"
can drive builders to sites where the safety rules are not enforced.

HSE's inspectors are now shifting their focus away from the large firms towards smaller sites because the latter, he says, are more likely to ignore standards and to employ relatively inexperienced migrant workers.

"
Silent accidents"


Romanian and Bulgarian workers who manage to acquire an NI number still face curbs that did not trouble an earlier generation of immigrants from the EU.

Most jobs in construction are arranged through specialist employment agencies, which are typically small companies with a record for hiring from within a particular immigrant community.

These agencies act as subcontractors for bigger firms, delivering casual labor to large sites at short notice and handling much of the associated paperwork.

According to lawyers and labor experts, the A2 workers hired by such agencies are less likely to complain of dangerous conditions and low wages. Many fear being blacklisted in an economy where their options for employment are already circumscribed.

Remus Robu, a paralegal with UK law firm Levenes, often handles claims arising from accidents involving A2 workers. "
Unfortunately, there are people who do lose their job when they file for compensation,"
he said.

The Romanian owner of a small building company, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the existence of an informal blacklist for workers who were regarded as troublesome. But, he said, this was no different to the system of references shared by employers in other industries.

"
Would you hire back somebody who had filed a claim against you?'' he said.

The owner also told BIRN that he had persuaded a worker against reporting an accident that had led to a broken leg. He said he had paid the injured man a full wage throughout his time in recovery, and guaranteed him further employment when he was fit again.

"
He agreed not to pursue a claim against me because I have a good relationship with my workers,"
the owner said.

According to the HSE, any accident that leads to a broken leg has to be reported under UK law. If an employer is found to be at fault, lawyers say a worker can expect to receive between £6,000 and £36,000, depending on the severity of the injury.

Small construction firms are usually keen to avoid having claims brought against them, as these can hamper their ability to secure fresh contracts.

"
Informal economy"


As well as discouraging complaints over conditions, employment agencies often pay A2 migrants a lower wage than other workers.

Many agencies deduct a form of commission from workers' pay packets. In some cases, a payroll company – often linked to the agency – will charge an additional "
admin"
fee for processing salaries.

The A2 migrants have no safeguards against these cuts to their earnings. As self-employed workers, they are not eligible for the UK's minimum wage, currently set at just over six pounds an hour.

Moreover, although technically expected to pay their own taxes, self-employed laborers are automatically taxed at source at a rate of 20 per cent, under a government scheme that applies to the construction sector alone.

The construction workers' union, UCATT, has called for the scheme to be scrapped, saying it facilitates a form of bogus self-employment. Britain's opposition Labour party also recently said it would review the scheme.

However, an official from the UK's largest construction trade association said the workers in this category deserved no more sympathy than their employers for undermining their "
legitimate competitors"
.

"
Both parties gain from effectively breaking the law and, as such, those A2s who collude in false self-employment cannot be portrayed as innocent victims,"
says Peter O' Connell, a policy manager with the Federation of Master Builders.

Stephen Ratcliffe, director of the UK Contractors Groups, a guild representing the country's top construction firms, said criminal proceedings should be used against the "
informal economy"
where companies flout tax, employment and safety laws.

Both O'Connell and Ratcliffe stressed that the members of their organizations abide fully by the law.

The UK's main trade body for employment agencies, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, declined to comment despite several requests from BIRN.

Given the ways in which working through employment agencies can eat into their earnings, many A2 workers decide to opt out of the system.

The day labourers outside the Wickes superstore in Seven Sisters include some who have an NI number but choose not to use it.

A Romanian man, who refused to give his name, says he has been in the UK for six years and regularly pays his taxes and contributions to the state.

But he supplements his official income by working cash-in-hand. "
People hire me to paint their house. If they ask for an invoice, I can issue one. Otherwise, I don't."


"
I'm done working with the agencies,"
he adds. "
They take too much of your money."


Most of the men outside Wickes said they expected to earn around £50 (€60) a day. By comparison, a self-employed Romanian recruited legally through an employment agency for Marshalling traffic at a building site, can expect to earn £80 (€100) per day. In other words, he will be paid only £30 (€40) more than the day laborers, out of which he must fund further tax and NI contributions.

Recruitment agencies say they pay the same wage, regardless of nationality. However, unions say that British and Polish workers can expect to be paid £9-10 per hour for jobs that will be offered to A2 workers for £5-6 per hour.

As they do not face any working restrictions, Polish and British workers are in a better position to negotiate their rates or simply take better jobs in other sectors. Romanians and Bulgarians are more likely to go with what they are offered, as they have fewer options on the job market.

"
Good for business"


According to its critics, the current policy on A2 workers has created a system that deprives the state of tax revenues, undercuts British labour and leaves foreigners open to exploitation.

Labour MP Jim Sheridan has argued for tighter regulation of the employment agencies in the construction sector, along the lines of the licensing of agricultural gangmasters.

Others call for reducing self-employment in the sector by making construction firms hire more workers directly. However, this would also shift the burden for NI contributions – nearly 14 per cent of the wage bill – on to the employers.

UCATT convenor Dave Allen admits this is unlikely to happen, as it would leave the big firms with smaller budgets. "
The government knows that if everybody was directly employed, the economy might suffer,"
he says.

Bridget Anderson, deputy director and senior research fellow at Oxford University's migration think-tank COMPAS, says the government should, at the very least, enforce the minimum wage regulations on all workers, British and foreign, self-employed or not.

She says the rhetoric about protecting British jobs was misleading: the curbs had undermined the established workforce while benefitting businesses by giving them a more pliant workforce.

"
The more you focus on immigration control, the more you introduce transitional arrangements – the more you create a labour force that is actually more desirable for employers,"
she said.

EU members cannot prevent the citizens of other member states from travelling to their countries for work. They can only impose "
transitional controls"
of the kind currently in place in the UK against Romanians and Bulgarians.

The UK is just one of several EU states that have imposed restrictions on A2 workers. Similar restrictions exist in Austria, Germany, Belgium, France and the Netherlands.

By law, the curbs must be lifted by January 2014. However, a statement issued by the UK Border Agency last year confirmed it would apply similar "
transitional restrictions"
on all new EU member states to ensure that "
migration benefits the UK and does not adversely impact our labour market''.

The UK's Border Agency, the immigration minister, and the Department for Work and Pensions all declined to be interviewed for this article.
Back to top Go down
Thomas
Junior user
Junior user
Thomas

Posts : 49
Join date : 2009-09-25

UK May put controls on EU migrants Empty
PostSubject: Re: UK May put controls on EU migrants   UK May put controls on EU migrants Icon_minitimeWed Nov 11, 2015 12:56 pm

May is starting to implement her poisonous immigration speech

A few weeks ago, we saw two very different faces of British Conservatism at the Tory party conference. Theresa May went on stage and spat poison about asylum seekers and immigrants. It was brutal, ugly stuff, which seemed to go too far even for many right-wing newspapers. A day later, David Cameron came on stage and was all sweetness and light. He name dropped more liberal Cabinet ministers, pointedly ignored May and set out a commendable vision of an open, compassionate, multiracial Britain.

Speeches are not important in themselves. They only work as a signpost for future policy. So it's worth looking at which of these two visions seems to be winning. And there are hints in the small print of recent changes to immigration rules that it's May who is implementing her vision. As the immigration lawyer and analyst Colin Yeo has spotted, the rules imply that May is carrying out her threat to limit the amount of time refugees can stay in the UK. (Yeo will be writing on this shortly and it's best to visit his blog if you want a much more knowledgeable and detailed legal appraisal of the situation than I am able to offer here.)

During her speech, May said:

"We'll introduce strengthened 'safe return reviews' – so when a refugee's temporary stay of protection in the UK comes to an end, or if there is a clear improvement in the conditions of their own country, we will review their need for protection. If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer settlement here in Britain."

This would be a very substantial and far-reaching change. As things stand, being granted refugee status in Britain means you're effectively given a home for life. Those who have their asylum claim accepted are granted a five year period of leave to remain, after which they typically qualify for settlement. A year later, they can apply for citizenship. There is a mechanism for a ministerial review of refugee cases but it has never been used.

The new rules appear to be edging away from this system. They go to considerable effort to "clarify the circumstances in which a grant of asylum and any associated leave may be revoked". They single out a European Council directive from 2004 which states that someone can have their refugee status taken away if "the circumstances in connection with which he or she has been recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist".

There is then some housekeeping about how this might be done. The rules state that you'd need to make sure investigations don't put the refugee's family in danger if they still live in the region, for instance. They're the kinds of practical details you'd consider if you were planning on implementing a system.

It's unclear what kind of a system they're considering. Would the Home Office just be looking at general country guidance and returning people in response? Or would they be reviewing each refugee's case after four years? The latter option seems more likely, given the concern around how to go about an investigation, but it would be an extraordinary work load to take on and would open up the Home Office to endless litigation.

There have been signs this was the direction of travel for some time. The government seems to be constantly on the look out for ways to return people fleeing war and persecution and in fact has operated a de-facto child return system for years. Most kids who come to the UK and claim asylum are rejected and instead granted given leave to remain as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child. At 18, that status ends and they have to regulate their stay - but many are rejected.

Earlier this year, about 600 young Afghans were returned after having been brought up here since the start of the war. All they know is Britain. Their home, their schooling, their friends, their boyfriends and girlfriends – all these things are here in the UK. But when they turned 18 we sent them to a foreign warzone, with little to no UK government assistance on the other side.

It gives some indication of how the Home Office is likely to proceed. The fact they return people to Afghanistan, whose own refugee minister says is not safe, or Somalia, which is an ungovernable hellhole, suggests their appraisals of what is and is not safe leaves much to be desired.

The rules then state quite clearly the general principle behind what is likely to happen:

"We need to be clear that temporary protection does not automatically lead to permanent settlement in the UK."

This is the heart of the matter. Refugee status will no longer be about granting people British residency and encouraging them to start again in a safe country. It is now being reformulated as a temporary protection which ends as soon as circumstances change.

That's perfectly acceptable under the Refugee Convention. And as the rules are clear to point out, it's acceptable under European law. But what does it really entail? It needlessly puts an ominous threat over the day-to-day lives of those who have been through the most appalling treatment as they try to start again in Britain. They know how incompetent, uncaring and bureaucratically insane the immigration system is. The fear that they could be sent back to their home country at any moment on the signing off of an official's pen will haunt them.

And what does it really achieve? Around 25,000 people claimed asylum in the UK last year and just under half of them were accepted. It's a drop in the immigration ocean. They will typically be working members of their community, earning money and paying tax to the Treasury. The real financial loss comes from the complex task of investigating them, then fighting off the litigation which will follow a decision to revoke their status, and then having to detain and deport them if they do not agree to go home willingly.

There's also something socially revealing about the idea. In 1999 Labour made refugee settlement automatic (only to reverse the decision a few years later). When it did so, it said it was trying to make sure refugees integrated into the community. And that's what offering permanent protection does – it says to people that they should put down roots, become active members of their community, find work, build a life. But turning it into a constantly evaluated protection window says something altogether different. It says: This is a favour. Don't get too comfortable. At any moment we could once again cart you back to your home country.

To be clear - we don't know what policy will follow from these legal clarifications and vague statements of principle. But it's obvious that it corresponds to the promise May made in her conference speech. Away from all the lights and media coverage of the conference floor, it's May's harsh, mean streak of Conservatism which is slowly creeping its way into the statute book. Cameron's "compassionate" and "multiracial" vision is nowhere to be seen.


Theresa May is powerless she simply can't control immigration whilst in the EU La
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




UK May put controls on EU migrants Empty
PostSubject: Re: UK May put controls on EU migrants   UK May put controls on EU migrants Icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 

UK May put controls on EU migrants

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

 Similar topics

-
» Tighter controls on Bulgarian roads
» How Bulgaria keeps migrants out
» EC to Keep Justice, Home Affairs Controls on Bulgaria
» Gordon Brown apologises to child migrants sent abroad
» UK's Bulgarian Migrants Quadruple in 6 Years

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Media ?-