Migration Watch UK: News

The Prime Minister’s Speech on Immigration

Comment by Alp Mehmet, Vice Chairman, Migration Watch UK

10 October, 2011

This is the Prime Minister's second speech on immigration in six months showing he clearly means business. We wholeheartedly support this. It is refreshing that he recognises that the Points Based System is a 'box ticking exercise'.

The European Convention on Human Rights: Recent Developments

A recent report by Civitas, otherwise the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, under the title of “Strasbourg in the Dock: Prisoner voting, human rights and the case for democracy” has trenchantly analysed some of the current problems with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and in particular with the functioning of the Court of Human Rights (CHR) in Strasbourg. It carries much the same message as the other recent report on the subject, “Bringing Rights back home” by Michael Pinto-Duschinsky”, which was published in February. That report drew attention to the shortcomings of the CHR, the fact that each of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, including such tiddlers as San Marino and Liechtenstein, has the right to appoint one of the judges and many of those so appointed have little or no judicial experience or experience as practising lawyers. The same point is made by the Civitas report, which says that currently only 23 of the 47 judges have prior judicial experience.

To read the full document go to Briefing Paper No 8.54.

Immigration and Marriage - An Outline of the Legal Position

This paper is not intended as an authoritative statement of the law but rather as a summary of the position.

The requirements for entering the United Kingdom as a spouse are currently set out in paragraph 281 of the Immigration Rules (HC 395)….

To see the full briefing document go to briefing paper 8.9

Sham Marriages – The Latest

Sham marriages have been for long a scourge and a means by which people traffickers and other criminals earn illicit fortunes for arranging them. Recent changes in the law have made it necessary to issue a new briefing paper on the subject, superseding the three previous papers, 8.13, 8.38 and 8.49. At the same time a revised version of briefing paper 8.9 – 'Immigration and marriage – the legal position' is being issued.

Removal and the Rights of Children

In a recent case ZH (Tanzania) v, Secretary of State for the Home Department the Supreme Court considered the case of a Tanzanian woman who had been in the United Kingdom for 15 years, who had, in the court’s own words, “an appalling immigration history” and who was resisting an order for her removal to Tanzania because she had two children, now aged 12 and 9, born from a relationship with a British citizen, from whom she is now parted, but who still has contact with the children. The court had to give consideration to the best interests of the children, but had also to consider whether those interests might be outweighed by other considerations, in particular the need to maintain firm and fair immigration control. The court concluded that the mother as the principal carer of the children should be allowed to stay. More details of the case are to be found in legal Briefing Paper No 8.50.

Proposals to Charge Fees for Immigration and Asylum Appeals

The Ministry of Justice has recently published a consultation paper on proposals to start charging fees for certain categories of appeals against adverse decisions by the UK Border Agency on asylum and immigration applications. Such appeals are heard in the first instance by the First Tier Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber and by the Upper Tier Tribunal beyond that. Section 42(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, under which the Tribunals are established, empowers the Lord Chancellor to impose fees in respect of anything dealt with by the Tribunals. The consultation paper has been circulated to organisations such as the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association and other bodies concerned with the welfare of immigrants and asylum seekers or with assisting them in the conduct of their appeals. Responses to the consultation paper are invited and may be submitted up to 21 January 2011.

For the full document see Briefing Paper No 8.47

The Immigration Appeals System Revised - 2010 Version

This Briefing Paper 8.30 substantially amends and brings up to date the previous version dated March 2005 (now deleted), taking account of recent changes in the law

Introduction

1 The immigration appeals system has undergone major changes twice in recent years. Until April 2005 there was a two tier system, the first tier consisting of adjudicators sitting alone and the upper tier being the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 [Referred to hereafter as “the 2004 Act”] created the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, which was in essence a single tier tribunal and began operation on 4 April 2005. This Tribunal has itself now been abolished and superseded by further reforms which took effect from 15 February 2010. The hearing and disposal of asylum and immigration appeals has been taken over by the unified tribunal service created by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Please refer to Briefing Paper 8.35 for details of the new tribunal.

Migrationwatch Migrationwatch comment on GLA report on illegal immigration issued on 16 June, 2009.

'These are very expensive proposals which would only make a bad situation worse. On the report’s own figures they would cost £300m in bureaucracy and £3m a week in benefits (our figure is £10m a week. See also Briefing Paper 11.11 - The True Cost of an Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants). It would also cost £6bn to provide the extra social housing needed.

Worse still, it would encourage still further illegal immigration as other countries have found. Italy has granted five amnesties in the last twenty years and Spain six; on virtually every occasion there were more applications each time. The report has no answer to this. it just remarks that it would only happen if border controls were ineffective.

But that is exactly the position we still face. We issue two million visas a year and there will be no full checks on departure until 2014, obviously, those granted an amnesty would be replaced at the drop of a hat.

The public have the common sense to see this. Our opinion poll showed seventy per cent opposed to an amnesty.

The recent European elections must surely be a lesson to the political class that they can no longer ride roughshod over public opinion with absurd, expensive and self-defeating proposals such as these. It seems that Boris Johnson is trying to buy the immigrant vote with taxpayer's money. They will know how to respond to this.'

A Survey of European Asylum Policy and Legislation By Geoffrey Fitchew

Introduction

1. This paper describes and assesses the development of EU policy and legislation on asylum issues, since the Treaty of Amsterdam, adopted in 1997, first gave the EU institutions powers of legislation on this subject. The first part of the paper summarises the developments in the powers of the EU institutions to legislate on asylum and immigration matters. The second, third and fourth parts describe in detail the legislation on asylum adopted by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament between 2001 and 2005 following the programme adopted by the European Council of Heads of State and Government at their meeting at Tampere in Finland in October 1999. The fifth part describes the background to the European Commission’s plans for further legislation following the programme adopted by the European Council at its Hague meeting in 1990 and outlines three proposals put forward by the Commission to amend some of the earlier legislation in December 2008. The sixth part of the paper assesses some policy and legal problems which the UK government may have to deal with in responding to these new proposals. Finally, I give a brief overall assessment of how the EU’s legislation on asylum has worked so far and its impact on the UK.

See Briefing Paper No 4.11 for the full survey.

NHS treatment for failed asylum seekers

This issue came before the Court of Appeal in a judicial review case, Regina (A) v. Secretary of State for Health in an appeal by the Secretary of State against an adverse ruling in the High Court. A full report is on the Court of Appeal’s website and a summary was published in The Times Law Report on 2 April 2009.

The case was brought by a failed Palestinian asylum seeker who had been undergoing treatment for a serious condition and who, it was accepted, could not be returned to his country of origin. The Court considered at some length the relevant provisions of legislation governing the National Health Service and of immigration legislation. Section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State for Health to provide health services free of charge to the people of England. (Separate legislation covers Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland....

See full Briefing Paper 5.7