Race and Immigration - Race Conflict and Change Week 3
•Download as KEY, PDF•
0 likes•377 views
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Race and Immigration - Race Conflict and Change Week 3
Similar to Race and Immigration - Race Conflict and Change Week 3 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Race and Immigration - Race Conflict and Change Week 3
- 1. Race: Conflict & Change Week 3: Race & Immigration
- 2. 18 October 2008: “Stop… Minister says immigration must be curbed”
- 3. From race as a concept to race in Britain
- 4. From race as a concept to race in Britain
- 5. From race as a concept to race in Britain
- 6. From race as a concept to race in Britain • Looking back: Race, postcoloniality & immigration.
- 7. From race as a concept to race in Britain • Looking back: Race, postcoloniality & immigration. • Looking forward to citizenship & identity (week 4)
- 8. From race as a concept to race in Britain • Looking back: Race, postcoloniality & immigration. • Looking forward to citizenship & identity (week 4)
- 9. From race as a concept to race in Britain • Looking back: Race, postcoloniality & immigration. • Looking forward to citizenship & identity (week 4)
- 10. Overview… • UK immigration policy over the years. • Popular reaction to immigration. • The political response. • The current “crisis”.
- 11. The early days
- 12. The early days • Contrary to popular myth, Britain has never been culturally homogeneous.
- 13. The early days • Contrary to popular myth, Britain has never been culturally homogeneous. • Migration traceable to the Roman Era.
- 14. The early days • Contrary to popular myth, Britain has never been culturally homogeneous. Jewish family • Migration traceable to insignia the Roman Era. • Jews present in the UK since Norman Conquest (1066).
- 15. The early days • Contrary to popular myth, Britain has never been culturally homogeneous. Jewish family • Migration traceable to insignia the Roman Era. • Jews present in the UK since Norman Conquest (1066). • Indian presence since East India Company estd. (1600).
- 16. The early days • Contrary to popular myth, Britain has never been culturally homogeneous. Jewish family • Migration traceable to insignia the Roman Era. • Jews present in the UK since Norman Conquest (1066). • Indian presence since East India Company estd. (1600). • The slave trade first brought Africans to the UK in 1555. Penny Lane Liverpool name of slave owner
- 17. End of Empire After WWII British colonial ‘subjects’ were recruited to work to rebuild Britain
- 18. End of Empire After WWII British colonial ‘subjects’ were recruited to work to rebuild Britain
- 19. Immigrant experiences Despite a belief in the “motherland”, Commonwealth “immigrants” faced racism & exclusion, alienation & The Lonely Londoners by Sam Selvon discrimination.
- 21. The beginnings of legislation • 1905 Aliens Act: first European country to introduce immigration controls.
- 22. The beginnings of legislation • 1905 Aliens Act: first European country to introduce immigration controls. • 1948: Institutes the “Commonwealth Citizen”
- 23. The beginnings of legislation • 1905 Aliens Act: first European country to introduce immigration controls. • 1948: Institutes the “Commonwealth Citizen” • 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act.
- 24. The beginnings of legislation • 1905 Aliens Act: first European country to introduce immigration controls. • 1948: Institutes the “Commonwealth Citizen” • 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act. • Racial conception of nationality - divide between ‘old and ‘new’ commonwealth.
- 26. Insiders & Outsiders • 1971 Act - ‘Patriality’
- 27. Insiders & Outsiders • 1971 Act - ‘Patriality’ • Britishness = whiteness.
- 29. Immigrants as “asylum seekers” • 1980s: Sharp rise in asylum seekers.
- 30. Immigrants as “asylum seekers” • 1980s: Sharp rise in asylum seekers. • 1990s: Backlash against “bogus asylum seekers”
- 32. Immigration Policy since 1999 3-sided strategy:
- 33. Immigration Policy since 1999 3-sided strategy:
- 34. Immigration Policy since 1999 3-sided strategy: • An end to asylum
- 35. Immigration Policy since 1999 3-sided strategy: • An end to asylum • Managed migration • Integration
- 37. Detention, destitution & deportation • Rolling-back of the Geneva Convention.
- 38. Detention, destitution & deportation • Rolling-back of the Geneva Convention. • Detention Centres.
- 39. Detention, destitution & deportation • Rolling-back of the Geneva Convention. • Detention Centres. • Asylum seekers left destitute (Section 55).
- 40. Detention, destitution & deportation • Rolling-back of the Geneva Convention. • Detention Centres. • Asylum seekers left destitute (Section 55). • Deportation despite risks to human rights.
- 41. Asylum Statistics 1986-2010
- 43. Managing migration • Overhauling migration policy
- 44. Managing migration • Overhauling migration policy • Changing demographics demand labour.
- 45. Managing migration • Overhauling migration policy • Changing demographics demand labour. • Growing “haphazard” labour migration.
- 46. Managing migration • Overhauling migration policy • Changing demographics demand labour. • Growing “haphazard” labour migration. • Maximising economic gains while limiting social & political rights.
- 47. The Points System Tier 1: Highly skilled; entrepreneurs; investors. Tier 2: skilled workers; pro sportspeople; clergy. Tier 3: Low skilled to fill temporary labour market shortages. Tier 4: International students. Tier 5: Youth mobility; temporary workers (e.g. working holiday).
- 48. Coalition Policy? • Cap on immigration to replace points • 11% decrease in immigration • Target of 40,000 p.a. • Is the economic argument sufficient?
- 49. Race: Conflict & Change Seminar Week 3 Panorama Is Freedom of Movement a Good Thing?
- 50. Debate • The argument from economics • The argument from human rights • The argument from globalization
- 51. Debate • The argument from economics • The argument from human rights • The argument from globalization
Editor's Notes
- How many people in the UK are of non-British backgrounds?\n\nAnswer: The proportion of people in the country who were not born in the UK today is 7.5% (most of whom are born in Ireland, India or the USA as well as other EU countries). \n
- October 2008:\nAs financial crisis hits Britain, we can see how migrants are often the first to be put under the spotlight. \nThe tendency to link immigration to economic threat has always been a major feature of the racialised politics of immigration.\n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- Jews:\nBetween 1290 and 1656 there was no openly Jewish community in England, although the Jewish religion continued to be practised by some individuals in secret. At the end of the 15th century Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, and from 1540 a few refugees from the Inquisition settled in Bristol and London. In 1609, King James I ordered a group of Portuguese merchants in London to leave the country when he learnt that they were secretly practising Judaism.\n\nSlavery:\nThe first Englishman recorded to have taken slaves from Africa was John Lok, a London trader who, in 1555, brought to England five slaves from Guinea. A second London trader taking slaves at that time was William Towerson whose fleet sailed into Plymouth following his 1556 voyage to Africa and from Plymouth on his 1557 voyage.\n
- Jews:\nBetween 1290 and 1656 there was no openly Jewish community in England, although the Jewish religion continued to be practised by some individuals in secret. At the end of the 15th century Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, and from 1540 a few refugees from the Inquisition settled in Bristol and London. In 1609, King James I ordered a group of Portuguese merchants in London to leave the country when he learnt that they were secretly practising Judaism.\n\nSlavery:\nThe first Englishman recorded to have taken slaves from Africa was John Lok, a London trader who, in 1555, brought to England five slaves from Guinea. A second London trader taking slaves at that time was William Towerson whose fleet sailed into Plymouth following his 1556 voyage to Africa and from Plymouth on his 1557 voyage.\n
- Jews:\nBetween 1290 and 1656 there was no openly Jewish community in England, although the Jewish religion continued to be practised by some individuals in secret. At the end of the 15th century Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, and from 1540 a few refugees from the Inquisition settled in Bristol and London. In 1609, King James I ordered a group of Portuguese merchants in London to leave the country when he learnt that they were secretly practising Judaism.\n\nSlavery:\nThe first Englishman recorded to have taken slaves from Africa was John Lok, a London trader who, in 1555, brought to England five slaves from Guinea. A second London trader taking slaves at that time was William Towerson whose fleet sailed into Plymouth following his 1556 voyage to Africa and from Plymouth on his 1557 voyage.\n
- Jews:\nBetween 1290 and 1656 there was no openly Jewish community in England, although the Jewish religion continued to be practised by some individuals in secret. At the end of the 15th century Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, and from 1540 a few refugees from the Inquisition settled in Bristol and London. In 1609, King James I ordered a group of Portuguese merchants in London to leave the country when he learnt that they were secretly practising Judaism.\n\nSlavery:\nThe first Englishman recorded to have taken slaves from Africa was John Lok, a London trader who, in 1555, brought to England five slaves from Guinea. A second London trader taking slaves at that time was William Towerson whose fleet sailed into Plymouth following his 1556 voyage to Africa and from Plymouth on his 1557 voyage.\n
- Jews:\nBetween 1290 and 1656 there was no openly Jewish community in England, although the Jewish religion continued to be practised by some individuals in secret. At the end of the 15th century Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, and from 1540 a few refugees from the Inquisition settled in Bristol and London. In 1609, King James I ordered a group of Portuguese merchants in London to leave the country when he learnt that they were secretly practising Judaism.\n\nSlavery:\nThe first Englishman recorded to have taken slaves from Africa was John Lok, a London trader who, in 1555, brought to England five slaves from Guinea. A second London trader taking slaves at that time was William Towerson whose fleet sailed into Plymouth following his 1556 voyage to Africa and from Plymouth on his 1557 voyage.\n
- Jews:\nBetween 1290 and 1656 there was no openly Jewish community in England, although the Jewish religion continued to be practised by some individuals in secret. At the end of the 15th century Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, and from 1540 a few refugees from the Inquisition settled in Bristol and London. In 1609, King James I ordered a group of Portuguese merchants in London to leave the country when he learnt that they were secretly practising Judaism.\n\nSlavery:\nThe first Englishman recorded to have taken slaves from Africa was John Lok, a London trader who, in 1555, brought to England five slaves from Guinea. A second London trader taking slaves at that time was William Towerson whose fleet sailed into Plymouth following his 1556 voyage to Africa and from Plymouth on his 1557 voyage.\n
- Jews:\nBetween 1290 and 1656 there was no openly Jewish community in England, although the Jewish religion continued to be practised by some individuals in secret. At the end of the 15th century Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, and from 1540 a few refugees from the Inquisition settled in Bristol and London. In 1609, King James I ordered a group of Portuguese merchants in London to leave the country when he learnt that they were secretly practising Judaism.\n\nSlavery:\nThe first Englishman recorded to have taken slaves from Africa was John Lok, a London trader who, in 1555, brought to England five slaves from Guinea. A second London trader taking slaves at that time was William Towerson whose fleet sailed into Plymouth following his 1556 voyage to Africa and from Plymouth on his 1557 voyage.\n
- Jews:\nBetween 1290 and 1656 there was no openly Jewish community in England, although the Jewish religion continued to be practised by some individuals in secret. At the end of the 15th century Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, and from 1540 a few refugees from the Inquisition settled in Bristol and London. In 1609, King James I ordered a group of Portuguese merchants in London to leave the country when he learnt that they were secretly practising Judaism.\n\nSlavery:\nThe first Englishman recorded to have taken slaves from Africa was John Lok, a London trader who, in 1555, brought to England five slaves from Guinea. A second London trader taking slaves at that time was William Towerson whose fleet sailed into Plymouth following his 1556 voyage to Africa and from Plymouth on his 1557 voyage.\n
- Jews:\nBetween 1290 and 1656 there was no openly Jewish community in England, although the Jewish religion continued to be practised by some individuals in secret. At the end of the 15th century Jews were expelled from Spain and Portugal, and from 1540 a few refugees from the Inquisition settled in Bristol and London. In 1609, King James I ordered a group of Portuguese merchants in London to leave the country when he learnt that they were secretly practising Judaism.\n\nSlavery:\nThe first Englishman recorded to have taken slaves from Africa was John Lok, a London trader who, in 1555, brought to England five slaves from Guinea. A second London trader taking slaves at that time was William Towerson whose fleet sailed into Plymouth following his 1556 voyage to Africa and from Plymouth on his 1557 voyage.\n
- Commonwealth ensured that Arican-Caribbeans and those from Indian South Continent and other places colonised by the British were British subjects. \n\nNot before a change to the law in 1962 was there a question of Commonwealth members being denied entry into Britain or access to British citizenship.\n
- Due to many ‘immigrants’’ (immigrants is technically the wrong term) status as British subjects, many expected welcome in the motherland.\n\nBut they often faced racism and exclusion and problems in employment and housing.\n
- Britain is the first country to bring in immigration restrictions (mainly against Jews from eastern Europe).\n\n2. The 1948 Act created a new status - Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). This was applicable to all British subjects who had either been born or could trace their ancestry back to the UK or its remaining colonies.\n\nCommonwealth subjects were supposed to acquire citizenship of the countries where they lived. Until they did so they would become ‘British subjects without citizenship’.\nThis was the case for many Indians and Pakistani immigrants who did not take citizenship of these countries - they were considered British subjects, but not citizens.\n\n3. 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act can be seen as the start of modern legislation (under Conservative gov.).\nIt is seen as a reaction to Notting Hill riots (when white people rioted against black people in the neighbourhood) and painted as a solution to racism among ordinary citizens. \n\nIt rescinded the 1948 Act which gave all British subjects the right to reside in the UK. Now, Commonwealth citizens had to apply to work permits. However, in practice this was only ever applied to non-white people.\n\nAccording to Arun Kundnani (2007), the government was always uncomfortable with Black and Asian immigration and elements within it were opposed to a multiracial conception of nationality.\n\nOnce the need for cheap labour from the Commonwealth was over it became possible to restrict the entry of those who had previously been seen as legitimate (as members of the Commonwealth).\n\n3. The 1962 Act divided between those from the ‘old commonwealth’ (Australia, Canada etc.) and the ‘new commonwealth’ (India, Pakistan, the Caribbean etc.). This was essentially a divide drawn along colour lines.\n
- Britain is the first country to bring in immigration restrictions (mainly against Jews from eastern Europe).\n\n2. The 1948 Act created a new status - Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). This was applicable to all British subjects who had either been born or could trace their ancestry back to the UK or its remaining colonies.\n\nCommonwealth subjects were supposed to acquire citizenship of the countries where they lived. Until they did so they would become ‘British subjects without citizenship’.\nThis was the case for many Indians and Pakistani immigrants who did not take citizenship of these countries - they were considered British subjects, but not citizens.\n\n3. 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act can be seen as the start of modern legislation (under Conservative gov.).\nIt is seen as a reaction to Notting Hill riots (when white people rioted against black people in the neighbourhood) and painted as a solution to racism among ordinary citizens. \n\nIt rescinded the 1948 Act which gave all British subjects the right to reside in the UK. Now, Commonwealth citizens had to apply to work permits. However, in practice this was only ever applied to non-white people.\n\nAccording to Arun Kundnani (2007), the government was always uncomfortable with Black and Asian immigration and elements within it were opposed to a multiracial conception of nationality.\n\nOnce the need for cheap labour from the Commonwealth was over it became possible to restrict the entry of those who had previously been seen as legitimate (as members of the Commonwealth).\n\n3. The 1962 Act divided between those from the ‘old commonwealth’ (Australia, Canada etc.) and the ‘new commonwealth’ (India, Pakistan, the Caribbean etc.). This was essentially a divide drawn along colour lines.\n
- Britain is the first country to bring in immigration restrictions (mainly against Jews from eastern Europe).\n\n2. The 1948 Act created a new status - Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). This was applicable to all British subjects who had either been born or could trace their ancestry back to the UK or its remaining colonies.\n\nCommonwealth subjects were supposed to acquire citizenship of the countries where they lived. Until they did so they would become ‘British subjects without citizenship’.\nThis was the case for many Indians and Pakistani immigrants who did not take citizenship of these countries - they were considered British subjects, but not citizens.\n\n3. 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act can be seen as the start of modern legislation (under Conservative gov.).\nIt is seen as a reaction to Notting Hill riots (when white people rioted against black people in the neighbourhood) and painted as a solution to racism among ordinary citizens. \n\nIt rescinded the 1948 Act which gave all British subjects the right to reside in the UK. Now, Commonwealth citizens had to apply to work permits. However, in practice this was only ever applied to non-white people.\n\nAccording to Arun Kundnani (2007), the government was always uncomfortable with Black and Asian immigration and elements within it were opposed to a multiracial conception of nationality.\n\nOnce the need for cheap labour from the Commonwealth was over it became possible to restrict the entry of those who had previously been seen as legitimate (as members of the Commonwealth).\n\n3. The 1962 Act divided between those from the ‘old commonwealth’ (Australia, Canada etc.) and the ‘new commonwealth’ (India, Pakistan, the Caribbean etc.). This was essentially a divide drawn along colour lines.\n
- Britain is the first country to bring in immigration restrictions (mainly against Jews from eastern Europe).\n\n2. The 1948 Act created a new status - Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). This was applicable to all British subjects who had either been born or could trace their ancestry back to the UK or its remaining colonies.\n\nCommonwealth subjects were supposed to acquire citizenship of the countries where they lived. Until they did so they would become ‘British subjects without citizenship’.\nThis was the case for many Indians and Pakistani immigrants who did not take citizenship of these countries - they were considered British subjects, but not citizens.\n\n3. 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act can be seen as the start of modern legislation (under Conservative gov.).\nIt is seen as a reaction to Notting Hill riots (when white people rioted against black people in the neighbourhood) and painted as a solution to racism among ordinary citizens. \n\nIt rescinded the 1948 Act which gave all British subjects the right to reside in the UK. Now, Commonwealth citizens had to apply to work permits. However, in practice this was only ever applied to non-white people.\n\nAccording to Arun Kundnani (2007), the government was always uncomfortable with Black and Asian immigration and elements within it were opposed to a multiracial conception of nationality.\n\nOnce the need for cheap labour from the Commonwealth was over it became possible to restrict the entry of those who had previously been seen as legitimate (as members of the Commonwealth).\n\n3. The 1962 Act divided between those from the ‘old commonwealth’ (Australia, Canada etc.) and the ‘new commonwealth’ (India, Pakistan, the Caribbean etc.). This was essentially a divide drawn along colour lines.\n
- The 1971 Act made the division between ‘old’ and ‘new’ commonwealth less clumsy by introducing the concept of patriality. \n\nThis introduced a ‘bloodline’ dimension into citizenship by dividing between ‘patrials’ and ‘non-patrials’.\n\n‘Patrials’ - those who could trace their British ancestry back in the 2 preceding generations - could settle in the UK. \nThey were not subjected to immigration controls.\n\nSo-called ‘Non-patrials’ were controlled and only the families of people already in the country would be allowed to join them.\n\nTherefore, only ‘blood links’ determined the right of entry to the UK. Most non-white people could not meet this criterion.\n\nThe 1981 act abolished the term ‘patriality’ replacing it with ‘those with a close connection to the UK. However, in practice, there was no difference between the two other than semantics.\n\n2. The idea of the multiracial empire was over with Britain now being defined as white. Essentially only white people would now be allowed to become British.\n
- The 1971 Act made the division between ‘old’ and ‘new’ commonwealth less clumsy by introducing the concept of patriality. \n\nThis introduced a ‘bloodline’ dimension into citizenship by dividing between ‘patrials’ and ‘non-patrials’.\n\n‘Patrials’ - those who could trace their British ancestry back in the 2 preceding generations - could settle in the UK. \nThey were not subjected to immigration controls.\n\nSo-called ‘Non-patrials’ were controlled and only the families of people already in the country would be allowed to join them.\n\nTherefore, only ‘blood links’ determined the right of entry to the UK. Most non-white people could not meet this criterion.\n\nThe 1981 act abolished the term ‘patriality’ replacing it with ‘those with a close connection to the UK. However, in practice, there was no difference between the two other than semantics.\n\n2. The idea of the multiracial empire was over with Britain now being defined as white. Essentially only white people would now be allowed to become British.\n
- 1. Geneva Convention - written in the context of WW23 aftermath.\n\nGeared towards a European public and never meant to cope with non-European (African, Asian etc.) immigration.\n\nBut, sharp rise in ethnic conflict - often fuelled by the West - in the Middle East (Iraq-Iran war, Palestinians…) or in Latin America (Chilean and Argentinian dictatorships…) or famine and conflict in various African countries - led to increase in people seeking refuge in the West.\n\n2. 1990s: Beginning of sharp backlash against asylum seekers and migrants.\n\nCategory of “bogus asylum seeker” created although in fact it was already becoming harder and harder for those felling human rights abuses to gain refugee status.\n\nFuelled by the tabloid press using mainly invented figures. Britain is portrayed as being a “soft touch” where immigrants can benefit from the welfare state.\n\nThe tabloids fuel growth in support for the re-vamped BNP (as the film shows). BNP first had a councilor elected in 1994 and has grown to have 46 seats by 2006.\n
- 1. Geneva Convention - written in the context of WW23 aftermath.\n\nGeared towards a European public and never meant to cope with non-European (African, Asian etc.) immigration.\n\nBut, sharp rise in ethnic conflict - often fuelled by the West - in the Middle East (Iraq-Iran war, Palestinians…) or in Latin America (Chilean and Argentinian dictatorships…) or famine and conflict in various African countries - led to increase in people seeking refuge in the West.\n\n2. 1990s: Beginning of sharp backlash against asylum seekers and migrants.\n\nCategory of “bogus asylum seeker” created although in fact it was already becoming harder and harder for those felling human rights abuses to gain refugee status.\n\nFuelled by the tabloid press using mainly invented figures. Britain is portrayed as being a “soft touch” where immigrants can benefit from the welfare state.\n\nThe tabloids fuel growth in support for the re-vamped BNP (as the film shows). BNP first had a councilor elected in 1994 and has grown to have 46 seats by 2006.\n
- New Labour Policy since the 1999 Immigration & Asylum Act is in complete opposition to Roy Jenkins’s “Equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance”\n\nIt divides between asylum seekers and economic migrants which, in turn, are divided into multiple tiers.\n\nIt is linked to the notion of integration which we will look at in further detail in Weeks 4 and 5.\n
- New Labour Policy since the 1999 Immigration & Asylum Act is in complete opposition to Roy Jenkins’s “Equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance”\n\nIt divides between asylum seekers and economic migrants which, in turn, are divided into multiple tiers.\n\nIt is linked to the notion of integration which we will look at in further detail in Weeks 4 and 5.\n
- New Labour Policy since the 1999 Immigration & Asylum Act is in complete opposition to Roy Jenkins’s “Equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance”\n\nIt divides between asylum seekers and economic migrants which, in turn, are divided into multiple tiers.\n\nIt is linked to the notion of integration which we will look at in further detail in Weeks 4 and 5.\n
- New Labour Policy since the 1999 Immigration & Asylum Act is in complete opposition to Roy Jenkins’s “Equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance”\n\nIt divides between asylum seekers and economic migrants which, in turn, are divided into multiple tiers.\n\nIt is linked to the notion of integration which we will look at in further detail in Weeks 4 and 5.\n
- New Labour Policy since the 1999 Immigration & Asylum Act is in complete opposition to Roy Jenkins’s “Equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance”\n\nIt divides between asylum seekers and economic migrants which, in turn, are divided into multiple tiers.\n\nIt is linked to the notion of integration which we will look at in further detail in Weeks 4 and 5.\n
- 1. Geneva Convention:\nConsolidated European approach in the area of “Justice, Freedom and Security” has led to almost complete roll-back of the Geneva Convention.\n\nIn contrast to idea of Britain as a “soft touch”, since 1999 each successive Immigration Act (now called Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act - last one in 2006) has made it harder and harder for people to seek asylum.\n\n2. Detention Centres:\nGovernment has set up asylum detention centres across the country where so-called “failed asylum seekers” are held before being deported or while their case is being fought. \n\nThese centres are run by private companies such as G4 and have been witness to countless incidents of brutality against detainees, as well as detainees driven to suicide.\n\nAt Yarls’ Wood detention centre alone, up to 2,000 children per year are held for up to 15 days.\n\n3. Destitution: \n2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act led to thousands of asylum seekers being thrown into homelessness.\n\nUnder the Section 55 rule, asylum seekers have to make their claim “as soon as is reasonably practicable” or they receive no support from the government.\n\nBecause asylum seekers are not allowed to work while making their claim, they are often left destitute (often with small children).\n
- 1. Geneva Convention:\nConsolidated European approach in the area of “Justice, Freedom and Security” has led to almost complete roll-back of the Geneva Convention.\n\nIn contrast to idea of Britain as a “soft touch”, since 1999 each successive Immigration Act (now called Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act - last one in 2006) has made it harder and harder for people to seek asylum.\n\n2. Detention Centres:\nGovernment has set up asylum detention centres across the country where so-called “failed asylum seekers” are held before being deported or while their case is being fought. \n\nThese centres are run by private companies such as G4 and have been witness to countless incidents of brutality against detainees, as well as detainees driven to suicide.\n\nAt Yarls’ Wood detention centre alone, up to 2,000 children per year are held for up to 15 days.\n\n3. Destitution: \n2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act led to thousands of asylum seekers being thrown into homelessness.\n\nUnder the Section 55 rule, asylum seekers have to make their claim “as soon as is reasonably practicable” or they receive no support from the government.\n\nBecause asylum seekers are not allowed to work while making their claim, they are often left destitute (often with small children).\n
- 1. Geneva Convention:\nConsolidated European approach in the area of “Justice, Freedom and Security” has led to almost complete roll-back of the Geneva Convention.\n\nIn contrast to idea of Britain as a “soft touch”, since 1999 each successive Immigration Act (now called Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act - last one in 2006) has made it harder and harder for people to seek asylum.\n\n2. Detention Centres:\nGovernment has set up asylum detention centres across the country where so-called “failed asylum seekers” are held before being deported or while their case is being fought. \n\nThese centres are run by private companies such as G4 and have been witness to countless incidents of brutality against detainees, as well as detainees driven to suicide.\n\nAt Yarls’ Wood detention centre alone, up to 2,000 children per year are held for up to 15 days.\n\n3. Destitution: \n2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act led to thousands of asylum seekers being thrown into homelessness.\n\nUnder the Section 55 rule, asylum seekers have to make their claim “as soon as is reasonably practicable” or they receive no support from the government.\n\nBecause asylum seekers are not allowed to work while making their claim, they are often left destitute (often with small children).\n
- 1. Geneva Convention:\nConsolidated European approach in the area of “Justice, Freedom and Security” has led to almost complete roll-back of the Geneva Convention.\n\nIn contrast to idea of Britain as a “soft touch”, since 1999 each successive Immigration Act (now called Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act - last one in 2006) has made it harder and harder for people to seek asylum.\n\n2. Detention Centres:\nGovernment has set up asylum detention centres across the country where so-called “failed asylum seekers” are held before being deported or while their case is being fought. \n\nThese centres are run by private companies such as G4 and have been witness to countless incidents of brutality against detainees, as well as detainees driven to suicide.\n\nAt Yarls’ Wood detention centre alone, up to 2,000 children per year are held for up to 15 days.\n\n3. Destitution: \n2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act led to thousands of asylum seekers being thrown into homelessness.\n\nUnder the Section 55 rule, asylum seekers have to make their claim “as soon as is reasonably practicable” or they receive no support from the government.\n\nBecause asylum seekers are not allowed to work while making their claim, they are often left destitute (often with small children).\n
- The UK asylum statistics for 2010reveal the following:\n\n1. There were 17,790 applications for asylum in 2010, the lowest since 1989. Since 2005, asylum applications have been as low as they were in the early 1990s. At their peak, in 2002m the numbers reached 80,315.\n\nThe low numbers of applicants is mainly due to the increased crackdown on immigration with tougher border controls. \n\nIt also shows the effect of the changes brought about by the 2006 Immigration, Asylum and nationality Act.\n\nUnder the Act, the government is allowed to to remove refugees within 5 years if the situation in their country is deemed to have improved.\n\nThe most applicants were from Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan..\n\n9,850 applicants were removed (deported), 15% fewer than in 2009.\n\nApplications for support fell from 29,150 in 2009 to 22,650\n\nThis is due to the fact that people have to claim support within a very short deadline (introduced in 2002) and also because the support grant has been replaced in 2006 with an ‘integration loan’ (which has to be repaid.\n\nUnder the 2006 Act vouchers were reintroduced (despite being scrapped in 2000). These vouchers (of 35 pounds a week) are given to failed asylum seekers who are unable to travel home (e.g. Zimbabweans or Iraqis) in lieu of nappies, razors and other essentials.\n\nA report by the Refugee Council found that living on vouchers forces people to walk miles to the supermarkets that accept them. They also found that some people swap the vouchers for 25 pounds in cash. The people most affected are families with young children or babies.\n
- Since 2002, the government has been overhauling migration policy in a series of new laws, the latest being the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The concept of managed migration responds to employers’ demands in the context of a globalised and so-called ‘flexible’ economy.\n\nThe main rationale is that labour migration is necessary to fuel the economy. This should be encouraged while being carefully controlled, while so-called illegal immigration and asylum is curbed. \n\nHence this is a two-pronged strategy of stricter border controls under the new UK Border Agency, on the one hand, and openness to particular kinds of labour migration seen as beneficial to the UK economy.\n\nIt should also be seen in light of the accession of eastern European countries to the EU, with workers from Poland and other countries being allowed to work freely in the UK. Many people from these countries fill low-paid jobs without the risk of illegality. However, the flow of workers from eastern Europe has already reduced and will do so further in light of the economic downturn.\n\n2. Britain’s ageing population and transformed labour market (from manufacturing to a service-based economy) leaves a gap in demands for workers particularly in the service and traditional “low-skilled” industry (carers, cleaners, agricultural workers, manufacturing…).\n\nThe government seeks to target particular sectors by making public which areas there is a shortage of skilled workers. However, with the crisis in the economy, there has been less demand for foreign workers along with a governmental strategy to curb migration as much as possible.\n\n3. However, managed migration does not necessarily stop a more haphazard migration. Migrants began to come to Britain from the 1990s on from a variety of places not traditionally associated with the UK’s past colonial links.\n\nThis should be seen within the context of globalisation that sees the greater mobility of people across the globe in search of a better way of life. \n\nIt is also a direct response to the difficult economic situations in so-many developing countries. Therefore, the line between ‘forced’ and ‘voluntary’ migration is blurred - people do not always migrate because they face persecution (as in the case of refugees). Nevertheless, economic hardship may make migration the only choice for many. \n\n4. Managing migration is based on the realisation of the importance of this new labour migration for driving the economy while ensuring that the “social fabric” of the society is not altered by the large presence of migrants able to vote and with the same social rights as British citizens.\n\nThe managed migration approach is creating an underclass of migrant workers often working in unregulated conditions of extreme exploitation.\n\nThese people are often invisible to the majority of the population. They fuel the sex industry as well as the hotel and service industry. They are our carers and nurses. They do dangerous and risky work that the majority of British people would rightly refuse to do.\n
- Since 2002, the government has been overhauling migration policy in a series of new laws, the latest being the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The concept of managed migration responds to employers’ demands in the context of a globalised and so-called ‘flexible’ economy.\n\nThe main rationale is that labour migration is necessary to fuel the economy. This should be encouraged while being carefully controlled, while so-called illegal immigration and asylum is curbed. \n\nHence this is a two-pronged strategy of stricter border controls under the new UK Border Agency, on the one hand, and openness to particular kinds of labour migration seen as beneficial to the UK economy.\n\nIt should also be seen in light of the accession of eastern European countries to the EU, with workers from Poland and other countries being allowed to work freely in the UK. Many people from these countries fill low-paid jobs without the risk of illegality. However, the flow of workers from eastern Europe has already reduced and will do so further in light of the economic downturn.\n\n2. Britain’s ageing population and transformed labour market (from manufacturing to a service-based economy) leaves a gap in demands for workers particularly in the service and traditional “low-skilled” industry (carers, cleaners, agricultural workers, manufacturing…).\n\nThe government seeks to target particular sectors by making public which areas there is a shortage of skilled workers. However, with the crisis in the economy, there has been less demand for foreign workers along with a governmental strategy to curb migration as much as possible.\n\n3. However, managed migration does not necessarily stop a more haphazard migration. Migrants began to come to Britain from the 1990s on from a variety of places not traditionally associated with the UK’s past colonial links.\n\nThis should be seen within the context of globalisation that sees the greater mobility of people across the globe in search of a better way of life. \n\nIt is also a direct response to the difficult economic situations in so-many developing countries. Therefore, the line between ‘forced’ and ‘voluntary’ migration is blurred - people do not always migrate because they face persecution (as in the case of refugees). Nevertheless, economic hardship may make migration the only choice for many. \n\n4. Managing migration is based on the realisation of the importance of this new labour migration for driving the economy while ensuring that the “social fabric” of the society is not altered by the large presence of migrants able to vote and with the same social rights as British citizens.\n\nThe managed migration approach is creating an underclass of migrant workers often working in unregulated conditions of extreme exploitation.\n\nThese people are often invisible to the majority of the population. They fuel the sex industry as well as the hotel and service industry. They are our carers and nurses. They do dangerous and risky work that the majority of British people would rightly refuse to do.\n
- Since 2002, the government has been overhauling migration policy in a series of new laws, the latest being the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The concept of managed migration responds to employers’ demands in the context of a globalised and so-called ‘flexible’ economy.\n\nThe main rationale is that labour migration is necessary to fuel the economy. This should be encouraged while being carefully controlled, while so-called illegal immigration and asylum is curbed. \n\nHence this is a two-pronged strategy of stricter border controls under the new UK Border Agency, on the one hand, and openness to particular kinds of labour migration seen as beneficial to the UK economy.\n\nIt should also be seen in light of the accession of eastern European countries to the EU, with workers from Poland and other countries being allowed to work freely in the UK. Many people from these countries fill low-paid jobs without the risk of illegality. However, the flow of workers from eastern Europe has already reduced and will do so further in light of the economic downturn.\n\n2. Britain’s ageing population and transformed labour market (from manufacturing to a service-based economy) leaves a gap in demands for workers particularly in the service and traditional “low-skilled” industry (carers, cleaners, agricultural workers, manufacturing…).\n\nThe government seeks to target particular sectors by making public which areas there is a shortage of skilled workers. However, with the crisis in the economy, there has been less demand for foreign workers along with a governmental strategy to curb migration as much as possible.\n\n3. However, managed migration does not necessarily stop a more haphazard migration. Migrants began to come to Britain from the 1990s on from a variety of places not traditionally associated with the UK’s past colonial links.\n\nThis should be seen within the context of globalisation that sees the greater mobility of people across the globe in search of a better way of life. \n\nIt is also a direct response to the difficult economic situations in so-many developing countries. Therefore, the line between ‘forced’ and ‘voluntary’ migration is blurred - people do not always migrate because they face persecution (as in the case of refugees). Nevertheless, economic hardship may make migration the only choice for many. \n\n4. Managing migration is based on the realisation of the importance of this new labour migration for driving the economy while ensuring that the “social fabric” of the society is not altered by the large presence of migrants able to vote and with the same social rights as British citizens.\n\nThe managed migration approach is creating an underclass of migrant workers often working in unregulated conditions of extreme exploitation.\n\nThese people are often invisible to the majority of the population. They fuel the sex industry as well as the hotel and service industry. They are our carers and nurses. They do dangerous and risky work that the majority of British people would rightly refuse to do.\n
- Since 2002, the government has been overhauling migration policy in a series of new laws, the latest being the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The concept of managed migration responds to employers’ demands in the context of a globalised and so-called ‘flexible’ economy.\n\nThe main rationale is that labour migration is necessary to fuel the economy. This should be encouraged while being carefully controlled, while so-called illegal immigration and asylum is curbed. \n\nHence this is a two-pronged strategy of stricter border controls under the new UK Border Agency, on the one hand, and openness to particular kinds of labour migration seen as beneficial to the UK economy.\n\nIt should also be seen in light of the accession of eastern European countries to the EU, with workers from Poland and other countries being allowed to work freely in the UK. Many people from these countries fill low-paid jobs without the risk of illegality. However, the flow of workers from eastern Europe has already reduced and will do so further in light of the economic downturn.\n\n2. Britain’s ageing population and transformed labour market (from manufacturing to a service-based economy) leaves a gap in demands for workers particularly in the service and traditional “low-skilled” industry (carers, cleaners, agricultural workers, manufacturing…).\n\nThe government seeks to target particular sectors by making public which areas there is a shortage of skilled workers. However, with the crisis in the economy, there has been less demand for foreign workers along with a governmental strategy to curb migration as much as possible.\n\n3. However, managed migration does not necessarily stop a more haphazard migration. Migrants began to come to Britain from the 1990s on from a variety of places not traditionally associated with the UK’s past colonial links.\n\nThis should be seen within the context of globalisation that sees the greater mobility of people across the globe in search of a better way of life. \n\nIt is also a direct response to the difficult economic situations in so-many developing countries. Therefore, the line between ‘forced’ and ‘voluntary’ migration is blurred - people do not always migrate because they face persecution (as in the case of refugees). Nevertheless, economic hardship may make migration the only choice for many. \n\n4. Managing migration is based on the realisation of the importance of this new labour migration for driving the economy while ensuring that the “social fabric” of the society is not altered by the large presence of migrants able to vote and with the same social rights as British citizens.\n\nThe managed migration approach is creating an underclass of migrant workers often working in unregulated conditions of extreme exploitation.\n\nThese people are often invisible to the majority of the population. They fuel the sex industry as well as the hotel and service industry. They are our carers and nurses. They do dangerous and risky work that the majority of British people would rightly refuse to do.\n
- Since March 2008, a new points-based system has been introduced. \n\nThis creates tiers of migrants who are legally permitted to enter the UK for work or study purposes. \n\nThis system bears no relationship upon whether someone can gain access to citizenship.\n
- The Coalition government wants to replace the Points based system with a cap on immigration.\nHowever, it has been shown that net immigration has already decreased by 11% to 142,000 much less than during mid 2000s when it was consistently above 200,000. The economic downturn as well as tougher policies are responsible for the decrease.\nThe Conservatives wish for a cap to be placed on immigration at 40,000 per year. However, the Lib Dems’ Vince Cable who is the Business Secretary disagrees with the cap and says it is costing Britain jobs as it is becoming harder to recruit the right people. There are fears that bringing the numbers down to 40,000 could only come about by reducing the numbers of highly skilled workers, students and family members coming to join their families. In other words, although immigration policies are said to only target those who do not ‘deserve’ entry, they will end of targeting those who the country can benefit from.\nIn conclusion, it is necessary to ask whether the argument for immigration based on ecomomics is sufficient or morally correct? Many in the business community argue that immigration is necessary for the economy. However, just looking at immigration from this utilitarian point of view runs the risk of ignoring the human dimension of immigration and the commitments that Britain is signed up to under the Geneva Convention. It also ignores the fact that globalisation creates more mobility and poses fundamental questions about national territoriality. While, economists make arguments about the financial costs and benefits of immigration, others including campaigners for ‘no borders’ ask whether it makes sense to have such tight borders in an age of growing mobility and accompanying cosmopolitanism.\n
- \n
- \n