Immigration matters

After my post at the weekend about my MP’s apparent failure to distinguish between asylum and immigration, I thought that I would write a little about the important distinctions between these groups. Immigrants come to this country with the intention of setting up permanent residence and becoming British subjects (those who live in a republic might be citizens, but we Brits are subjects of Her Majesty the Queen). Their reasons can be many but are often financial or familial. Asylum seekers come to this country for a period (that might become permanent) to avoid persecution, torture or death in their home country. The right to seek asylum arises under international treaty and imposing quotas (numerical limits per year) on asylum is both illegal and deeply immoral (“Sorry, sir, but you can’t have asylum here – we’ve filled our quota for this year. Please go home and avoid being killed for a month or so, then try again. Have a nice day!”). There is also a crucial third group – migrant workers. This group comes to the country for a short period in order to earn money. For example, au pairs are migrant workers. Many of our politicians seem intent on blurring the differences between these groups for political ends but, if we are to have an intelligent debate on these matters, we must remember that they are quite different. Arguments that apply to one group will not apply to another.

For those who are interested, here are my humble thoughts on how the three groups should be treated.

Migrant workers
Allow anyone who wants to apply for a work permit to have one, provided that they can support themselves financially (except for groups barred for some other reason – convicted criminals, perhaps). Migrant workers would pay tax like anyone else, and receive government services and NHS care, but not state benefits (unemployment or housing benefit). There is little stopping migrant workers returning home or to another country to seek work. If a migrant worker was convicted of a crime, they might have their visa suspended or permanently revoked. If a migrant worker was found to be gaming the system (e.g. coming here for the NHS care without returning any taxes to the country), they should have their visa permanently revoked and possibly have to repay some of the costs of their stay.

Immigrants
Anyone should be able to apply for immigrant status. The applications should be assessed on individual merit, with no quota systems (which are intrinsically unjust). The criteria should include such things as the ability to support oneself financially and to contribute to the wellbeing of the country. There should be a requirement to know or learn to speak and read/write English. Perhaps there should even be a requirement to pass an exam in basic UK law (consumer rights, for example, and basic criminal codes). Once someone’s application has been granted, they would be entitled to the same rights as any other British subject, including unemployment benefit. During the first 5 years of an immigrant’s life in Britain, they would be on probationary status – criminal convictions could lead to a removal of immigrant status.

Asylum seekers
Asylum should be granted on an as-needed basis, with no quota system. People seeking asylum should declare their intention at port of entry, but failure to do so should not prevent consideration of their claim (many people arrive here ignorant of our system or have received bad advice), although it might be taken into consideration when assessing the claim. While the asylum claim is being considered, the seeker should have the same rights as a migrant worker (e.g. health care, right to work); if an asylum seeker is unable to work, they should, however (and unlike migrant workers), be able to claim financial support. If the asylum claim is rejected, the seeker should have the right of appeal, and should be able to continue to live as an asylum seeker (with the same rights as before) for the duration of that appeal; indeed, even if their claim is eventually rejected, they should have the same right to claim migrant worker status as anyone else, or to apply for immigrant status. If the asylum claim is granted, it should be for a set duration, with the option to extend. People granted asylum should be given access to help and advice in areas such as speaking and reading/writing English, and UK law, and would have the same rights as a probationary immigrant (i.e. including benefits, but subject to forfeiture if convicted of criminal behaviour). After 5 years, an asylum seeker should have the right to apply for immigrant status on the same basis as anyone else; their history in this country would be taken into account in this process, so their financial situation, legal history and language ability should be help their application. However, if they choose to remain under asylum, they should be free to do so (for example, awaiting the opportunity to return home when conditions allow).

(Also, see this old posting for statistics on asylum claims to the UK.)

pax et bonum

(Thanks to Mark Goodge for helping to sort some of this out.)

Article posted at 2:03pm on 25 April 2005
Category: Musing, Politics, General