In recent years, public attention has been focused on asylum seekers, but their numbers have fallen sharply. They are now less than 40,000 a year of whom only a quarter are given permission to stay in Britain, yet only one in five is actually removed. Meanwhile, other forms of immigration have risen very sharply. Net foreign immigration reached 340,000 in 2004. It is hard to see how we can achieve a successful integration of immigrants on this scale. The Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has warned that we are "sleepwalking towards segregation" but he does not appear to have made the connection with the massive levels of immigration that have occurred in recent years. To get a full picture of this complex problem, it is necessary to consider asylum seekers, family settlement, labour migration and illegal immigration together.
[...] At different times, immigration laws have made the distinction less or more important, especially in terms of the privileges granted to ethnic Germans. Inflows of immigrants with non-German ancestry began in a serious way in the second half of the 1950s. In response to a labor shortage prompted by economic recovery, Germany signed a series of bilateral recruitment agreements, first with Italy in 1955, then with Spain (1960), Greece (1960), Turkey (1961), Portugal (1964), and Yugoslavia (1968). The demand for foreign workers fell off in 1973, when Germany entered a period of economic recession, fueled in part by that year's "oil shock." The government declared a ban on the recruitment of foreign workers, and began to wrestle with how to deal with the still-increasing number of foreigners in the country. [...]
[...] In Britain, there is no requirement for personal identity cards, as there is in much of Europe. Consequently, there is no effective control of access by foreigners to the National Health Service and other benefits. Historically, the links with a world-wide Commonwealth and the prevalence of English as a second language throughout the world, place us in a different situation from other European countries, except Ireland. Co-operation so far has not been very encouraging B. The example of the Germany In the 19th century, Germany was a country of emigration. [...]
[...] “should ensure that detention of asylum seekers is resorted to only for reasons recognized as legitimate under international standards and only when other measures will not suffice.” With such grievous abuses and policies documented by groups like Human Rights Watch, openly opposed by humanitarian organizations, and condemned by the offices of national ombudsmen, it would seem that E.U. member states would take a greater interest in identifying and implementing the relevant common E.U. standards for the treatment of immigration detainees. However, there has been little effort to do so in recent E.U. initiatives. E.U. documents that do refer to the rights of migrants in detention do so in a tentative and non- committal fashion. [...]
[...] The British Nationality Act 1981 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 have some marginal relevance. As well as Acts of Parliament there is a considerable and ever growing volume of subordinate legislation, particularly Immigration Rules made under the 1971 Act and Regulations governing the conduct of appeals. In addition there is much case law. Each Act has introduced new provisions and significantly amended previous Acts. This branch of the law has rapidly become much more complicated in recent years and there is a pressing need for a Consolidation Act to bring together all the provisions on asylum, immigration and nationality and generally tidy up the law so as to make it more readily accessible and comprehensible by those who have to administer it. [...]
[...] Indeed, under present policies, they will continue at high levels indefinitely. Illegal immigration is additional. The economic case for such massive flows of immigrants is weak. Immigrants add to production but they also add to our population (and to overcrowding (especially in the South and East of England). All major studies have shown that the benefit to the host population is of the order of of GDP per head per year. In the UK that would be about per year. [...]
Lecture en ligneet sans publicité !
Contenu vérifiépar notre comité de lecture