Науковий журнал
Illegal immigration fight
жүктеу/скачать 1.25 Mb.
|
- Бұл бет үшін навигация:
- Deportation
- Conclusions
- Sources and literature
- ИММИГРАЦИОННАЯ ПОЛИТИКА М. ТЭТЧЕР КАК ПРИМЕР СОХРАНЕНИЯ НАЦИОНАЛЬНЫХ ПРИОРИТЕТОВ В ВЕКТОРЕ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СООБЩЕСТВА
- Ключевые слова
- ІМІГРАЦІЙНА ПОЛІТИКА М. ТЕТЧЕР ЯК ПРИКЛАД ЗБЕРЕЖЕННЯ НАЦІОНАЛЬНИХ ПРІОРИТЕТІВ У ВЕКТОРІ ЄВРОПЕЙСЬКОГО СПІВТОВАРИСТВА
- Ключові слова
Illegal immigration fight Wishing to bring British immigration policy into compliance with European legislation, Thatcher's conservative government pursued a tough policy against illegal entry by immigrants. Immigration Service officers were responsible for issuing entry permits and exercising the controlling measures. All the people who sought entry were thoroughly checked. Especially it related to husbands and intended wives who wanted to join their spouses and spouses-to-be having British citizenship [35]. Among the institutions conducting internal control over immigrants were found such institutions as The Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS), The National Health Service and Social Security, Unemployment Benefit Offices, hospitals, Offices of Vital Records and the local authorities responsible for giving grants to students. Thus, for example, the new rules of The Social Security Act of 1980 denied the right to receive benefits for all illegal immigrants, individuals subjected to deportation, overstayers, as well as individuals allowed to enter the country providing that they had not applied to public funds for benefits before [19]. By checking the lists of all institutions, using the Home Office computerized database and cooperating with information department of illegal immigrants and Health and Social Security Services, suspects were traced [25, p.437–452]. In addition to the existing measures, The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 gave the police even wider powers including a right to investigate immigration rules violations, a right to gather information and a direct control over immigrants [7, p.97–98]. Deportation The Conservatives' intention to fulfill their pre-election promises led to their attempt to realize an idea of colour immigrants' deportation to the country of origin. This idea was based on The Immigration Appeals Act of 1969 and Clause 29 provisions (Voluntary Repatriation Scheme) of The Immigration Act 1971 [17]. This idea was supported by the right wing of the Conservative Party before 'new' Conservatives came to power [36; 29] After 1973 the immunity from deportation, previously possessed by the Commonwealth nationals who had live in the IK for 5 years, could be obtained only by those who entered Britain on the basis of marriage to a British citizen or received citizenship by naturalization procedure. The status of an 'illegal entrant' meant «a person unlawfully entering or seeking to enter in breach of a deportation order or of the immigration laws» [17]. In order to implement the policy of illegal immigrants' deportation, the authorities resorted to the courts and to the wider powers of the Home Office, which also contradicted the European Convention on Human Rights. Alleged illegal immigrants were imprisoned, as a rule. At the same time, the Home Office decided on the proper form of a court action for them, and they faced two options - either a court accusation requiring a proof or a detention cancellation. It should be noted that the latter was never practiced. In spite of the fact that the alleged illegal entrant during their detention had a right of habeas corpus, the success of appeal depended mostly on judges readiness to support Home Secretary's decision concerning the evidence which became the grounds for the detention [24, p.24–25].At the same time, there were no effective measures against excessive powers of the Home Office or the Immigration Service officer responsible for issuing entry permits. Thus, the introduction of new immigration rules was accompanied by a significant increase in administrative and judicial proceedings initiated by the Home Office against immigrants. The case of Zamir from Pakistan who entered the country without revealing the fact of his being married became the reason for widening the notion of illegality [6]. It started to include fraudulent actions, such as use of false documents, a false evidence of previous legal stay in Britain, a false evidence of being a dependant of another immigrant who abode legally in Britain, as well as concealment of important facts from immigration officers when entering [1, p.425–427]. The Home Office also accused two other entrants - Khawaja and Khera of falsely receiving an entrance permit [5]. The House of Lords ordered that Home Secretary had to prove that those individuals did breach an immigration order before carrying out his powers and deporting them. Zamir's case was used as a precedent to make an award on those two cases. Thus, developed trend revealed the fact that court system openly supported tougher government control over immigration and turned courts into pretty much of immigration tools. These infamous court trials attracted attention of The European Court on Human Rights and The European Commission on Human Rights. The main claims laid by these institutions on the British Government consisted in the fact that they used a detective evidence as a ground for adjudication against immigrants which violated The European Convention on Human Rights [1, p.425–433]. On passing the Act of 1981, those people who didn't manage to obtain a citizenship on the grounds of jus soli status (on the grounds of birthplace) also could be deported. The most sensitive as well as widely debated and argued clause of this Act was the one abrogating a right of an automatic British citizenship for those who were born in Britain. Since the Act came into force, citizenship of the children who were born in an immigrant family in UK (previously automatically qualified as full British citizens), became dependent on their parents state. In accordance with the new provisions, children and their parents had to prove their right to become British citizens. As a result, a child's state eroded a legal status of their parents who had resided for a couple of years in Britain but then could be viewed as illegal immigrants. Possibility of statelessness for minors and their possible deportation could create big difficulties at the level of international relationships. With respect to deportation, the Act of 1988 contained really tough measures [18]. As Clause 4 dramatically limited availability and scope of appeals for those without UK citizenship and those who sought a refugee status. In case of an alien who had been in the UK fewer than 7 years, an appeal was not allowed. In practice, the government started to view the courts as a tool of immigration control and of interfering in Home Secretary's discretionary powers. The Home Secretary extended authorities to decide on a deportation at the administrative level. Now immigration officers at the inspector level (instead of the Immigration and Nationality Department workers) could issue deportation orders. In the first months of 1989 alone, almost 1000 people were deported. Immigration officers were allowed to offer alleged infringers a speedy exit instead of waiting 14 days in prison until all formalities completed. About 70 per cent of deportees took this option [3, p.86]. On top of that, the police got more intensively involved in immigrants issues which led to an increase in number of joint raids by the police and The Immigration Service. From there, one can outline some general trends. The Home Office workers used their own assessment for deportation different from prison officers', social workers' assessment and assessment of an individual's close people and even from a court one. They deported colour immigrants so decisively, that they totally ignored further destinies of deportees' relatives be it a wife or children. It is interesting to trace the number fluctuations of the deported during the three Thatcher's terms of office. If in 1979 the total number of the deported made 1,382 people, in 1984 – 1,545 people, then it started to increase gradually and, in 1990, it already made 5600 people. After Thatcher's resignation in 1990 and during first two years under the leadership of John Major this trend retained. In 1991, the total number of the deported made 5,600 and, in 1992, it made 6,100 people [3, p.81]. Thus, the total number of the deported increased during this period by. According to the data from the Home Office, 394 people were found 'illegal entrants' and 420 people were deported or left Britain voluntarily in 1979. In 1980, the number of illegal immigrants made 583 people, among which 462 people were deported or left Britain voluntarily. In 1981, these numbers made 431 and 351 people. In 1982 – 607 and 431 people, in 1983 – 426 and 281 people [13; 14]. On the basis of these figures, it could be concluded that during the Conservative term of office the obvious trend to use state powers for exclusion and deportation was observed. According to the data from The Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants the total number of deportation orders increased by 145 per cent in between 1979–1983 and the number of forced deportation orders increased by 64 per cent [13; 14]. With the help of computer database to exercise the tough measures against illegal immigrants, the total number of deportations in between 1979 and 1987 made 16,460 and entry was denied to 7,300 people. The half of this amount made dark-skinned individuals from the British Commonwealth [27, p.71]. Conclusions When decolonization process was over and British immigration policy towards former colonies citizens was shaped, British authorities realized that the future of the country lies in a plane of relations development rather with Europe than with the Old or New Commonwealth. In early 1980s, Europeans who did not have a right to entry the UK for more than 30 years ago, now had a free entry possibility. At the same time, the status of Commonwealth nationals was equated to the status of aliens in the post-war Britain. M. Thatcher's attitude towards Britain's joining the EU was ambiguous. If in 1959, Thatcher as an MP was dead sure that entering the EU under any suggested terms was a right step to take which seemed necessary from the point of British national and economic interests, however, once Britain joined the EU in January 1973, she changed her position which became similar to Churchill's one who believed that «the attitude of Great Britain towards 'federal links' would be determined by its dominant conception of a United British Empire... We are one with Europe but not of it». Later on, admitting the truth of E. Powell's warning that Britain's entry into the Common Market would lead to unwanted loss of sovereignty, the policy of the last Conservative government under the leadership of M. Thatcher was clearly expressed in the motto 'with Europe but not absorbed' [33, p.361–363]. Thatcher's approach of post-consensus both in general politics and towards colour immigration issue found its expression in balancing between a strategy of the Parliament influence strengthening, efficiency of the executive power, undermining of a traditional role of the state institutions and a push on intermediary institutions (on trade unions, in particular) and tactics of everyday concessions and recognition of politics practical limits [28, p.70–75]. A. Mullen states that significant further changes in UK immigration practice were the result of changes in the balance between anti- and pro - EU forces, which on their own were linked to competing social forces at the global, European, national and institutional levels [23, p.217–231]. Thus, in the 1990s, British immigration rules and policy of asylum grant started to be brought in line with European standards established by the European Court of Justice and The European Court on Human Rights. In 1990, Britain together with the EU member-states signed The Dublin Convention in accordance with which Britain could reduce the number of asylum-seekers and hand them to another EU member-state. Despite the refusal of Britain to become a member of the Schengen Area in June 1992, the agreement between France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands contained the principles that formed the basis for the EU immigration policy model. In December 1991, in Maastricht, when these proposals as a draft copy were adopted by the External Frontiers Convention (signed by 12 member-states including Britain) for the further development and an agreement conciliation on immigration control. Taking into account that the European Court of Justice viewed The European Convention on Human Rights as an essential part of an EU member-state legislation, human rights were not going to be ignored. Since Britain as an EU member-state recognized existence of racial equality between members of this union, in 1992, the British government had to support The Statement on Racism and Xenophobia adopted in 1991 in Maastricht. This Statement required to introduce the anti-discriminatory practice in order to influence such areas as immigration procedures, employment, education, attitude of the police towards immigrants as well as family reunification rights [20]. In 1997, the Labour government signed a new version of The Maastricht Treaty, the best part of which was dedicated to workers and their families' rights protection in the EU member-states. A significant part in this process was assigned to asylum policy and correspondence of the immigration policy to the European standards established by the European Court of Justice and The European Court on Human Rights. At the same time, in spite of a big number of appeals by the Third World immigrants to these courts and findings in their favour, the British government managed to dismiss their claims to protect state interests under new circumstances. It goes without saying that difficulties were faced at attempt to differentiate between issues of internal minorities, immigrants and refugees. In Satvinder's opinion, freedom of movement of people could be justified providing that there is an economical equality between nations. Otherwise, one nation risks bigger migration flows than the other one [26, p.113]. This argument doesn't consider the fact that a big number of the Third World non-EU citizens working in Britain do not enjoy a free movement guaranteed by the EU legislation. Undoubtedly, there is a contradiction between forecasts on increasing the number of workers from the Third World countries needed to sustain European economic growth, and a withdrawal of the United Kingdom from any agreement abolishing its national border control and an attitude to those who are seeking a political asylum here. But even in the case when the individual rights, embodied in the EU immigration rules, aim primarily at achieving a strong economy and high living standards in Europe, they do not guarantee the circumstance in which the receiving party will be able to avoid the social burden of immigration. Thus, providing a legislative framework for the rights of immigrants at the individual level demolishes a wide-spread view that Britain, with its vanished Empire, can no longer afford to develop its own immigration policy in order to maintain their national priorities. Sources and literature 1. Bailey S. H. Cases, Materials and Commentary on Administrative Law / S. H. Bailey. – London : Sweet & Maxwell, 2005. – 1125 p. 2. Bevan V. The Development of British Immigration Law / V. Bevan. – London : Croom Helm, 1986. – 443 p. 3. Cohen R. Migration and Its Enemies: Global Capital, Migrant Labour and the Nation-state / Robin Cohen. – Aldershot, Hampshire, England : Ashgate. – 2006. – 242 p. 4. Conservative Party General Election Manifesto [Електронний ресурс] – 1979. – Режим доступу: http://www.conservative-party.net/manifesto/s1979/1979-conservative manifesto.shtml 5. Court of Appeal. Khawaja Ex parte R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Administrative Court 74 [Електронний ресурс] – 1984. – Режим доступу: http://law.hku.hk/hkadmlawsb/admlawcases/Khawaja.htm 6. Court of Appeal. Zamir v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Administrative Court 930. [Електронний ресурс] – 1980. – Режим доступу: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,GBR_HL,,,3ae6b6cf8,0.html 7. Gordon P. Policing Immigration. Britain`s Internal Controls / P. Gordon. – London : Pluto Press. – 1985. – 159 p. 8. HMSO, House of Commons: Parliamentary Debates: Official Reports, Session 1979–1980. – Vol. 975: Immigration, Series 5. – London, 1979. – cols. 253–382. 9. HMSO, House of Commons. Parliamentary Debates: Official Reports, Session 1979–1980. – Vol. 407: Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, Series 5. – London,1980. – cols. 360–431. 10. HMSO, House of Lords: Parliamentary Debates: The Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, Official Reports, Session 1979–1908. – Vol. 407, Series 5. – London, 1980. – cols. 360–375. 11. HMSO, HO, British Nationality Law. Outline of Proposed Legislation, Cmnd 7987. – 1980. 12. HMSO, British Nationality Law [Електронний ресурс] – 1981. – Режим доступу:
13. HMSO, HO, Statistical Bulletin. Control of Immigration Statistics. – Second Quartet. – 1983. 14. HMSO, HO, Statistical Bulletin. Control of Immigration Statistics. – Third Quarter. – 1983. 15. HMSO, HO, The White Paper on Proposals for Revision of the Immigration Rules, Cmnd. 7750. – 1979. 16. The Official Home of UK Legislation, Immigration Act [Електронний ресурс] – 1971. – Режим доступу: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/contents 17. HMSO, The Official Home of UK Legislation, The Immigration Act [Електронний ресурс] – Section 33. – 1971. – Режим доступу: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1971/cukpga_19710077_en_1 18. HMSO, Immigration Act [Електронний ресурс] – 1988. – Режим доступу: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880014_en_1 19. HMSO, Social Security Act [Електронний ресурс]. – 1980. – Режим доступу: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/30 20. Maastricht Statement on Racism and Xenophobia. [Електронний ресурс] Session: 1991-92. – Режим доступу: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/1991-92/544 21. Margaret Thatcher`s TV Interview for Granada World in Action («rather swamped»). [Електронний ресурс] – 1978. – 27 January. – Режим доступу: http://www.margaretthatcher.org 22. Miles R., Phizacklea A. White Man's Country: Racism in British Politic / R. Miles, A. Phizacklea. – London : Pluto Press, 1984. – 184 p. 23. Mullen Andrew. The British left: For and against Europe? A Historical Survey / Andrew Mullen // Capital & Class. –2007. – № 31. – P. 217–231. 24. Nicol A. Illegal Entrants / A. Nicol. – London : JWCI and Runnymede Trust. – 1981. – 56 p. 25. Papers of Hugo Storey and Usha Prashar to AGIN Conference, Oxford, July 1983 / Couper K. and Santamaria U. Couper Kristin. An Elusive Concept: The Charging Definition of Illegal Immigrant in the Practice of Immigration Control in UK / Couper Kristin, Santamaria Ulysses // International Migration Review. The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc. Special Issue: Irregular Migration: An International Perspective. – 1984. – Vol. 18. – № 3. – P. 437–452. 26. Satvinder S. Juss. Immigration, Nationality and Citizenship / Juss S. Stvinder. – London : Mansell, 1993. – 200 p. 27. Skellington R., Morris P. «Race» in Britain Today / R. Skellingtin, P. Morris. – London : Open University. – 1996. – 271 p. 28. Smith J. Martin. From Consensus to conflict: Thatcher and the Transformation of Politics / Martin J. Smith // British Politics. – 2015. – №10. – P. 64–78. 29. Speech by Enoch Powell to the Coventry Management Club, 18 February 1978 [Електронний ресурс] // Observer. – 1978. – Режим доступу: http://enochpowell.info/Resources/Jan-April1978.pdf 30. Spencer Ian R.G. British Immigration Policy since 1939. The Making of Multi-Racial Britain / Ian R.G. Spencer. – London : Routledge, 1997. – 207 p. 31. Studlar D. T. Notes and Comments. British Public Opinion, Colour Issues and Enoch Powell: a Longitudinal Analysis / D. T. Studlar // British Journal of Political Sciences. – 1974. – Vol. 4, № 3. – P. 373–374, 377. 32. Studlar D. T. Policy Voting in Britain: The Coloured Immigration Issiue in the 1964, 1966 and 1970 General Elections / D. T. Studlar // The American Political Science Review. – 1978. – March. –Vol. 72, № 1. – P. 44–64; 33. Thatcher M. Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World / M. Thatcher. – New York : Harper Collins. – 2002. – 486 p. 34. The National Archive (TNA), Kew, London. CAB 128/81. Conclusions of the Cabinet Meetings. – 1985. – P. 418. 35. TNA, CAB 128/66/18, Conclusions of Cabinet Meetings. White Paper on the Immigration Rules. – 1979. 36. TNA HO 376/205 Andrew Fountaine to Home Secretary. – 1976. – 31 January; Speech by Enoch Powell to the Coventry Management Club, 18 February 1978. – Observer. – 1978. – 19 February. – Режим доступу: http://enochpowell.info/Resources/Jan-April1978.pdf 37. Treaties Establishing the European Communities. Treaties Amending These Treaties. Single European Act. Resolutions-Declarations [Електронний ресурс] – Luxembourg : Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1987. – P. 228, 1070. – Режим доступу: http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision making/treaties/pdf/treaties_establishing_the_european_communities_single_european_act/treaties_establishing_the_european_communities_single_european_act_en.pdf 38. Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community [Електронний ресурс] – Rome, 1957. – Режим доступу: https://www.google.com.mx/webhp?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&gws_rd=ssl#q=eec+treaty+1957 39. Wall S. A Stranger in Europe. Britain and the EU from Thatcher to Blair / Stephen Wall. – Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008. – 240 p. ИММИГРАЦИОННАЯ ПОЛИТИКА М. ТЭТЧЕР КАК ПРИМЕР СОХРАНЕНИЯ НАЦИОНАЛЬНЫХ ПРИОРИТЕТОВ В ВЕКТОРЕ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СООБЩЕСТВА В статье проанализирована специфика пути правительств М. Тэтчер в области национального законодательства, направленного на сокращение «цветной» иммиграции граждан из бывших британских колоний в Великобританию, в свете общих требований Европейского Сообщества о развитии политики «открытых дверей» для государств-членов этого объединения. В статье рассмотрены также такие меры «новых» консерваторов как депортация и борьба с нелегальной иммиграцией, которые были направлены на защиту национальных приоритетов Великобритании, несмотря на ее обязательства в рамках законодательства Европейского Сообщества. Ключевые слова: «цветная» иммиграция, Британское Содружество Наций, гражданство, консерваторы, Великобритания, М. Тэтчер, Европейское Сообщество, политика «открытых дверей», незаконная иммиграция, депортация. ІМІГРАЦІЙНА ПОЛІТИКА М. ТЕТЧЕР ЯК ПРИКЛАД ЗБЕРЕЖЕННЯ НАЦІОНАЛЬНИХ ПРІОРИТЕТІВ У ВЕКТОРІ ЄВРОПЕЙСЬКОГО СПІВТОВАРИСТВА У статті проаналізована специфіка шляху уряду М. Тетчер в площині національного законодавства, спрямованого на скорочення «кольорової» імміграції громадян з колишніх британських колоній у Великобританію, у світлі загальних вимог Європейського Співтовариства щодо розвитку політики «відкритих дверей» для держав-членів цього об’єднання. У статті розглянуті також такі заходи «нових» консерваторів як депортація і боротьба з нелегальною імміграцією, які були спрямовані на захист національних пріоритетів Великобританії, незважаючи на її зобов’язання в рамках законодавства Європейського Союзу. Ключові слова: «кольорова міграція», Британська Співдружність Націй, громадянство, консерватори, Великобританія, М. Тетчер, Європейське Співтовариство, політика «відкритих дверей», незаконна імміграція, депортація. жүктеу/скачать 1.25 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|