Comments on the Government's White Paper "Secure Border, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain"

1. It is good to note that a target has been set for nationality decisions at 3 months from April 2004. The length of time taken for decisions has always caused concern. However, the time has gradually been reduced over the last year and we were, in fact, informed of the April 2004 target some months ago.
2. The proposals for acquiring citizenship are a little concerning and show a lack of historical appreciation of the situation of the development of ethnic minority communities. Many of the older members of Caribbean communities originally entered the UK as British Citizens. They only became Citizens of their islands when those islands gained independence from Britain. Since then, their children and grand-children have been born British. Other types of British nationality, particularly British Overseas Citizens, although not full British nationals and subject to immigration control, gained this status because they were UK and Colonies citizens, mainly people from minority ethnic communities from East Africa. Again, this applies to the older generation. With or without fluency in the English Language, the first generations to come to the UK have settled and integrated into society well, and as far as they wish to. It is sections of the younger generations, those who have been born British Citizens and have been
3. educated in the UK, who feel more alienated from society. We have to be sure that we will not be blaming the victims of institutional racism for the ills of the world!
4. The swearing of an oath of allegiance to the Queen seems to be outdated. There are many white UK born people who would not agree to this, so it would be grossly unfair to request those seeking British Citizenship to do so. An alternative oath may be appropriate. However, if an "oath of allegiance" is necessary this should apply to all citizens (at age 18?), not just those who apply for citizenship.
5. Deprivation of citizenship may be only on suspicion of terrorist activities. Could this be a breach of the Human Rights Act? Whilst I can understand why this has been included, it is very subjective and could easily be abused, particularly in the current emotional climate. The right of appeal might prevent this.
6. Some very positive proposals are the removal of distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children, lowering from 10 to 5 years for registering children as British citizens and removal of the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 permitting racial and nationality discrimination for nationality functions.

2. Working in the UK

3. Asylum

There is also a danger of institutionalisation in Accommodation Centres, which is counter-productive when considering refugee integration into mainstream society.

4. Tackling Fraud-People Trafficking, Illegal Entry and Illegal Working

We are concerned about encouraging employers to support Section 8 compliance. We already have an employer in Wellingborough who, on 2 occasions, has questioned the right to work of persons perfectly entitled to do so. This would confirm their power to challenge prospective employees and encourage others to move into ‘immigration control’, and area for which they are ill-equipped and ignorant.

We are intrigued to know how the under-funded (and probably unwilling) voluntary sector will be expected to help with the reintegration of victims of exploitation into their home countries.

Back to Top

5. Border Controls

Airlines already operate a form of immigration control – we have heard of visitors who have been prevented from boarding. The idea of pre-clearance immigration officers carrying out immigration checks on board is abhorrent, particularly for visitors from countries who are or will become (the whole of the Caribbean was recently suggested) visa nationals. If Caribbean countries do become subject to a visa regime, it would have to be in the context of most foreign nationals obtaining visas before travelling to the UK. As explained above, many older people originally came from the Caribbean to the UK as British Citizens; they will have maintained strong family links with the Caribbean. A selected visa regime could be seen to be racist, discriminatory and disproportionate.

6. Marriage

This proposal will also make it more difficult for members of those cultures who traditionally marry by arrangement to prove that a marriage is to someone of their choice.

We are not in agreement with the one-year probationary period for spouses being increased to 2 years (indeed the 1 year rule is heavily criticised!). The UK spouse (and his/her family) could (and in some cases have) exercised complete control over the married partner from abroad, on threat of informing the Home Office that the marriage is over if they are not utterly compliant. Over the last few years we have had cases, all of different nationalities, who in one way or another have been abused by their husbands/wives. In 2 cases babies were involved and in all cases the spouses were in a strange culture, on condition of no recourse to public funds. All would have faced difficulties with their families if they had returned (or could have afforded to return) to their countries of origin. Although there is now a concession for physical abuse from the spouse, this is very difficult to prove and does not extend to mental or emotional abuse, or to abuse from the extended family. This should be considered.

The proposed changes on unmarried partners are very positive.

We do not support the ‘no switching’ proposal, i.e. for visitors to be refused the right to apply to remain in the UK as a spouse. Generally, the marriage rules have been very prescriptive, sometimes forcing people to enter into early marriages in order to be allowed to remain together. But, when a relationship is developing, and the couple concerned have travelled, at sometimes great expense, between two countries, there has been the option of marrying during one of the visits by the overseas partner to the UK. In the overwhelming majority of cases this has been perfectly genuine, with the couple deciding that they can no longer bear, or afford, to be apart. Sometimes this involves pregnancy.

Again, it is possible that interference in the choices made in private lives may contravene the Human Rights Act. This has to be viewed in the light of the implications for British Citizens marrying abroad if other countries took such a proposal on board.

Back to Top

7. Family Visits

WDREC 20.3.02

Back to Top