The Tories come down heavily on economic migrants to the UK
RACE relations are in the forefront of political issues in Britain today. With barely a year to go for the next general election, the Conservative government is talking of a new Immigration and Asylum Bill to make those employing illegal immigrants criminally liable with fines and jail sentences. Whatever shape these new proposals take, one thing is clear: the intense debate on immigration and race relations is on again.
It was in the run-up to the 1987 general election that the government first introduced the carriers’ liability legislation. Under this law, airlines and ferry companies transporting people to Britain were to be responsible for their customers’ legal status. Failure to do so could result in the company paying a fine of 1,000 pounds per person. But the law was never strongly enforced.
With the 1992 polls, an Asylum bill was introduced whereby the carriers’ liability fines were doubled and attempts to collect them began in earnest. The result: a full scale immigration debate once again. And now, at this stage, all that there is to go by is Home Secretary Michael Howard라이브 바카라 affirmation that he intends to bring a bill on immigration and asylum. There are indications that the Cabinet has, in principle, endorsed Howard라이브 바카라 proposal to make employment of illegal immigrants a criminal offence, though not unanimously.
The contention of Howard, who is the chief advocate of the bill, is that the government라이브 바카라 two-pronged policy on race relations and immigrants remains unchanged. The government, he says, while working towards improving race relations and committed to ethnic minorities, will stem the inflow of economic migrants.
The Home Office has been working on a ‘white list’, a misnomer, of those countries which it regards as safe and stable and from where asylum applications are generally to be discouraged. The list, though in its embryonic stage, included Sri Lanka.
Howard had set the ball rolling in mid July with a statement titled ‘Clamp down on abuse of social security benefits, student awards, health and social housing by illegal immigrants and temporary visitors,’ wherein it was suggested that other government departments and local authority employees should take it on themselves to report cases of illegal immigrants. Though the Home Office said its statement applied to ‘persons from abroad’, its critics charged that it would lead to persecution of bonafide black and Asian UK citizens. The immigration organisations joined the debate saying that immigration issues, if handled by people inadequately trained, such as local authorities, school teachers and doctors, would do nobody any good.
The subsequent affirmation by Howard that he intended to make employers liable for employing illegal immigrants, has come in for criticism from, most importantly, the Confederation of British Industry and the Association of Directors. They contend that the immigration department should do its work and they should be left to carry on with their economic activities. Black groups say that the companies facing the threat of criminal liabilities, would concentrate checks on black or Asian workers and might simply exclude them from consideration for employment.
What is most glaring in this debate is the lack of comprehensive statistics. While Howard says 13,000 illegal immigrants were detected last year, immigration offi-cials, contended that this was just the tip of the iceberg. But, all fig-ures are guess estimates and Howard has been accused of presenting only one side of the picture by not taking into account the number of people leaving the country.
The opposition Labour has been warning the Tories against using the ‘race card’ in the ensuing elections, saying it will oppose Howard's proposals. The ethnic groups and civil liberties organisations too are up in arms. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants is gearing up to lobby with the MPs against the bill. But the dilemma could be more acute for those of the ethnic minorities who are aligned with the Tories, though Dr Prem Dutt Sharma, a member of the Tory party라이브 바카라 national executive committee, told 바카라 that he supported the home secretary라이브 바카라 proposed bill. He claims that the British Asians want a check on illegal immigrants as they bring a "bad name to the whole community".
The background of the moving spirit behind these controversial proposals has not escaped comment. Michael Howard is of Welsh and Jewish descent. His grandparents came from Romania at the end of the last century and his parents followed them into the drapery trade. And even as the debate on checking illegal immigrants rages in the island country, Governor Chris Patten, trying to salvage British interests in Hong Kong, has called for giving the 3.3 million residents of the colony the right to live in Britain. Many are left wondering, whether the debate is about keeping out illegal immigrants or bringing in votes.