Forum

Latest News
  • Will Croft elected Leader of the Conservative party
  • South Pacific nations agree new alliance to counter China
  • Budget 2016: Chancellor faces global slowdown
  • Ministers embarrassed by ‘Legion’ leak
{"effect":"fade","fontstyle":"normal","autoplay":"true","timer":4000}

Immigration & Asylum Act 2014  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

Kandler
(@juliet-manning)
Member A-team
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 55
01/04/2019 3:46 pm  

See Attachment

Rt Hon. Juliet Manning MP, MSc (UCL)
MP for Luton South
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Minister for Defence
Lord High Chancellor


Quote
Alex Cardigan
(@alexcardigan)
MP for Montgomeryshire
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 78
02/04/2019 12:47 pm  

Mr Speaker,

Whilst I think some of the aims of this legislation are noble, I take issue with the 'safe country ' rule of section 4. Part two of section 4 dictates that if an asylum seeker has passed through what is deemed a 'safe country', they will cease to be eligible to claim asylum here. This to me, at least, appears to be a major oversight, and seems like an abdication of Britain's international duty to those seeking refuge.

Very few asylum seekers will come straight to Britain, by nature - we are an island, and the continent of Europe is in the way of more traditionally war-torn parts of the globe. This is why section 4 is so dangerous. It effectively closes our borders to refugees, contrary to what I imagine is the intent of this legislation. There will be essentially no asylum seekers able to seek refuge on our shores as a result of this section.

If Germany and France, as well as the smaller states as you go south and east, take in refugees, however numerous, whatever our international duty may be, this legislation would stop those refugees from claiming asylum here. We need to work on a European-wide strategy for dealing with asylum seekers, that allocates a certain amount to each nation based on what can be taken. This legislation is firmly against that principle.

I'm sure that the Right Honourable Member for Luton South had noble intentions with this legislation, and that it is genuinely intended to humanise our immigration laws. I ask that she re-considers the 'safe country' rule and the way it is worded, all the same. If she does so, I will be joining her in backing this legislation - if not, I fear it will be incredibly damaging, and an abdication of Britain's international duty to asylum seekers.

Alex Cardigan
MP for Montgomeryshire
Parliamentary - 5
Media - 16
Policy - 3


ReplyQuote
Nathan
(@nathan)
Estimable Member
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 214
03/04/2019 5:50 pm  

I thank the Honourable Gentleman for his contribution - but the bill is yet to be debated. I am sure he can reiterate whatever important points he has to make once this bill reaches second reading.

... Leader of the House?


ReplyQuote
Sylviane Jaubert
(@ege)
Member
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 155
06/04/2019 9:27 pm  

Mr.Speaker,

I beg and move that this bill be read a second time.

Sylviane Jaubert MP
MP for Cynon Valley

Formerly as The Rt Hon Ariadne "Ari" Suchet MP
Former Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party

"TrashPotato Today at 2:11 AM
my friend offered me a bottle of vodka and i sucked the vodka out the bottle like a baby sucking a titty"


ReplyQuote
Steve
(@steve)
Member A-team
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 283
09/04/2019 10:12 pm  

Second Reading

A Team


ReplyQuote
Anita Redmond
(@anita-redmond)
MP for North Somerset
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 58
12/04/2019 9:44 am  

(Does the Home Secretary introduce this or are we straight in?)

Rt. Hon. Anita Redmond MP
Conservative Member of Parliament for North Somerset
Shadow Education Secretary
Shadow Minister for Women & Equalities

Former Home Secretary (2014)
Total Experience: 65
Parliamentary: Novice (25)
Media: Novice (29)
Policy: Unknown (11)


ReplyQuote
Nathan
(@nathan)
Estimable Member
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 214
12/04/2019 9:18 pm  

(I would prefer the Home Secretary to introduce. However, my main priority is that debate gets kickstarted!)

 

Speaker: 

Anyone? I know the Honourable Member for Montgomeryshire had something to say? 


ReplyQuote
Anita Redmond
(@anita-redmond)
MP for North Somerset
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 58
12/04/2019 11:05 pm  

Thank you Mister Speaker, and I'm grateful to the Home Secretary for bringing this important matter before the House.

Mister Speaker, today we witness a humanitarian outreach by the UK; the protection of children during the most vulnerable part of their stay in the United Kingdom is an important step and a right one, and I'm very pleased to see the Government move on this area.

That, Mister Speaker, is where the opportunity ends, and the disappointment begins.

The Amnesty of 'undocumented immigrants' is nothing less than a free pass to enable and encourage illegal immigrants a right to stay in the UK, rewarding the deliberate abuse of our hospitality and our laws. The very fact that this Government is so willing to simply ignore the law and freely grant amnesty is beyond reasoning. 

In the past year, 480,000 immigrants legally entered the UK, through various channels and by ensuring they met all preconditions to visit, work and stay. In 2010 alone, it was estimated anything between 100,000, & 150,000 legal immigrants overstayed their Visas, and thus became illegal. Whilst the vast majority left when they should have, or renewed, there are many who have broken our laws, and are now being told they can unconditionally be granted amnesty to remain.

What a deterrent, Mister Speaker. Why bother having an immigration system at all? This may as well be 'open season' on our borders! A complete slap in the face of those hundreds of thousands of people who legally and painstakingly enter our country, and ultimately the British public are paying the price for Labour's soft touch on border security. Mister Speaker, this aspect of the bill is irrational, inappropriate, and utterly irresponsible. This side of the house does not deny that immigration can be a boon to our country, but it also cannot accept that flaunting of our immigration laws is rewardable by amnesty, especially in instances of deliberate deception.

Mister Speaker, Section 4, the 'safe country rule', is something of a misnomer; this is not about stopping int eh 'first safe country', this is a pander to populist jingoism. Let me remind the Home Secretary of several facts; firstly, there is no known evidence to suggest a “real” refugee actually does stay in the first safe country he or she reaches. It is the Refugee Convention that defines the meaning of “refugee” and that definition is utterly unrelated to where the person claims asylum.

Secondly, the UK has international obligations in terms of it's share of asylum seekers across the European Union, rightly or wrongly, and we have our part to play - albeit a very small part - so small in fact that the UK has barely 1/4 of the number of refugees that Germany has, and almost half that of Spain & France. In fact, the UK is not even in the top 20 for refugee numbers in the world. 

Mister Speaker, neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another. There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive. The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply. The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. This clearly doesn't work, but the reality remains that this is not a clear thought out policy, and in general the entire legislation is shambolic, which is a great shame since it entirely detracts from section 1 which is of great merit.  

Rt. Hon. Anita Redmond MP
Conservative Member of Parliament for North Somerset
Shadow Education Secretary
Shadow Minister for Women & Equalities

Former Home Secretary (2014)
Total Experience: 65
Parliamentary: Novice (25)
Media: Novice (29)
Policy: Unknown (11)


ReplyQuote
Anita Redmond
(@anita-redmond)
MP for North Somerset
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 58
13/04/2019 2:28 pm  

Mister Speaker,

I beg leave to offer the following amendment;

"that sections 3) and 4) are struck from this bill".

Mister Speaker, for the reasons I have mentioned before, I believe this is a reasonable course of action, and I urge the house to support it.

Rt. Hon. Anita Redmond MP
Conservative Member of Parliament for North Somerset
Shadow Education Secretary
Shadow Minister for Women & Equalities

Former Home Secretary (2014)
Total Experience: 65
Parliamentary: Novice (25)
Media: Novice (29)
Policy: Unknown (11)


ReplyQuote
Kandler
(@juliet-manning)
Member A-team
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 55
13/04/2019 5:25 pm  

Mr Speaker, I will accept an amendment to strike section 4 only of the bill as friendly.

Rt Hon. Juliet Manning MP, MSc (UCL)
MP for Luton South
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Minister for Defence
Lord High Chancellor


ReplyQuote
Kandler
(@juliet-manning)
Member A-team
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 55
13/04/2019 8:21 pm  

Mr Speaker,

In October 2010, the British Government began the process of destroying registry slips pertinent to those who came to the United Kingdom from the Caribbean starting in the 1940s. The people to whom those documents applied, who were granted British citizenship decades ago, are now in a position where the government holds no record of their right to live in the United Kingdom - and I think it is entirely possible, and indeed probable, that a person’s own personal records would have been misplaced or lost over the course of some 60-70 years.

This is an isolated example of a wider problem, Mr Speaker, which is that there are many thousands of immigrants living in the UK who do not possess documentation which proves their right of abode in Britain. Some of these people will, the government accepts, be people who came to this country ilegally thanks to the failures of previous administrations in adequately managing the immigration system. One step that we are now taking is to reinstitute full exit checks at the UK border, enabling us to monitor more effectively who is in the country and who has overstayed their visa.

But the mistakes of the past cannot be taken to excuse a failure to protect human rights in the present. So let me explain what the “amnesty” enabled by the bill would do.

it would enable undocumented immigrants to come forwards and receive support from the Home Office in proving their right to be in the UK. Gathering such evidence would make it far easier for those rightful British residents to work, buy and rent property, and access public services.

If such evidence does not exist or cannot be found, the individual’s status as an illegal immigrant would remain intact, and it would be possible for that person to be prosecuted and deported in the future. But such a prosecution could not happen on the basis of a person’s approach to the Home Office under the amnesty scheme; encouraging people to come forwards and seek support. The amnesty is, then, not an amnesty for those who are illegally resident in the UK, and it does not prevent those people from being removed from this country in accordance with the law if their status is detected as part of normal borders enforcement operations, as a result of tip-offs from the public, or by any other means not connected to an approach under the scheme.

What the scheme will enable us to do is ensure that those who did always or do now meet the requirements to have a right of abode in the UK can exercise that right. It will also enable the government to take stock of the number of undocumented and illegal immigrants, something which is presently based on rough estimations as to the failings of the immigration system going back decades.

Mr Speaker, there will continue to be zero tolerance for illegal immigration and that is why we are reinstituting exit checks to ensure that those who have not left the country when they should have done can be indentified and caught in the future.

Mr Speaker, I’m sure the whole House will support this bill’s provisions for new safeguards on the deportation of children and families. Our predecessors in government exhibited a heartless disregard for the rights of minors; this government is addressing that issue and protecting those who cannot be criminally culpable for wrongdoing in terms of their immigration status.

Mr Speaker, this bill further removes some restrictions on asylum seekers by introducing an inalienable right to work if an asylum claim has taken more than one year to process. This is clearly necessary in order to provide such people with the means by which to live, and the means by which to positively contribute to the United Kingdom until their claim has been processed.

Mr Speaker, the Home Office target for asylum claims is that they should be completed within six months, and I do hope that generally this target will be met in the future. Cutting the budget for the borders agency, as the Conservatives did, is not a means by which to achieve that.

Mr Speaker, we hear concerns about the proposed “safe country rule” and will accept a friendly amendment to strike that section from the bill, as I have iterated already.

Rt Hon. Juliet Manning MP, MSc (UCL)
MP for Luton South
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Minister for Defence
Lord High Chancellor


ReplyQuote
William Croft
(@william-croft)
Member
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 260
16/04/2019 3:52 pm  

Mr. Speaker, 

I rise in total opposition to a bill that would compromise our immigration system, undermine the rule of law, and send a signal across the globe that Britain is a nation that rewards those who violate the law. 

My friend the Shadow Home Secretary is right to call this legislation what it is: an attempt to indefinitely open our borders to illegal immigration without any concern for what it will do to our country. This legislation does not simply provide an opportunity for those that came here legally, but don't currently possess legal documentation, to come forward and seek assistance from the government. While that may be the government's goal, it is anything but the reality this legislation will create. The bill in question hands the government the authority to grant amnesty to any group of immigrants at will, setting the precedent that illegal immigration is to be encouraged and sending the message that Britain's government will no longer enforce Britain's laws. 

I have always, and will continue to support, common-sense immigration policy that encourages legal immigration and enables hardworking people from around the world to make Britain their home. Those that have immigrated to Britain in search of a new home are as British as any citizen born here, and deserve to be respected as such. With that in mind, I cannot imagine how the Home Secretary and the government can support a measure that constitutes such a blatant slap in the face to all those Britons who immigrated to our country legally. The idea that hundreds of thousands of people will spend years to acquire citizenship the right and legal way, only to watch as this government grants unconditional amnesty to individuals that violated our country's laws, is beyond comprehension to me. It's not simply bad governing, Mr. Speaker, it's shameful. 

The legislation before us represents a willful neglect of legal responsibility on the part of the government, Mr. Speaker. Rather than enforce our nations laws and guarantee that immigrants come to our country legally, the government has resigned themselves to an open-door policy that encourages illegal immigration and rampant over staying of visas. This is not an immigration policy that attracts high-skilled workers, or one that makes it easier for immigrants to settle in Britain and thrive while also contributing to our nation's economy. This is legislation that allows for those who violate our laws to go unpunished, and that motivates individuals to circumvent the legal immigration system. This is not a legitimate immigration strategy, it is a non-existent immigration strategy. 

I encourage all of my colleagues, on both sides of the House, who respect our legal system and the importance of having sound immigration policies to stand with me and reject the government's legislation. 

William Croft
Member of Parliament for Bracknell
Shadow Foreign Secretary
Chairman of the Conservative Party
Chief Whip of the Conservative party


ReplyQuote
Alex Cardigan
(@alexcardigan)
MP for Montgomeryshire
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 78
19/04/2019 8:19 pm  

I beg leave to offer the following amendment;

"that sections 4) are struck from this bill".

 

 

Alex Cardigan
MP for Montgomeryshire
Parliamentary - 5
Media - 16
Policy - 3


ReplyQuote
Kandler
(@juliet-manning)
Member A-team
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 55
22/04/2019 4:45 pm  

Accepted as friendly.

Rt Hon. Juliet Manning MP, MSc (UCL)
MP for Luton South
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Minister for Defence
Lord High Chancellor


ReplyQuote
Steve
(@steve)
Member A-team
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 283
27/04/2019 7:00 pm  

Division, clear the lobbies!

(Bill as amended to strike section 4)

This post was modified 4 months ago by Steve

A Team


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: