Introduction Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) is an independent national charity that provides direct legal assistance to immigrants and campaigns for a human rights based approach to the formulation of asylum, immigration and nationality law. JCWI has been doing this work since 1967. JCWI actively lobbies and campaigns for changes in law and practice. Its mission is to eliminate discrimination in this sphere. JCWI s membership consists of many black and ethnic community organisations and individuals that represent people who will be affected by the proposed changes. In addition, our legal team provides direct legal assistance to migrants, many of whom are the direct target of this legislation. JCWI s policy and campaigns teams followed the Immigration Act 2014 through parliament, providing briefings on the various aspects of the Bill. Since the provisions contained in the 2014 Act have started to come into force, JCWI has been at the forefront of scrutinising and evaluating the impact of the provisions on local communities. Note on Terminology This briefing uses the term irregular migrant to refer to a person who, owing to irregular entry into the country, the expiration of their visa, the rejection of their status application or other reason, lacks legal status in the UK. Irregular is preferred above other terms, such as illegal, because it is legally correct, humane, and discourages discriminatory and oppressive notions of those who lack legal status. The United Nations General Assembly, International Labour Organisation, Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, European Parliament, United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, European Commission and the Associated Press have all committed not to use the term illegal when referring to irregular or undocumented migrants. We encourage parliamentarians and journalists to join this prestigious list of organisations.
Overview Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants An extension of the hostile environment The Immigration Bill 2015 builds on the Immigration Act 2014 and represents the latest extension of the Government s aim to create a hostile environment for irregular migrants in the UK. JCWI closely followed the passage of the 2014 Act through Parliament, providing briefings to parliamentarians and oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee. We have also closely scrutinised and independently evaluated the provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 as they have come into force for instances of discrimination, human rights abuses and the impact on local communities. Despite clear evidence that discrimination has occurred against both migrants and British citizens in the case of the right to rent residential tenancy provisions, as well as a complete lack of evidence from the Home Office that the measures are working as intended, this Bill seeks to extend the Immigration Act even further. This is illogical, shortsighted and clearly demonstrates that the intention behind this Bill is based on the Conservative party wanting to appear tough on immigration, at the expense of the human rights and civil liberties of UK residents. Summary of the Bill The Government states that the overarching aim of the provisions is to prevent illegal immigration and remove incentives for illegal migrants to enter or remain in the UK and encourage them to depart. To this end, the Bill contains a raft of measures aimed at combatting illegal working and restricting access to services for irregular migrants, as well as changes to the appeals system, immigration bail and asylum support system. There is a stark focus on criminalisation within the Bill, with the creation of eight new criminal offences for individuals who transgress the provisions. This includes offences directed at irregular migrants themselves, as well as employers, landlords, and estate agents. Recognising that the police services would not have the capacity to enforce and prosecute these new crimes, the Bill also seeks to extend wide-reach-
ing powers to immigration officers to arrest without a warrant those suspected of committing any of the offences contained in the Bill, as well as extended powers to search premises and seize items in relation to suspected offences. This is extremely concerning and represents a transfer of power, formerly held only by the police service, to immigration officers. These new powers will negatively impact on the civil liberties of everyone in the UK, including many British citizens. While purporting to protect the most vulnerable in society through combatting rogue landlords and employers who exploit vulnerable migrant workers, this Bill simultaneously and comprehensively targets the victims of such crimes. These latest proposals demonstrate a complete lack of understanding regarding the irregular migrant population in the UK, thereby severely limiting any ability to achieve the Bill s stated aims. If they become law, these measures will also have a disproportionately negative impact on British citizens, black and minority ethnic (BME) individuals and those living legally in the UK, as has already been shown to have occurred as a result of the Immigration Act 2014. The provisions contained in the Immigration Bill 2015 also seek to severely restrict access to justice for migrants and their families, as well as removing power of scrutiny from the courts and tribunal services and consolidating decision making solely with the Secretary of State. If this Bill becomes law, many migrants will be prevented from exercising their right to a fair trial and many individuals, including British citizens, will face indefinite of separation from their families. It is arguable that in many ways the Bill appears to be an insidious attempt to remove the protection afforded by the Human Rights Act without abolishing the Act itself.
Specific Provisions 1. Extension of Powers to Immigration Officers Throughout the Bill are numerous provisions which seek to extend powers to immigration officers. 1 These include powers to search persons or properties, as well as to enter properties and make arrests without a warrant. These enforcement powers are not just directed against irregular migrants, but also British citizens suspected to have committed an immigration offence such as landlords, agents and employers. Immigration officers are also given new powers to seize property believed to be connected to an offence. Powers of immigration officers to arrest without a warrant The Bill seeks to confer powers to immigration officers to arrest individuals without a warrant where: - They have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed or attempted to commit the offence of illegal working - They have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed or attempted to commit (or is committing or attempting to commit) the offence of employing someone who does not have the right to work - They have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a landlord or agent has committed or attempted to commit (or is committing or attempting to commit) the offence of knowingly renting a property to a disqualified person Powers of immigration officers to enter premises The Bill seeks to extend powers upon immigration officers to enter premises with an immigration warrant to search for evidence for a range of new offences, including: - to search for evidence of illegal working - to search for evidence of employing someone who does not have the right to work 1 The term immigration officer refers to anyone who has been appointed as such by the Secretary of State.
- to search for evidence of knowingly renting/ leasing a property to someone who does not have the right to rent The Bill also seeks to confer the power on immigration officers to enter business premises without a warrant, but with authorisation from the Secretary of State or Assistant Director, where they have reasonable grounds for believing that a person who they have reasonable grounds for suspecting has committed (or attempted to commit the offence) of illegal working is on the premises. Powers of immigration officers to search without a warrant The Bill seeks to confer the power to immigration officers and other authorised officers as designated by the Secretary of State to: - search persons without a warrant if they have reasonable grounds for believing that the person is in possession of a driving license and is not lawfully resident in the UK - search properties without a warrant (but with permission from a senior immigration officer) if they have reasonable grounds for believing that a driving license held unlawfully is on the premises. This can be a property occupied or controlled by the person, or a property where the person was encountered by the immigration officer - enter premises without a warrant where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the premises are being used for a licensable activity (i.e. serving of alcohol, entertainment or late night refreshment) with a view to seeing whether an offence under any of the Immigration Acts is being committed in connection with the carrying on of that activity. This is an extremely broad interpretation and appears to confer the power on immigration officers rights to enter and search any restaurant, takeaway or bar, at any time and without notice. Powers of immigration officers to close premises The Bill seeks to confer the power to Chief Immigration Officers to issue an illegal working closure order to close for up to 48 hours any premises where paid or voluntary work takes place, where there is evidence that an employer operating on the premises has been issued with a penalty for employing someone who does not have the right to work as a result of their immigration status (or lack of status), or has failed to pay a notice in the past 3 years. For this purpose they may enter the
premises by force if necessary. The Immigration Officer may then apply to the courts to extend the order for up to 12 months. Amendments to search warrants Under the provisions in the Bill, immigration officers would be able to apply for search warrants which allow multiple entry to multiple premises and which, if granted, are unlimited in the number of premises and entries permitted. This includes the power of the courts to grant an all premises warrant, where immigration officers may enter any premises occupied or controlled by a person named in the application. Under these provisions, immigration warrants would be valid for three months, as opposed to the current one month. Powers of immigration officers to seize items The Bill seeks to confer powers on immigration officers to seize items in the course of their duties if they are believed to be connected to an immigration offence or other crime. They are not required to provide a copy of the item seized. Why these measure must be opposed These measures represent a vast extension of police powers to immigrations officials who are not regulated in the same way as the police and are likely to encroach on the rights not only of migrants but also many British citizens. The provisions must be interrogated fully in order to understand the scope and remit of the new powers the Bill is seeking to confer. There are provisions for the Secretary of State to publish guidance to immigration officers on these new powers, if she sees fit. This must, at the very least, be made a requirement in the body of the Bill and consulted upon before further progression of the Bill through Parliament. These measures are particularly concerning considering that information held by the Home Office relating to the location and personal details of those believed to be irregular migrants often contains widespread inaccuracies. This has resulted in numerous cases of people being contacted by the Home Office (and other organisa-
tions working on behalf of the Home Office) being told to make arrangements to leave the UK when they are here legally, have not exhausted their legal rights, or in some instances where they have already left the UK. 2 JCWI is also aware of cases where landlords have received letters addressed to a previous tenant telling them to make arrangements to leave the country, when the tenant in question had complied with their visa and left the country already, sometimes years before. Allowing immigration officers to enter any licensed premises with no evidence that an immigration crime has taken place, as well as powers to close businesses without any notice or judicial oversight, even for 48 hours, will be hugely detrimental to small businesses and we are concerned that the target will be businesses run by members of the ethnic minority communities. 2. Illegal Working Sanctions for employees The Bill seeks to create a new offence of illegal working. Under these provisions an offence is committed if someone who does not have the right to work, or the right to engage in a certain type of employment as a result of their immigration status, is found to have done so. The Bill widens the interpretation of a person working to include anyone under a contract of employment (whether oral or in writing), including self-employed people. The offence carries a penalty of up to 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine. If a person is found guilty, the prosecutor must also consider whether to apply for a confiscation order to seize any proceeds related to the offence. Sanctions for employers The Bill also seeks to widen the scope of existing legislation to make it easier to prosecute individuals who employ a person who does not have the right to work. This extends the interpretation of existing legislation to include individuals who have 2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20891597
reasonable cause to believe that a person they have employed does not have the right to work. 3 This enables prosecution of individuals who fail to conduct an immi- gration status check on an employee. The Bill also seeks to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for employing someone who does not have the right to work from 2 to 5 years. Why these measures should be opposed The Government has stated that the purpose of these changes is to combat the labour market exploitation of vulnerable individuals. JCWI agrees that the exploitation of some of the most vulnerable in society is a heinous offence, and those who commit such an offence must be dealt with harshly. However, by simultaneously criminalising the victims of criminal activity, the provisions will increase, rather than decrease, their vulnerability and susceptibility to exploitation. The Government recognises that individuals who work without immigration status are often victims themselves. They may have been trafficked to the UK and are often victims of modern-day slavery. These vulnerable individuals must be encouraged to come forward in order for rogue employers and criminal gangs to be exposed and prosecuted. These measures will not achieve this aim. Instead, they will make it more difficult for victims to come forward. As a recent report by PICUM highlights: Criminalisation of irregular migration status impedes migrants from seeking assistance and help in the face of a possible arrest and deportation. Migrant workers who are often working and living in very isolated conditions such as private homes and rural greenhouses are unaware of their rights as a worker and as a human being and lack practical possibilities to approach third persons for advice and assistance. In addition to the lack of awareness, fear is the main factor contributing to the effective seclusion from justice mechanisms. Undocumented migrants in exploitative situations are intimidated by the police and the threat of deportation, due to the fear that 3 Previously, liability only extended to those who had knowingly employed a person without the right to work
their irregular status will be uncovered; they find it difficult to leave exploitative situations and rarely seek redress for violations. 4 If the Government is committed to targeting rogue employers and the criminal gangs who exploit vulnerable migrants they must ensure that they do not make it even more difficult for their victims to come forward and seek protection out of a fear of facing prosecution. 3. Residential Tenancies The Immigration Act 2014 disqualified individuals who do not have valid immigration status from entering into a private residential tenancy agreement. The Act also introduced a requirement on landlords and agents to check the immigration status of people they rent to, in order to ensure that they have the right to rent (i.e. are not disqualified as a result of their immigration status, or lack of status). Under these provisions, if a landlord rents to someone without the correct immigration status they can be fined up to 3,000 per adult. These provisions are currently only applicable in five West Midland s local authorities. However, it remains the Government s intention to roll out the scheme nationwide. During the passage of the Immigration Act 2014 through Parliament, assurances were made that the right to rent scheme would be thoroughly, publicly and transparently evaluated before any subsequent roll-out. Not only has no evaluation been published to date, the Government announced their intention to roll-out the scheme before the evaluation period was even complete. 5 This Bill builds on the right to rent scheme despite a complete lack of any published evaluation of the scheme by the Home Office, or evidence that the scheme has worked as intended. 4 Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) (2015) ROLE OF RESTRIC- TIVE MIGRATION POLICIES IN INCREASING THE VULNERABILITY OF MIGRANTS TO IRREGU- LARITY, EXPLOITATION AND TRAFFICKING, page 3, available online: http://www.osce.org/secretariat/ 173571?download=true 5 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-immigration
Criminal Sanctions Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants The Bill aims to introduce a new criminal offence for landlords and agents who know or have reasonable cause to believe that a property under their control is occupied by an adult who does not have the right to rent. Landlords and agents are liable for a criminal sanction where they do not inform the Secretary of State (or the landlord in the case of agents) about the presence of the adult(s) within a reasonable amount of time. This includes cases where a tenant s right to rent runs out during a tenancy (i.e. they no longer have leave to remain in the UK), or where a tenancy agreement was entered into without an immigration status check having been undertaken and the tenant does not have valid immigration status. Criminal penalties range from 12 months to five years imprisonment and/or a fine. The provisions will only apply to England but the Bill contains further provisions to extend to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales subject to a vote in Parliament. Eviction The Bill also includes extensive new powers to enable landlords to evict adult tenants in England who are found by the Secretary of State not to have the right to rent. Where the tenant in question shares the property with other legal tenants (who do have the right to rent ) there are provisions to transfer the tenancy. These provisions encompass changes to multiple Housing Acts. Why these measures should be opposed JCWI conducted an independent evaluation of the right to rent scheme. 6 Our re- search found that the scheme has already caused discrimination by landlords and agents as they do not want to risk a fine if they misinterpret complicated immigration status. 42% of landlords said that the right to rent requirements have made them less likely to consider someone who does not have a British passport. Checks 6 JCWI (2015) No Passport Equals No Home: An Independent Evaluation of the Right to Rent Scheme, avail- able online: http://www.jcwi.org.uk/sites/default/files/documets/no%20passport%20equals%20no%20home %20Right%20to%20Rent%20Independent%20Evaluation_0.pdf
are not being undertaken uniformly for all tenants, but are instead directed at individuals who appear foreign. 65% of landlords stated that they are much less likely to consider tenants who cannot provide documents immediately. The provisions have also resulted in widespread confusion among landlords and agents, despite the issuance of two Codes of Practice. 57% of landlords and agents nationwide and 40% in the pilot area feel they have not effectively understood the Right to Rent changes or remain unaware of them. 65% of landlords have not read or feel they have not fully understood the Code of Practice on preventing illegal immigration or the Code of Practice on Avoiding Discrimination We have repeatedly requested that the Government publish its own evaluation of the scheme, which it has failed to do so, despite assurances given to Parliament during the passage of the Immigration Act 2014 that the scheme would be publicly and transparently evaluated before any further roll-out. The threat of criminalisation will only serve to heighten discrimination against those from an ethnic minority background as well as British nationals who do not own a passport. We are extremely concerned at the implications of this when it comes to the basic need for shelter and the impact these provisions will have on social cohesion. It is unthinkable that, before issues with the current scheme have been addressed, the the Government is seeking to make the scheme more punitive. The Government must halt any plans to increase the penalties and scope of the right to rent policy until the initial scheme has been fully, transparently and publicly evaluated and the issues of discrimination against certain groups of tenants, as well as other adverse impacts on landlords and tenants, have been properly addressed.
4. Bank Accounts The Immigration Act 2014 disqualified irregular migrants from opening a UK bank account. The Bill builds on these measures, through a requirement for banks and building societies to undertake periodic immigration status checks of all account holders. If an account holder is found to be disqualified from having a bank account, the bank or building society is required to notify the Home Office within a reasonable amount of time. Where the Secretary of State confirms the information, she may require the bank to facilitate the closure of the account or, without notice, may apply to the court for a freezing order. Why these measures should be opposed The measures outlined in the Bill do not contain sufficient form of redress for individuals wrongly identified, such as when they have an outstanding appeal or continuing legal case, or those who have made further representations to the Home Office which may not have been processed. In instances where bank accounts are frozen in error, there is also no mention of compensation to individuals affected. Given that there have been numerous cases where individuals have been identified by the Home Office as irregular migrants in error, there must be provisions to safeguard individuals. 5. Driving The Immigration Act 2014 disqualified those who require leave to remain in the UK but do not have it from obtaining a driving license. The new Bill extends these provisions by seeking to bar individuals from possessing a UK driving license when not lawfully resident, as well as introducing a criminal offence of driving if not lawfully resident in UK. Those convicted of the offence may receive a custodial sentence of up to 6 months and/or a fine. The vehicle involved in the offence may also be seized and in some cases destroyed, regardless of whether it belongs to the guilty party. The Bill also contains extensive new powers for immigration officers to search persons or properties if there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are illegally in possession of a driving license, as outlined above.
Why these measures should be opposed The Bill does not contain any detail on how drivers who do not have immigration status are to be identified or in what instances. The police, immigration officers or anyone authorised by the Secretary of State could conduct searches. The Government must make it clear whether it will now be necessary for drivers to carry identity documentation with them at all times. As with the right to rent provisions, these provisions will undoubtedly impact legal migrants and British citizens who cannot easily prove their immigration status and ethnic minorities and could also lead to an increase in racial profiling of drivers. These powers are very worrying as they are in fact stop and search powers. If they are exercised by immigration officers, these officers need to be regulated in the same way as the police with checks and balances in place to prevent any abuse of powers. It also needs to be spelt out how the rights of individuals will be protected and what redress they will have for wrongful or repeated searches and/or arrests. 6. Bail The Immigration Bill proposes to abolish the category of temporary admission, replacing it in most cases with immigration bail. Currently, immigration bail only applies to individuals who have been released from immigration detention or prison. Where an individual subject to immigration control is in the process of making an application for leave to remain in the UK the Home Office has up till now granted temporary admission. This is most commonly the case with asylum seekers. This Bill seeks to replace that with bail granted by the Home Office and extends and consolidates the power of the Secretary of State to place conditions on individuals granted immigration bail. Under these provisions, immigration bail must be subject to at least one of the following conditions: (a) a condition requiring the person to appear before the Secretary of State or the First-tier Tribunal at a specified time and place; (b) a condition restricting the person s work, occupation or studies in the United Kingdom;
(c) a condition about the person s residence; (d) a condition requiring the person to report to the Secretary of State or such other person as may be specified; (e) an electronic monitoring condition; (f) such other conditions as the person granting the immigration bail thinks fit. (schedule 5 2(1)a-f) These conditions are effectively limitless, meaning that the Secretary of State will be able to impose any condition they feel necessary. In addition, the Bill seeks to change the law, so that where the tribunal grants bail and does not impose a residence or electronic monitoring condition the Secretary of State may impose such a condition. Why these measures should be opposed The implication of these changes is that all migrants applying for leave, including asylum seekers, will be considered in the same way as those convicted of a criminal offence. The conditions are onerous and will seriously impact on the civil liberties of many individuals who have been refused in error, are waiting for their case to be decided, or cannot be removed from the UK. The transfer of power to impose conditions on leave from the tribunals to the Secretary of State effectively overrides the decisions of judges and their ability to scrutinise the actions of the Secretary of State, with the Secretary of State effectively being allowed to impose and amend bail conditions at will. 7. Appeals The Immigration Bill seeks to extend the policy of deport first, appeal later introduced in the Immigration Act 2014 to all human rights appeals where the Home Office considers that there is no risk of serious irreversible harm. The Immigration Act 2014 removed the majority of appeal rights in immigration cases, replacing them with administrative reviews undertaken by Home Office staff. In addition, the Act introduced the concept of deport first, appeal later for Foreign
National Prisoners subject to a deportation order. This means that, unless the Home Office accepts that an individual would face a real risk of serious irreversible harm, they are required to leave the UK in order to exercise their right of appeal against a refusal. Since the provisions came into force, the Home Office claims that 300 people have been removed from the UK before having their appeals heard. These new measures have not had time to bed down and the impacts are still being fully realised. Why these measures should be opposed These provisions will affect all immigration cases with a human rights claim, the only remaining category that under the Immigration Act 2014 have an in-country right of appeal at present, apart from asylum claims. The main group affected will be applications for leave to remain in the UK based on Article 8 - the right to family and private life. A significant number of Article 8 claims are made by individuals who have British or settled relatives in the UK, such as partners and often children. Under these provisions, any refusal that engages Article 8 could be certified by the Secretary of State as only being allowed to bring an appeal from abroad, resulting in lengthy, and often indefinite, separation for many families. Home Office decision making is notoriously poor, with often close to 50% of appeals against refusals of leave allowed by the courts. Removing a person from the UK before the chance of a fair trial in front of a judge will result in many individuals effectively barred from bringing an appeal and exercising their rights, due to poor electronic communication; lack of contacts in the UK to undertake work on an appeal; and a lack of access to legal representation. Access to effective justice is a fundamental pillar of the rule of law. Continued attempts at its erosion must be questioned and scrutinised thoroughly. The significant impact on people who are removed and their ability to continue their life in the UK, if they win their appeal and are allowed to return, must also be addressed. Furthermore, removing people from the UK before their case is heard will result in families being torn apart, resulting in the separation of couples, as well as children separated from parents. The detrimental impact of separation from a parent on chil-
dren as a result of the Government s immigration policy has been graphically demonstrated in the recent report by JCWI and Middlesex University on behalf of the Children s Commissioner s Office. The latest proposals will extend this misery and harm to many more British and settled children in the UK. Given the severe delays in listing appeals currently experienced by the Immigration and Asylum chamber, with many appeals being listed more than 6 months in advance, families could face months and even years of separation, even when an decision is subsequently overturned by the courts. These proposals represent a serious erosion of rights for both migrants and many British citizens. Below are a few examples from JCWI s cases which demonstrate the potentially devastating impact that this would have: Case study 1 A is an Indian national in her late 80s. She came to the UK on a visitor visa to visit her daughter, a doctor, and son-in-law. While in the UK, A was diagnosed with Alzheimer s and dementia and it became clear to her family that she would be unable to care for herself if she returned to live alone in India. In the UK, she could be cared for by her daughter and son-inlaw, at no expense to the taxpayer. Therefore, before her visa expired, A made an application for leave outside of the immigration rules based on her health and right to family life. The Home Office refused the application under the Rules (which only allow Adult Dependent Relative applications to be made from abroad) and also refused the application exceptionally, as the Secretary of State concluded that it was reasonable to expect A to return alone as she would receive suitable medical treatment for her condition in India. The refusal also disputed that A enjoyed family life with her British children and grandchildren in the UK. JCWI successfully challenged the refusal and the appeal was allowed on human rights grounds. The judge concluded that expecting A to return to India would amount to a serious interference with her rights and those of her British family members. The judge found that it was not proportionate to expect A s British family to leave the UK in order to care for her. Furthermore, A could not be expected to return alone to India where there would be no suitable care for her conditions, nor would she be able to travel alone.
If the current provisions on appeals come into force, A would have been required to leave the UK after the refusal of her application and before her appeal was heard. If she did not make arrangements to leave, she would be removed forcibly, despite her age, fragility and vulnerability. In order for A to exercise her right of appeal, she would be expected to navigate the UK appeals process from India, despite her debilitating health conditions. Alternatively, her family would be forced to leave their jobs and relocate abroad in order to care for her through this process. Her British grandchild would be uprooted from school or separated from her own mother for the extent the appeals process. As appeals at the Immigration as Asylum First Tier Tribunal are now commonly being listed more than six months in advance, families separated by these provisions could be looking at more than a year of separation before travel documents are issued after a successful appeal. Case study 2 H is a British citizen. Her husband, K, is a Moroccan national. After they married, H moved to Morocco to live with K. When H returned to the UK on a visit to her family she discovered that she was pregnant. Due to previous health problems, she was advised to remain the UK for the duration of the pregnancy, due to concerns over the health of mother and child. As a result, K obtained a visitor visa to be with his wife and care for her through the pregnancy. Although they had intended to return to Morocco after the birth, once their son was born, H s health deteriorated rapidly and she was diagnosed with a debilitative health condition. At this point she was unable to even lift her baby son. K was now caring for both his wife and his son full-time. H was unable to work and relied on benefits for the first time in her life. If K returned to Morocco to apply for a spouse visa, there would be no one to care for H and their son and they would be further reliant on state benefits and social support. Therefore, before K s visa expired, he made an application for leave to remain as a partner, outside of the Rules (which only allow for out-of-country applications). The application was refused because H could not meet the financial requirements of the Family Migration Rules, which require sponsor to earn a minimum of 18,600 pa to sponsor a partner. The application was wrongly refused without consideration of K s caring responsibilities, or his relationship with his British child in the UK. JCWI appealed the decision and it was allowed under Article 8, with special consideration given to his vital caring role for his wife and child. However, if the appeals provisions contained in this Bill were to be passed, K would have been forced to leave the UK following the refusal and appeal the decision from Morocco. During this time, which could be up to a year or more, his son would be without a father and his wife would be without her husband and
carer. Furthermore, it would have been incredibly difficult for K to be involved in the legal process and exercise his rights from Morocco, where there is only sporadic electricity and no internet access in the village where his family live. Concluding Points After Theresa May s indiscriminate attack on immigration and asylum in her speech at the Conservative Party conference on Monday, there can be no doubt as to the true aim of this toxic piece of legislation: to create a hostile environment for all migrants in the UK and restrict the rights and civil liberties of migrants and British citizens alike. The provisions contained in this Bill will not achieve their stated aims. They will not reduce irregular migration, nor encourage irregular migrants to leave the UK. Instead, they will have a disproportionately negative impact on those legally residing in the UK, including temporary migrants, black and minority ethnic residents and many British citizens and settled people, who will find it more difficult to live in a climate of hostility and social tension. A tough approach to irregular migration, not based on facts or understanding of the dynamics of the irregular migrant population, will only succeed in increasing the fear and hostility felt by all those who appear different. Theresa May claimed in her speech at the Conservative Party conference that immigration has undermined social cohesion in the UK. This Bill shows that it is her party s policies that are truly damaging the fabric of British society by encouraging discrimination, hostility and mistrust in our communities. For any enquiries or for further information regarding the contents of this briefing, contact: Charlotte Peel, Policy Officer, JCWI Email: charlotte.peel@jcwi.org.uk Direct Line: 020 7553 7457 115 Old Street London EC1V 9RT