Immigrants will feel the toll of tougher immigration rules from now on, and for those in power -in Parliament and government- they are the surest way to protect themselves from the backlash of the consequences these changes might have. But to what extent do they understand the suffering of the diaspora in the UK?
Pablo Muñoz
In the UK, whatever statute or rule the government passes goes hand in hand with how receptive MPs in Parliament are to accepting and voting, either in favour of or against a policy. In the 1960s, it took eighteen months, and a Labour landslide in 1966, to pass the Abortion Act of 1967, the apex of Harold Wilson’s “civilised society”.
In 2004, Labour was able to pass the Civil Partnership Act with cross-party support due to the opposition -the Conservative Party of Michael Howard- being willing to allow for a free vote amongst its ranks, with young, rising stars like David Cameron voting in favour of the Bill. Indeed, it was the coalition government led by Cameron and Nick Clegg that passed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. The Prime Minister then said that “it seems extraordinary to me that the state can deny two people who love each other that they can marry”.
As with these examples of momentous pieces of legislation in recent British political history, the Statement of Changes HC 1691 was made a binding rule in UK jurisdiction due to the majority of MPs’ complacency with the dispositions found within the motion laid by the government before parliament on 5 March this year. The issue received wide bipartisan support.
Sir John Hayes, a Conservative MP, said of the changes that “there has been too much immigration into this country for too long”, and he suspects that his position is “a widespread view among law-abiding, patriotic Britons from all kinds of backgrounds”. It was a Home Office spokesperson who said that the country “must be honest about the scale and impact of hundreds of thousands of low-skilled migrants getting settlement”.
Nevertheless, this issue has proven to be a divisive one in British politics. Angela Rayner, Starmer’s former Deputy Prime Minister who has recently settled a £40,000 unpaid stamp duty bill with HMRC, called the proposals — which include introducing worker payroll audits and shortening refugee protection from the previous period to just 30 months — “un-British”. She accused the government of “moving the goalposts”, while Tony Vaughn, a Labour MP from Kent, said that “we cannot have a system where the child of a banker gets settlement after three years and the child of a care worker gets it after 15”.
Sir John has defended the government regardless. Expanding on his argument, he said that the levels of migration coming into the country have actually weakened the UK economy, as they have displaced “investment in domestic skills”. He further argued that this perpetuates “a labour-intensive economy at a time when we should have been automating and taking out labour demand”, while also feeding “the greed of those employers who, rather than paying a decent wage for employees who understood their rights, were happy to take cheap labour.”
Sir John also calls multiculturalism a “curious notion” that entails the belief that “we can absorb all kinds of people into our country without a shared sense of belonging, a common sense of what being British is all about, and that these co-existing subcultures would somehow cohere”. On this issue, he quoted Sir Mark Trevor Philips, a British writer, broadcaster and politician who was born of Guyanese immigrants, and who argued that multiculturalism ends up “with the ghettoisation”. Sir John Hayes believes that “a nation means very little unless it has territorial integrity. What is the purpose of a nation that has porous borders? Indeed, it barely deserves to be described as such.”
Pete Wishart, an MP for the Scottish National Party (SNP), called for a debate on the changes laid before Parliament, saying that “it is difficult to grasp the scale and ferocity of the Home Secretary’s assault on immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers”.
The changes, according to him, will lock people into years of insecurity, “denying them the opportunity to rebuild shattered lives. It will prolong uncertainty for refugee families, making it almost impossible to make decisions about education for children and for these poor souls to find positive employment.”
Criticism also came from the House of Lords, which managed to move forward with a Motion of Regret, a mechanism used for Members to express their opposition to a piece of legislation. The motion was introduced by Lord German, who said that “The Statement of Changes represents a fundamental shift in the way that this country provides sanctuary to people in need, yet it has been introduced without meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.” He was supported in his motion of regret by only 15 Members of the House. Christopher Chessun, Lord Bishop of Southwark, was one of them.
The Bishop spoke to say that “with a declining birth rate and rising economic inactivity, it [immigration] is likely to play a continuing, vital part.” He also said that he opposed any rhetoric that “creates images of ‘other’ and imputes images of rampant criminality on migrants and asylum seekers. That is utterly reprehensible and disgraceful”.
Another Labour MP, Brian Leishman, said that “no one ever votes Labour with the desire to be tough on the weak and weak on the tough. But with its immigration reforms, the Home Office is being tough on the very weakest—the most oppressed people.”
Rachael Maskell, an MP for Labour, accused the government of instituting “draconian policies” and hinted that they aligned with Reform UK policies. She asked: “Why follow them?”
Blake Stephenson, a Conservative MP, described immigration as an issue of major importance to his constituents, saying that it appears in more than 80% of the surveys he sends monthly. He argued that “this is not about chasing Reform” but about “focusing on an issue that matters deeply”.
He added that nearly 17,000 micro-companies with five or fewer employees are eligible to sponsor visas, but there appears to be little available data on how many people they have actually sponsored.
Stephenson also raised concerns about visa routes that, in his view, are too loosely regulated and subject to minimal financial requirements. Referring specifically to religious and charity visas, he argued that the current system unfairly disadvantages British citizens wishing to bring foreign spouses to the UK, saying that “it is easier for someone to bring their non-British spouse to the UK if they are an immigrant than if they are a British citizen”.
Neil Duncan-Jordan is the Labour MP for Poole, in Dorset, where one of his constituents, Olabanjo Akinduro, lives. His constituent said to him that “migrants are not just statistics; we are carers, professionals, volunteers, and parents raising children who already call this country home.”
Olabanjo added that “we want to belong, to integrate fully, and to continue giving our best to the UK. This proposal would make that harder, not easier.” Still, the government is adamant that these changes benefit the country and are made in its best interest. Steve Yemm, a Labour MP, defended the reforms as part of a broader effort to deliver what many voters want: an immigration system that is “fair, but one that is controlled and works in the national interest”. He said this was exactly what the Labour government, under the leadership of the Home Secretary, intended to achieve.
(Photos: Pixabay)
.jpg)
