To the Royal Festival Hall this morning for a talk on Britishness and the future of the United Kingdom by leader of the opposition, Ed Milliband.
Mr Milliband gave testament to his somewhat more radical father and the hospitality the UK offered to him when fleeing the Nazi occupation of much of continental Europe. He stands proud to be a product of immigration into the UK, but also a patriotic British person.
Today’s speech was primarily aimed at influencing the debate on Scottish Independence, but the theme of Britishness is difficult to address without at least touching on the issue of immigration. Mr Milliband tried his best to avoid the subject – Labour have yet to develop any meaningful policies on the issue.
Guest post by Natasha Tsangarides. Natasha is a researcher currently working for Medical Justice, and is the author of the report MJ have recently published, Second Torture.
The dossier of case studies contained in JCWI's pamphlet United by Love Divided by Law? details the potential impacts of the some of the family migration proposals put forward by the Government. It has received some enouraging feedback from parliamentarians and others, but we'd like a lot more....
This letter appeared (top of the letters page) in The Times today. The Times has a paywall, so we thought we'd repeat it here. We hope it has some effect on the readership and the powers that be.
Current Home Office proposals to introduce new restrictions on British citizens and settled persons who wish to sponsor their non-EU family members to join them in the UK are a blunt and disproportionate policy instrument. These proposed changes would keep families apart and would further marginalise those who already face disadvantages in society.
A couple of us had a meeting with Chris Bryant last week to express our concerns over the family Immigration Rule changes looming in Theresa May's plans. Chris, as readers of this website will know, is the shadow Immigration Minister. He says he is vehemently opposed to the idea of putting a high income as a requirement for spousal immigration. I’d go so far as to say he’s quite indignant at the idea a rich person can go travelling fall in love and marry and bring their spouse home, but a typical constituent he represents (in the far from wealthy) Rhondda will not be able to do so. Chris is an intelligent and articulate man, cut from the cloth of the very modern politician, he plays with a very straight bat when it comes to discussing immigration.
Curiously, Chris’ alternative to hikes in the earning threshold...
Guest post by Nando Sigona. Nando is a Senior Researcher at the Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford Department of International Development, primarily working on projects in the Citizenship and Belonging, Urban Change and Settlement, and Welfare clusters. This post originally appeared on Nando's personal blog.
The Conservatives have always enjoyed a somewhat murky relationship with ideas of equality and non-discrimination. From their opposition to the race equality laws proposed by the Wilson Government in the 1960s, to the enactment of the Immigration Act in the 70s, (which sought to clamp down on immigration by non-white migrants) to their more recent noise-making about parts of the Equality Act. It would be fair to say that the Conservatives have a long history of sabotaging and scuppering anti-discrimination initiatives.
With the above in mind, it should come as no major surprise that following the UK’s review of its general immigration reservation to the UN Convention of the Rights of People...
Theresa May obviously thinks Nick Clegg needs persuading – or at least is persuadable. In her ‘leaked’ letter to him about the coming Immigration Rule changes to be laid before Parliament in the next few months, she seeks to persuade Mr Clegg of the wisdom of choosing upper figure for maintenance thresholds for spouses/partners outlined by MAC in their snappily entitled report Review of the minimum income requirement for sponsorship under the family migration route.
Abubakar v Entry Clearance Officer (Sannaa)  EWCA Civ 377 (28 March 2012 - read the judgment here.
This case before the Court of Appeal dealt with the interpretation of rule 317 (iva) of the Immigration Rules (HC 395) post Mahad. Rule 317 (iva) applies to parents, grandparents and other dependant relatives seeking indefinite leave to enter or remain in the UK. It stipulates that applicants and any dependants are adequately maintained without recourse to public funds.
By section 13(6) of the TCEA 2007, and the 2008 Order, permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is not to be granted unless a proposed appeal would raise some important point of principle or practice, or that there is some compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear the case. This is known as the ‘second tier appeals test’, and is something JCWI campaigned against in the past.
This case before the Court of Appeal looked at how the ‘compelling reason’ head of the ‘second-tier appeals test’ applies in two different scenarios. The first is where appellants succeed before the First Tier...
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Browse by Category
January 21st, 2015
January 16th, 2015
January 15th, 2015
January 8th, 2015
January 8th, 2015