A Knee-jerk Approach to Managing Immigration in the UK

Photo credit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk

A proposed scheme by the UK government that would require first-time visitors from certain Asian and African countries to deposit a £3,000 bond to obtain a visitor’s visa to the UK has provoked outrage from these countries, notably Nigeria and India. The pilot scheme to commence in November 2013 would initially cover a select number of “high risk” visitors from countries whose nationales have a higher probability of absconding, and if successful, would be extended over other visa categories. The affected countries feel unfairly targeted and the scheme itself could have profound implications.

Since the announcement by the UK Home Secretary Theresa May, some of the affected countries which include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nigeria and Ghana have reacted with indignation on the grounds that the proposal is selective. The Nigerian House of Representatives has described the policy as “discriminatory and capable of undermining the spirit of the Commonwealth”. The Confederation of Indian Industry has described the scheme as “highly discriminatory and very unfortunate”.

While tackling illegal immigration and managing legal migration is a key concern for any serious country to ensure adequate access by residents to infrastructure and public services, targeting those who contribute to the economy is not only discriminatory, but is plain disrespectful. This scheme is perceived to be unfairly selective, applying to those countries whose nationales actually contribute to the UK economy, struggling to bounce back in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

Over 140,000 Nigerians and 340,000 Indians visit the UK annually contributing significantly to the tourism sector which is Britain’s fifth biggest industry and third largest foreign exchange earner. Nigeria in particular is not only the UK’s second largest trading partner in Africa, but Nigerian shoppers rank among the highest spending tourists in the UK, sometimes outspending their Chinese, Arab and Russian counterparts. Middle-class Nigerians annually flock to the UK, not only for sight-seeing, but mainly to get good bargains especially during the annual summer and winter sales, with the British economy typically witnessing a bump within this period.

This proposed scheme seems to be the latest in the long list of rapidly changing and increasingly hostile immigration policies by the UK. In 2012, the UK closed the Post-Study Work visa which allows non-EU university graduates to work for two years in the UK (and pay taxes). The badly managed brief suspension of London Metropolitan University’s license in 2012, with little thought for the thousands of international students who had already paid thousands of pounds in school fees, and all the wrong signals it sent out to prospective international students, cannot be easily forgotten.

Although David Cameron’s coalition government has insisted that Britain wants to attract the “best and the brightest” to its shores, this seems to be a euphemism for “attracting the richest only”, especially with such steeply expensive conditions for securing a UK visa. There is a growing feeling especially among Commonwealth countries that the familiar bond with the UK is deliberately being severed by such antagonistic policies. One of the reasons why Britain has remained highly competitive as a tourism and shopping destination, despite higher VAT than the USA for instance, and as a higher education hub due to the historical link with former colonies. With this realisation, many have since been looking at more welcoming places to study and with this recent proposal, to spend their hard-earned money.

This proposed visa bond scheme is seen to be in reality, driven by the exigencies of domestic British politics, especially the Conservative Party’s campaign pledge of reducing net migration to the UK “from hundreds of thousands, to tens of thousands”. There is a sense that in a bid to stave off the growing threat posed by the far-right United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) to the Conservative Party’s core electoral base, and unable to limit EU migration because its hands are tied by EU migration policies, the Coalition government has chosen to target non-EU immigrants.

Such anti-immigration policies have been fuelled xenophobic rhetoric based on the mostly inaccurate assumption that African, Asian or other non-EU immigrants claim state benefits either legally or illegally depriving citizens, of these benefits, and jobs. For instance, a recent study by the British Department for Work and Pensions (PDF) reveals that only 6.4% or 371,000 of the 5.5 million people claiming work-related benefits in the UK are immigrants, and out of this 371,000, only 2% or about 7,500 have done so illegally. The number of non-EU immigrants claiming benefits will be much lower if the figures are disaggregated by EU and non-EU migrants. Obviously, it is incredibly difficult for undocumented illegal immigrants from outside the EU, who end up living on the fringes of society, to secure decent jobs, access the National Health Service (NHS) and other state benefits here because all these require detailed registration and identification.

Clearly, this policy ought to be considerably watered down or completely rescinded. Indeed, the backlash from the individual countries to be affected and the potential economic repercussions have prompted Cameron to embark on damage control by insisting that the policy hasn’t been finalised. If the British government does insist on pushing ahead with this Visa bond scheme, then the affected countries, especially, Nigeria, India and Pakistan which are hotspots for journalists and researchers, are well within their rights to diplomatically reciprocate by similarly demanding steep bonds for visiting Britons. A collective response, under the auspices of the Commonwealth for example, might be more effective in pressuring Britain to water down this discriminatory proposal. Either way, it is Britain that stands to lose more in the medium to long term by this knee-jerk approach to managing immigration.


15 thoughts on “A Knee-jerk Approach to Managing Immigration in the UK

  1. Well presented. You touch on the appropriate response in your last para.
    The concept of reciprocity in international relations should allow these targeted countries to apply the same requirements to UK citizens seeking entry to their respective countries.

  2. Its really a misinformed decision to introduce a bond regime into visa applications. Immigrants have contributed positively to the development of the UK. Their footprints is there for all to see.

    The policy will definitely boomerang if the UK government eventually goes ahead to implement it. We are watching.

  3. Personally, I am not really offended or surprised, even though if the net of this bond casts over students (which I have been assured it will not), people like me, who send students to the UK to study, will directly suffer.

    I do have this mental picture in my head of a very awkward meeting by the eminent Nigerians trying to decide which course to take… and finally all agreeing to be officially ‘offended’ because, well, it would look bad if we’re not really!

    Seriously though, shambolic decision by the knee-jerk Theresa May and her cohorts. She has a difficult job and with all sympathy seems to be struggling at it.

  4. What would you like to see the UK do
    The problem is the UK has a good benefits system with a good healthcare system
    if you let more and more people access that system who have not had a history of
    paying into the system then it will all break down
    Benefits of all kinds will be cut for everyone unless you control the number of people from outside who can access the system
    Think of it that you work for a company so you have a salary and benefits /but if the company allowed anyone to walk into reception and claim some money then the company would prove unviable /would go bankrupt

    This is a concern in Germany Scandinavia Greece Spain in fact all developed EU countries

    as for other countries asking for a 3k bond to visit
    with some of these areas the visitors are British Citizens who have origins in those countries/they may be surporting relatives and so on

    1. You cannot access the bulk of this benefits unless one is duly registered. An illegal immigrant for example wouldn’t have access to the NHS services.

  5. The truth is, instead of making it harder for illegal immigrants by law enforcement, they are scaring everyone with unreasonable costs of staying in the UK. For the education bit, even scholarships are now subtly discouraged for UK with Malaysia, South Africa et al getting more influx of Doctoral students from the “High Risk” countries (because of cost).
    A retaliatory policy is unnecessary, Nigerians et al will respond by shopping and schooling elsewhere period! Even some UK schools like Reading, Greenwich and some others now have campuses in Malaysia and Dubai. That is a sign that the UK is imploding economically (I don’t need to bore you with the economic implications of exporting education)

  6. Great article Zainab!

    The Conservative’s hostile immigration policies are not only selective and, as claimed above, undermine the values of the Commonwealth, but they also have a profound impact on families’ lives. I am aware of cases in Germany when foreigners had to deposit a large amount of money before entering the country. Many foreigners simply do not have the money and are thus not allowed to see their families. That’s shocking. As one commentator wrote above, Nigeria and other states should impose the same requirements on UK (EU) citizens.

    Unfortunately, the Conservatives are a prime example of politicians who point the finger abroad (EU and immigration) and at the weakest member of the societies (recipients of social benefits) in order to distract from their own short comings, that is getting the economy up and running again. Cameron is aware that based on the insufficient performance of the UK’s economy he would lose the next election. Subsequently, he needs to distract people from the economic issues and refer their attention to other topics.

    Rob said above, that immigration places a burden to the society. That’s incorrect. Immigrants come first and foremost to the UK (or any other EU country) to contribute, not to claim. An increase in population places higher demand on the NHS and housing, no doubt. However, an increase in population also leads to an increase in labour force which, then, subsequently can meet higher demands.

    And of course, I consider a multicultural society as a rich society – that’s the greatest thing about, for example, a city like London!

    The Conservative’s Policies, might lead to an increase in political support, but this is short sighted approach that will cause more harm than good.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s