Immigration, we know, has long been the favourite whipping boy of the right wing and has been a dominant campaign issue in recent national elections around Europe. The compulsion of cohabitation with either the extreme fringe or the centre tests the inventiveness of traditional rightwing parties as they search for ways to appease anti-immigrant vote banks without appearing overly illiberal or undemocratic. Given the biting austerity and high unemployment they are presiding over, it is hardly surprising that the Tories in the current Liberal-Conservative coalition in the United Kingdom should seek refuge in tougher immigration rules. Immigration Minister Damian Green's recent observations on restricting British visas only to the wealthy, the highly skilled and the very best in other respects seem unexceptionable but are, if anything, aimed at preparing the ground for the adoption of a controversial policy to curb family migration. The government-sponsored Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) report of last October sets new income criteria for citizens and settled residents who wish to sponsor foreign spouses or children. It proposes a minimum threshold where a person's salary before tax would be above the amount that would entitle him or her to income-related benefits. A January 2012 report of the MAC also claims a strong correlation between non-European immigration and the displacement of British workers.
Despite the anecdotal evidence of welfare fraud periodically trotted out by the British press, the targets of the proposed family migration measures are not scroungers, potential destitutes or recipients of state benefits, but people earning average wages who have families to support. Many of these individuals are South Asians or of South Asian descent. It is ironic, given that commitment to the family is an oft repeated conservative platitude, that the Cameron government should seek to put in place policies that would allow the right to family life only to those British residents who are affluent and deny it to working people whose income is less than the cut-off. Therein lies the harshness of the new criteria. Indeed, their application could attract legal challenge for violating Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, i.e. the right to respect for private and family life. There may be an element of tawdriness involved but Britain is entitled to cherry pick and fast-track wealthy individuals seeking to set up home there. What it ought not to do is discriminate against its own residents and citizens. The right to marry and have a family cannot be means-tested.
I sincerely support the strong view of Mr Ayyapa.This is really an appalling situation.
Ayyappa - I agree with you. Very happy and supportive with your last 3 lines. We all should educate and improve our home situation. Good thinking.
This shows to what levels the ruling government can stoop to in order to gain votes and appease anti-immigration vote banks. It is unfair to set a cut off income to sponsor family members who are staying overseas. Family reunion should be given the highest priority in any society irrespective of where the people come from. One can only hope that this will be legally challenged for violation of Article 8.
Why Hindu choose to comment only about UK. The Hindu ought to know there are other countries already following this for many years. Please list them down for the benefit of the readers. All Indians should understand that home is sweet home. If you are rich and you go overseas it is very good. As a working class if you go you are treated like a coolie or slave. Leave you rights, voice, self respect, ambition, career, fairness, etc in a trunk in India. No use of those overseas. Many youngsters with out realising this are very eager to migrate. Hardly 1% of them will be successful and happy overseas. The rest are all unhappy souls in a rich land. News paper like Hindu should educate the youth to strive to make India clean neat and comfortable. A small step at a time forward. If you cannot fix your own country who will respect you in a foreign country?
The commonly held view that liberal democracies cannot effectively control unwanted migration is unwarranted despite the intensification of migration pressures in recent years. To develop a more accurate position built on less sweeping generalizations, I disaggregate migration policy into four parts: managing legal immigration, controlling illegal migration, administering temporary worker programs, and processing asylum seekers and refugees. A review of the experiences of the liberal democracies with each of these migration challenges indicates that although there are numerous instances of policy failure, there is also considerable capacity to regulate migration. I argue that this capacity is certainly growing, not declining, over time, that some states possess more capacity than others, that the control capacities of particular states vary substantially across the four areas, and that these capacities fluctuate periodically in conjunction with contingent cycles of salience and effort
Please Email the Editor