Immigration news

France's new sport: soul-searching

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:56:09 -0800

French football fans are red-faced over Les Bleus' World Cup qualification at the expense of Ireland

"What does it mean to be French?" mused a jocular Jean-Michel Aphatie on primetime television shortly before his national side took on Ireland in the Stade de France. "It's loving France so much that you support the players even when they are bad."

He was smiling then but Aphatie, a veteran political commentator, had little to celebrate later on. His team emerged victorious but it did so in such a way that left many French fans with their heads bowed in shame.

Amid fears that the touch of Thierry Henry's left hand may have left a permanent stain on the image of the once-mighty Bleus – and the country they represent – France is now engaged in a vigorous bout of another favourite sport: intensive and protracted soul-searching.

Earlier today, before Fifa ruled out a re-match between the countries, pressure mounted for the home side to be given a chance to beat the Irish fair and square. Christine Lagarde, the finance minister, broke ranks with the government to call for the game to "perhaps" be played again. "If the rules are bad you have to question them," she told French radio.

Henry himself emerged to echo the appeal. "Of course the fairest solution would be to replay the game but it is not in my control," he said.

The front page of Liberation called on France to set the record straight – this time, it said, "with no hands".

At a time when citizens have been asked to consider what national identity means to them, Le Parisien wrote: "The handball of Henry has brought a decisive contribution to the theme 'being French is being ashamed of one's national team'."

There were some who remained defiant in the face of international and domestic opprobrium. Nicolas Sarkozy kept his distance from the row, apologising to Ireland but insisting he was in no place to judge. And a string of political figures, including Rama Yade, the sports secretary, and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a sixties student leader turned green politician, defended Henry.

Today Raymond Domenech, the much-maligned French coach, tried to defend himself, saying he didn't "understand [his critics'] moralism".

But for most fans the fact remained that this was a moral issue – not only for the team but for France. For them, it was not just that the players, as Aphatie had predicted, were bad on Wednesday night – although they were generally acknowledged to have been outplayed by "the valiant" Irish.

It was that they had scraped through qualification by means of a foul – and that this foul was then ignored, and defended, by a string of players and politicians. Critics claimed the world would now see les Bleus as a nation of cheats.

"It was a disgrace," said Christophe Richert, a radio journalist, dissecting the match in a Parisian bar. "Is this really the moral example we want to show our children?" Jacques Attali, a former aide to Francois Mitterrand agreed. "Football is becoming discredited. People who should be models are saying to young people: 'You have to hit back when you're insulted; you have to cheat when you're not caught'. It's shameful."

The fact that the controversy was caused by Henry, who has scored more goals for France – 51 – than any other player in history, was a particularly bitter pill for the French to swallow.

Along with players such as Zinédine Zidane and Lilian Thuram, the captain plays a symbolic role in the French national consciousness as one of the players who led les Bleus to triumph at the World Cup in 1998. Then the Stade de France echoed with jubilant cheers and claims that the French model of integration had triumphed over immigration concerns: the multiracial "black, blanc, beur" line-up that so offended far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen was seen as having a moral value that went beyond sporting success.

Now, in a France still struggling to tackle racism and poverty, those claims are seen as having been hugely exaggerated. As the government commissions a debate into how immigration affects the national identity, the hope that France had solved its integration problems has long been extinguished.

"It is sad," said Attali, "to see the only remaining member of the team covered in glory in 1998 now accepting that his team will qualify through a handball."

Henry himself agreed. "Naturally I feel embarrassed at the way that we won and feel extremely sorry for the Irish who definitely deserve to be in South Africa," he said.

Lizzy Davies

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Stowaways found in a lorry load of fabric softener

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:19:02 -0800

UK Border Agency officers based in Calais have foiled an attempt by eight stowaways to enter the UK by hiding in a lorry load of fabric softener heading for the North East.

UK lawyers fight to save nine-year-old boy from deportation to Iran

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:16:53 -0800

Mother says family faces jail in Tehran for possessing extracts from Satanic Verses and criticising regime

Lawyers for a nine-year-old boy set to be removed from the UK tomorrow are urgently trying to stop his deportation.

The Iranian boy, known for legal reasons as Child M, has been locked up in Yarl's Wood in Bedfordshire, the UK's main immigration removal centre for women and families, since he was arrested with his mother and older brother in Manchester this week. They are due to be put on a flight to Iran tomorrow at 6.30pm.

Child M's mother has been trying to claim asylum, saying her life is in danger if she returns to Iran because photocopied extracts of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses were found in her house and business.

Richard Jones, Child M's lawyer, has given a new report to the UK border agency in which an independent expert testifies that the arrest warrant is genuine and states that the family would be in grave danger if sent back. If the agency discarded the report, the child's lawyers would make an urgent application to a high court judge for an injunction to prevent the deportation and allow the fresh evidence to be considered, he said.

In April this year, Sir Al Aynsley-Green, the children's commissioner for England, said children refused asylum should no longer be detained while awaiting deportation. He warned in a report that children found time spent in Yarl's Wood "like being in prison".

Child M spent several weeks in Yarl's Wood last year and suffered serious physical and mental health problems as a result, said Jones.

Speaking from Yarl's Wood yesterday, his mother, 48, who cannot be named for her own safety, said about 10 immigration officers came into her house at 8.15am on Monday and took her and her two sons, Child M and his brother, 19. She collapsed and was taken to hospital before going to Yarl's Wood in a wheelchair.

She said her son was reacting very badly to the experience. "He wet himself last night. He has nightmares. He feels very defenceless," she said.

She added that she and her family would be sent to prison not only as punishment for being in possession of The Satanic Verses, but for publicly criticising the Iranian regime.

Her 23-year-old daughter was not at the house when the raid occurred and is now in hiding. She said Child M was receiving psychiatric help and had only recently begun to sleep in his own room. During his last incarceration he had a rash and his hair had begun to fall out, according to his lawyers.

"He was getting better, but now this is going to take him back to square one," she said. UK border officials had removed her clothes as well as personal items from the house.

The family say they came to the UK in the summer of 2007 to visit relatives and recover from the death of Child M's father, who had died in a car accident. They say they intended to stay only for one or two months, but then received a phone call from Iran saying their home and business had been raided by police.Lawyers have previously produced a copy and translation of the arrest warrant, which said the arrests were "with respect to disseminating fabrication and propagating against the sacred system of the Islamic Republic of Iran through printing and publishing the noxious book Satanic Verses".

Alexandra Topping

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Time for a political earthquake | Angus Ritchie

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:00:01 -0800

Will politicians' words on poverty and inequality be matched by deeds? London Citizens is one group trying to make it happen

In an audacious raid into Labour's home territory, David Cameron says both parties should be judged by the effect their policies have on the poorest in society. His conference speech and the Hugo Young lecture are signs of a new political consensus: the yawning inequality between rich and poor is no longer deemed acceptable. On global poverty too, we hear a surprising amount of agreement – with the both parties pledging to increase the overseas aid budget in the years ahead.

Yet reality lags some way behind the rhetoric. On current trends, we're miles off the target of eliminating child poverty in Britain. The picture is equally bleak with respect to the Millennium Development Goals: the target of making extreme poverty history looks certain to be missed. For all the words of agreement, it will take a political earthquake to get us back on track, locally or globally.

What's to be done?

Next Wednesday, 2000 delegates from London Citizens will gather in the Barbican hall to hold the capital's political and economic leaders to account. London Citizens has united churches and mosques, schools and unions to challenge the injustices of inner-city life. It is far more than a protest movement. As well as speaking out against injustices, it organises a diverse alliance of communities to fight for meaningful and realistic changes – small but significant steps along the road to a more just social order. The alliance has secured commitments from the Olympic Delivery Authority on fair pay and affordable housing, as well as Boris Johnson's backing for a London Living Wage (currently £7.60 an hour, as opposed to the national minimum of £5.80) and an earned amnesty for undocumented migrant workers. Since 2001, the Living Wage Campaign, which calculates the minimum needed to live on in dignity, has put £25m into the pockets of the poorest Londoners by persuading businesses, councils, hospitals and universities to pay it.

Today in Oxford, a packed lecture theatre will hear Nobel laureate Amartya Sen speak on the fight against poverty. He will be joined by a diverse cast of politicians and academics – including Peter Lilley and James Purnell – to discuss his latest book, The Idea of Justice. In it, Sen urges politicians and citizens to unite against the injustices they can all agree upon, rather than obsessing about the ways in which their ultimate ideals of justice may differ.

The work of London Citizens shows the strength of Sen's approach. It proves how much progress can be made by focusing on the obvious injustices which afflict our society, rather than fighting over the "wedge issues" which divide communities. But there are other lessons: London Citizens' success is founded on political muscle as well as moral aspiration. It recognises that the pursuit of justice involves a redistribution of power towards the poorest and most marginalised of our communities. And such power rarely, if ever, changes hands without a struggle.

If "social justice" is to become a living reality, our poorest communities must organise for change, and our politicians must be willing to listen to their voices. That's a challenge which will be posed at this afternoon's seminar. It's also the challenge 2000 Londoners will press in the Barbican hall next Wednesday.

We've heard the politicians talk about the urgent need to tackle poverty. We've heard them talk about the vital role of "civil society". The work of London Citizens allows us to test that rhetoric against reality. How do our politicians respond when civil society speaks – when it asks for a living wage or a fair deal for the migrant workers who are now trapped in the shadows?

Angus Ritchie

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Nine arrests after Thurrock immigration operation

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:19:02 -0800

Six immigration offenders have been removed from the UK and three more will be following them after an illegal working operation in Thurrock, Essex.

Councils 'lost' 145 child asylum seekers last year, Care Leavers' Association reports

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:50:08 -0800

Charity's FoI request reveals young people left care homes and were never seen again

Almost 150 children and young people went missing without trace from local authority care homes last year, according to returns from local councils. Most were juvenile asylum seekers who had arrived in the UK alone.

The pattern of disappearances suggests they were victims of trafficking operations and were eventually forced into marriage, domestic servitude or sexual exploitation in Britain, the Care Leavers' Association (CLA) warned.

The organisation, which submitted freedom of information requests to more than 200 councils for the survey, identified 145 youngsters who had left care homes without permission and could no longer be contacted between September 2008 and September this year.

That figure is probably an underestimate, the CLA said, because six authorities – Birmingham, Buckinghamshire, Edinburgh, Kent, Norfolk and Waltham Forest – failed to return sufficient data. Kent, in the frontline on immigration and asylum issues, normally has a heavy caseload.

Of those who disappeared, 90% were categorised as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. About 10% were children under the age of 14. Most of their nationalities were not recorded, but several councils mentioned losing track of youngsters from China and Afghanistan.

The CLA's survey follows reports in the Guardian earlier this year of systematic trafficking of Chinese youngsters through a children's home near Heathrow airport. As many as 77 children, according to a leaked intelligence report from the Border and Immigration Agency, had disappeared from the home since March 2006.

At least 40 local authorities admitted that children and young people in their care had gone missing without a trace, yesterday's report said. "Ninety per cent of those missing are unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, which raises concerns that many may have become victims of trafficking," it reported.

Victoria Hull, the national development worker of the CLA, said: "It is worrying that so many of the UK's most vulnerable young people continue to disappear into thin air."

Many have been forced into domestic service, brought into the country for forced marriages, made to take part in prostitution or to work in takeaway restaurants, she said. Some were passed on to criminal networks selling pirated DVDs.

"It is imperative that every local authority keeps a central record of all missing looked-after children and their current status, and this is still not happening. As the corporate parent, local authorities have a particular responsibility towards these young people. Any parent who had an untraced child would be frantic with worry – our view is that local authorities should feel the same way.

"Unaccompanied asylum-seeking young people are obviously particularly vulnerable and should be appointed a guardian on arrival who can advocate on their behalf. They should be safely housed away from known trafficking routes."

Cannabis farms and child begging operations often exploit children who have been trafficked into the UK, earlier investigations have found. Detective Inspector Gordon Valentine, who heads Operation Paladin, the Metropolitan police's specialist anti-child trafficking team, has previously said that his officers have worked on cases where DVD-selling rings were linked to child traffickers.

Owen Bowcott

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

David Cameron says government is behaving like 'irresponsible opposition'

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:23:00 -0800

Queen's speech: Tory leader attacks Gordon Brown over absence of bills on immigration, the NHS and MPs' expenses

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, today accused Gordon Brown of "monumental failures" in government and behaving like an "irresponsible opposition" over the Queen's speech.

In his parliamentary response to the state opening of parliament, Cameron launched a scathing attack on the prime minister's record in office.

Referring to the 15 bills put forward by the prime minister in the final legislative programme before the general election, the Tory leader said: "Only this prime minister could draw a dividing line and find himself on the wrong side of it.

"This government has been a monumental failure."

Cameron said Brown had often lauded his economic stewardship but despite his claim to have ended boom and bust, Brown had presided over the "longest, deepest recessions in recent memory".

"Our economy has been overtaken by Italy," he said. "We have had the biggest bank bailout in the world, the biggest bank run in Europe and after all this the governor of BanK of England's verdict is there has been little real reform."

Mocking Brown's self-asserted "moral compass", Cameron accused the prime minister of borrowing slogans "directly from the far right BNP with his pledge for 'British jobs for British workers', and allowing No 10 staff to smear MPs – a reference to the row over the Damian McBride affair.

This government now represented a "moral failure for the prime minister and monumental failure for the country" Cameron said.

"The answer to every problem is more big government and spending."

Cameron said that what was most striking about the Queen's speech was the legislation that was missing.

"Where is the immigration bill?" he asked and where was legislation to fulfill government commitments on directly elected police representatives.

He added: "The NHS – not a mention. Not government's priority?

"But the biggest omission of all, the whole reason for delaying election, was to clean up expenses. There are 11 separate measures that need to be passed into law, why aren't they in the Queen's speech?"

Challenging the government to implement Commons watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly's recommendations "in full" Cameron pledged Conservative support for any government measures to push it through parliament.

"He tells us he's serious about politics but when it comes to the crunch, nothing," Cameron said. "They have run out of time, they have run out of money, they have run out of ideas and as we have just seen they have run out of courage as well.

"What you've got today is an opposition behaving like a government and a government behaving like an irresponsible opposition."

The prime minister his back, rejecting claims the government's legislative programme was motivated by party politics.

Brown told MPs the package of measures included in the Queen's speech was "not in the party interest but in the national interest" and insisted the country would be worse off under a Conservative government.

Setting out plans to ensure that all new graduates still out of work after six months would have access to a "high quality" internship, training or help to become self-employed, the prime minister said the Conservative policy on helping young people find work wasn't a "guarantee" but a "gamble" with their future.

He added: "Every measure they announce is a repeat of the failed policies of the 1980s and 90s."

The Tories' only definite commitment was to cut inheritance tax for the richest, with the biggest group of beneficiaries in Kensington and Chelsea, including Notting Hill, Brown said.

To Labour laughter, he added: "This must be the only tax change in history when the people proposing it – the opposition leader and the shadow chancellor – will know by name almost all of the potential beneficiaries.

"Is this was the Conservatives mean when they say, 'we're all in this together'? Is this what they mean by the 'age of austerity' – austerity for the many paid for by tax cuts to the very few?

"I say poverty and inequality will endure until doomsday if the leader of the opposition is all that is going to confront it."

Deborah Summers

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Queen's speech 2009: draft immigration bill

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:48:00 -0800

Sets out sweeping reforms to immigration and asylum bill and simplifies legislation on migration
Queen's speech focuses on pensioners, parents and economic recovery

This 243-page bill was published last week and sets out sweeping reforms to the immigration and asylum system that Labour would enact if they win next year's general election, as well as consolidating and "simplifying" the 12 major pieces of legislation since the 1971 Immigration Act.

The main reforms include a new concept of temporary, time-limited "permission" to come to Britain, which will replace the five separate categories of those who come to work, study, or visit. Permanent residents will be given permission without any time limits or conditions attached.

It also introduces a new streamlined power of expulsion to replace the current powers of deportation and removal. A new regime for those on immigration bail is to be introduced with restrictions on residence, work, study and access to public funds backed up by reporting and monitoring requirements.

A consultation paper published last week on the future of welfare support for asylum seekers is also expected to lead to measures to encourage those who have no right to be in the country to leave Britain.

Alan Travis

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Roy Greenslade: Bloggers take issue with Buscombe over regulation

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:38:38 -0800

Read Buscombe's response
Buscombe takes aim at bloggers

Baroness Buscombe's ambitions to regulate bloggers through the Press Complaints Commission was bound to receive a very dusty response from the blogging community.

But rather than simply shout and scream and swear, one leading blogger, Sunny Hundal, is arranging for a letter to be sent to the PCC chairman setting out why such regulation would be incompatible with blogging practice.

After all, he writes, "who wants to be seen working to the ethical standards of the MSM when, with a few exceptions, these are so much lower than our own?"

That gives a clue to the tone of the reply - drafted by a blogger known as Unity - which amounts to a full-frontal assault on the PCC and the newspapers it now regulates (with special reference to the News of the World).

Hundal, founder and editor of Asians in Media magazine, editor of the Liberal Conspiracy blog and one-time winner of The Guardian's blogger of the year award, is asking bloggers to sign up to Unity's letter or, of course, to offer comments or amendments. "This is a blog not a newspaper after all," he writes

Then, at the end of this week, he will send the letter with appropriate sign-ups, to the PCC, the department of media, culture and sport and the Commons culture, media and sport committee. (One further suggestion, Sunny, send it to the Lords committee as well).

So here's the full draft (my major criticism is that some of the sentences are far too long - sub needed - but the substantive content is excellent):

Dear Lady Buscombe,

Re: Extension of PCC regulation to UK Blogs/Blogging

We write in regard to your apparent proposal that the PCC should consider extending its remit to the 'blogosphere' as reported by Ian Burrell of the Independent on 16 November 2009.

While we are grateful for your interest in our activities we must regretfully decline your kind offer of future PCC regulation.

Frankly, we do not feel that the further development of blogging as an interactive medium that facilitates the free exchange of ideas and opinions will benefit from regulation by a body representing an industry with, in the main, substantially lower ethical standards and practices than those already practiced by the vast majority of established British bloggers.

Although we would not wish you believe that this criticism relates to all your members – The Guardian, in particular, has adopted a number of practices, not least the appointment of a Readers' Editor to deal with complaints, which we consider to be the current gold standard in ethical journalistic practice amongst national newspapers – it is nevertheless the case that the vast majority of national newspaper titles routinely fall well short of both those, and our own, standards and that our direct experience of dealing with the PCC shows the organisation to be, in the main, complicit in those failings.

To give but one recent example of bad practice, of the many that bloggers have documented in over the last few years, an article published by the Tabloid Watch blog in October, documented, in some considerable detail, the tortuous process that one of its readers had to go through in order to get the News of the World to retract a manifestly untrue and inflammatory statement by one of its regular columnists, Carole Malone.

In this particular column, published in July 2009, Malone made use of an all-too-common and utterly racist myth that 'immigrants' (meaning asylum seekers) receive free cars on arriving in the UK, a myth that is most closely associated with the propaganda output of the British National Party. Extract of Malone article:

"All you have to do to get everything Britain has to offer is to turn up illegally with some sob story of how your own country is too dangerous or that you're a lesbian who'll be shot if you stay there and Hey Presto, it's like you've won the lottery! And, in effect, they HAVE.
Free houses, free cars, free healthcare and free money. Hell, they don't even have to work or speak the language. Even the suggestion they should is seen as racist in Brown's Britain.
They can just live as they did before, only with a whole heap more money and zero responsibility to the country providing it."

What we find most striking about the process documented by Tabloid Watch is the extent to which the PCC actively sought to facilitate the News of the World's efforts to avoid undertaking practices that we, as bloggers, take for granted as being standard practice in our corner of the internet: i.e. the prominent publication of an honest and open correction of a factual error on the original article in which the error, itself, was made.

Instead, as we invariably find to be standard practice amongst, particularly, tabloid newspapers; the correction and cursory apology when it was grudgingly issued after what Tabloid Watch described as 'two months of wrangling' – appeared in a location other than that of Malone's column in the newspaper's print edition and on its website on a page utterly divorced from the article to which it relates, which was removed its entirety, and in such a way that only someone searching specifically for the retraction would ever be likely to find it.

To all intents and purposes, the retraction might as well not have been issued, for all that it would be apparent to visitors to the News of World's website that it had ever been made.

This is but one clear example of a practice that would be unacceptable amongst established bloggers and one of many that bloggers who specialise in monitoring the national press for accuracy have documented in recent years.

For a blogger to engage in such practices, which include 'stealth editing' of articles, after publication, to avoid owning up to factual errors and removing and/or refusing to publish critical comments from readers, especially those that highlight and correct factual errors.

For an established blogger to adopt such practices would do incalculable damage to their public reputation; this being, after all, all that we have to trade on.

To the vast majority of national newspapers such conduct is no more than standard operating practice.

Consequently we would suggest that before your even consider turning your attention to our activities, you should direct your energies towards putting your own house in proper order.

Should you succeed in raising the ethical standards and practices of the majority of the national press, particularly the tabloids, to our level then we may be inclined to reconsider our position.

Until that happens, any attempt by the Press Complaints Commission to regulate the activities of bloggers will be strenuously resisted at every possible turn.

Regards,

Well, there you are. That's what I call a response. And if you want to sign up to this - or make a comment - then you can do so here. As I write, it appears that 162 people have already appended their names. They come from both the left and the right of the political sphere.

Roy Greenslade

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Hertfordshire holidaymaker charged with drug smuggling attempt at Heathrow

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:44:02 -0800

A Hertfordshire man has been charged with attempting to smuggle approximately seven kilos of cocaine, with an estimated street value of £280,000, into the United Kingdom through Heathrow Airport.

Four plead guilty over sham marriage scam

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:44:02 -0800

A man who tried to sell his sister into a sham marriage was among four people who today admitted their part in a scam to help Chinese immigrants to stay in the United Kingdom illegally.

From the archive: Immigration Bill is 'anti-Commonwealth and anti-colour'

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:05:41 -0800

Originally published on 17 November 1961

"A plain anti-Commonwealth measure, in theory, and a plain anti-colour measure in practice," was Mr Gaitskell's description of the Commonwealth Immigrants' Bill in a speech that was loudly cheered in the House of Commons last night.

[The Act was the first to curtail severely the right of Commonwealth citizens to settle in the UK.] Nobody could say that Mr Butler slammed the door against uncontrolled Commonwealth entry. It is hard to believe that Mr Butler ever slammed a door in his life.

What he did, in mournfully presenting the Bill, was to push the door firmly, though gently, even deferentially, and with a ceremonious sadness, as though the thought of all the guests we shall have to do without in the future was a hard thing to bear.

He even found graceful words, as he pushed his door, for the contribution to our life and work made by those guests who had come in the past and were with us still. No one could fail to appreciate their usefulness, their courtesy and efficiency.

It sounded like one of the most reluctant pieces of door-duty Mr Butler has ever had to perform, and the House was pretty sharply divided between those who were glad to see that the man's heart was still in the right place, and those who thought a little less unctuousness would have been fitting when it actually came to the push.

The Opposition were not competing in politeness,and made many rude noises at Mr Butler. Their great point was that the closed-door doctrine is now in danger of unbinding the Commonwealth. Not, of course, that the door is closed. It is to be kept ajar, under the careful watch of Mr Butler and his footmen, a fine body of immigration officers. He made it clear that what worried him was the haunting thought that if the door stays wide open a quarter of the world's population is free to walk in, any day of the week. Mr Gaitskell considered that Mr Butler had plenty to be sad about, and so had we. A tragic day, he called it. However, as though accepting the Member for Louth as the personification of the true spirit of the Bill, he abandoned Mr Butler for a time and turned on Sir Cyril Osborne, pouring angry ridicule on the mythical fear that millions and millions of brown and black people would ever flood into this country.

The rate of immigrtion, Mr Gaitskell was convinced, would always be closely related to the rate of economic absorption. "They are healthy, they are law-abiding, they are at work. Why then does the Government want to keep them out?"

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Overseas government employees switching into Tier 5 (temporary worker) - international agreements

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:15:30 -0800

The Border and Immigration Minister, Phil Woollas, has agreed to allow those with leave to enter or remain as overseas government employees to switch into the Tier 5 (temporary worker)- international agreements sub-category of the points-based system.

Tier 5 (temporary worker) - government authorised exchange - additional guidance

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:15:30 -0800

Additional guidance for overarching bodies and government departments for the Tier 5 (temporary worker) government authorised exchange scheme have been published.

Potential fines of £50,000 for two Ipswich businesses

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:00:58 -0800

Two Ipswich takeaways are facing potentially heavy fines after the UK Border Agency caught them employing illegal workers.

Suspected labour trafficker arrested in Black Country

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:44:41 -0800

Officers from the UK Border Agency and Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) swooped at 0600 on a house in Brierley Hill on Wednesday 11 November and arrested a Romanian man.

Golden Flower faces a £30,000 fine after illegal workers found

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:40:02 -0800

Three Chinese employees of the Golden Flower Chinese takeaway in Shotley Bridge, County Durham were arrested last week by officers from the UK Border Agency on suspicion of illegal working.

Illegal workers found in Tam's cantonese restaurant

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:56:02 -0800

Tam's Cantonese Cuisine restaurant in Cross Hills was targeted in an intelligence-led illegal working operation on Thursday 12 November by UK Border Agency officers.

Video: Kevin Rudd apologises to Forgotten Australians

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:32:18 -0800

The Australian prime minister delivered an emotional speech to an audience of child migrants, many of whom had been abused by institutions

Video: Welcome to Somalishire

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:31:00 -0800

Somali teenagers Nura and Ilias live in London's East End but visit an authentic Somalian camp at Degmo in Wales, a place which mirrors the traditional rural culture of their homeland - a far cry from the negative media images of Somalia

Lindsay Poulton

Michael Tait

Politics Weekly podcast: Glasgow North East byelection, Major's parliamentary reform plan, and Brown's immigration proposals

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:42:01 -0800

This week Julian Glover, Georgina Henry and Lesley Riddoch join me – flying solo while Tom Clark is on holiday – to discuss the Glasgow North East byelection, proposals to make parliaments less pliable and immigration.

Lesley reports that the byelection count itself was not worth staying up for but all agree it points to some interesting trends. For Lesley that's the new incumbency of the SNP: they were once the insurgents but now they are in government in Scotland so returning the Labour candidate to the seat was almost a protest. Julian also suggests that, away from London, Gordon Brown's popularity is pretty high – much higher than Tony Blair's.

We also discuss some new suggestions to spice up parliament. John Major, the former prime minister, came back to parliament this week with a plethora of ideas including limiting the size of government so as to limit the number of people paid and therefore loyal. Both Georgina and Lesley say Major's suggestions are meaningless without the granddaddy of all changes: proportional representation. Julian makes the case for Major, a man who was his old boss.

And if you want to come and get involved in a live Politics Weekly we're doing our first programme in front of an audience on Wednesday 9 December here at the Guardian in King's Cross, London. Polly Toynbee, Nick Cohen and Simon Jenkins will be on the panel. For free tickets, email us will be there, but we'd like your questions too ... Feel free to start sending them in.

Gordon Brown's immigration speech: what he said, and meant

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:25:11 -0800

•Importance "I have never agreed with the lazy elitism that dismisses immigration as an issue, or portrays anyone who has concerns about immigration as a racist … Immigration is … a question to be dealt with … So if people ask me, do I get it?, yes, I get it.

What it means Brown the intellectual had been criticised for being too keen on considering an abstract concept of Britishness, but not necessarily immigration as experienced by the less academic. The declaration that he "gets it" is spurred by recent and growing gains by the BNP, and Labour's private polling makes this a matter of urgency.

•Rights "The right to stay permanently will no longer follow automatically after living here for a certain number of years … Instead, we have said that after living here for five years, migrants will have to apply to become probationary citizens – and at that point they will have to pass a points-based test."

What it means This is classic Blairite/Brownite territory and is also an attempt to show the rigour of the government's analysis of the skills needed.

•Variations in demand "I do want to ensure that we give British people looking for jobs the best chance of filling vacancies that arise as we come out of the downturn. But where there are vacancies that have been advertised here and are unfilled, it is necessary for businesses and for the economy to be able to recruit more widely."

What it means This is Brown adapting his "British jobs for British workers" rubric. It worried colleagues when he first said it more than two years ago because of possible racist overtones, but Brown has not shied away from it. This will annoy academics who dislike a cap, saying it is difficult to predict job markets.

•Stress on public services "Where there are short term increases in the numbers of children at your local school, or patients using GP services, extra resources should be provided."

What it means: This addresses the long held critique by minister Margaret Hodge that immigrants using public services have put them under stress. This is not new. Earlier this year the government announced the Migration Impact Fund – every non-EU migrant would pay a charge into a £70m fund, which already provides more teaching assistants and GPs in areas most affected by immigration.

•Population "That net inward migration from both within and outside the EU is not rising but falling – with the annual figures showing that overall net immigration is down 44% on last year."

What it means This is a rebuttal of a report from the Office for National Statistics, which predicted the population would rise to 70 million, giving rise to feelings of being "swamped".

•Security "The measures to strengthen our borders are now more co-ordinated than ever – our new Border Agency, biometric visas, electronic border controls counting people in and out, and ID cards for foreign nationals."

What it means This is a daring defence of a government policy (ID cards) unpopular with the metropolitan elite, but popular with other social groups.

Allegra Stratton

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Non-Europeans shut out from another 250,000 skilled jobs

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:04:37 -0800

Brown to clamp down on student visa abuses
Home Office plans big asylum system changes

More than 250,000 skilled engineering, care and catering jobs are to be closed to non-European overseas workers next year as a result of Gordon Brown's immigration speech today.

The prime minister promised that these sectors would be taken off the official list of shortage occupations as soon as employers and training bodies can provide sufficient qualified recruits.

In his first major speech on immigration for 18 months, he also promised to clamp down on widespread abuse of the student visa system.

An official review will look at raising the minimum level of course for which foreign students can get a visa, introducing mandatory English language tests and blocking overseas students from working part-time in temporary jobs that could be filled by young Britons.

After the speech the Home Office published a draft immigration bill which is designed to be enacted after the general election. The 243-page bill – which would be the eighth major piece of immigration and asylum legislation since Labour came to power in 1997 – is designed to "simplify and consolidate" the baffling jigsaw of bills and rule changes introduced since the bedrock 1971 Immigration Act.

The bill also proposes sweeping changes in immigration procedures, including the replacement of the deportation process with a general power to expel failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants. They would also be banned from returning to Britain for a fixed period or indefinitely.

A Home Office consultation paper on welfare support for asylum seekers also published today underpins these proposals with plans to limit housing and benefit payments to three months for those told to leave the country. Families who have been told to leave would have to live in "full-board" Borders Agency accommodation and replacing all cash payments with a plastic pre-paid card.

The further changes to the points-based immigration system outlined by Brown involve implementing recommendations from the government's migration advisory committee. From this autumn, shortage occupation jobs will have to advertised for four weeks rather than the current two before they can be filled by non-European skilled workers.

The previous work permit regime covered about 700,000 jobs in shortage occupations. Since the migration committee was set up last year, it has recommended a cut to about 500,000. The latest recommendations covering engineering roles, skilled chefs and care workers would remove a further 290,000 British jobs.

The number of these jobs filled by non-European workers, however, is very much smaller, with only 30,000 coming to work in Britain between November 2008 and August 2009. The door was closed to unskilled workers from outside the European Economic area when the points-based system was introduced. Now, step by step, the door is also being closed to skilled workers from outside Europe.

The prime minister said realistic timetables needed to be developed for adequate training to take place before these jobs could be taken off the shortage lists.

"As growth returns I want to see rising levels of skills, wages and employment among those resident here – rather than employers having to resort to recruiting people from abroad," said Brown.

The Conservatives said that the PM's speech had a hollow ring to it. "This is the Government that tried to cover up a deliberate policy of increasing immigration and the prime minister's comments show that he has no idea about how to deal with the whole question of immigration now," said the shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling.

The Liberal Democrats' Chris Huhne said Brown was trying to shut the stable door long after the horse had bolted and argued that the government's mismanagement of the immigration system had long ago undermined the country's liberal attitude to the issue.

The Refugee Council said the consultation on asylum support showed the government was determined to make life as miserable as it could for those who got to Britain. Jonathan Ellis, the organisation's head of policy, said: "It has proposed to re-enact the widely condemned section 55, making refugees homeless and destitute, that was ruled illegal by the courts four years ago. Not only that, the government proposes that families who are unable to return home will be refused cash support, and forced to rely on a payment card.

"This makes a mockery of the government's claim to be safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children seeking asylum as it announced last week."

The Home Office denied any change of policy on section 55, insisting it would not be used to make anybody destitute in the way condemned by the law lords.

Refuge and Migrant Justice said that buried in the bill was provision to give ministers the power to overrule bail decisions made by judges in immigration and asylum cases.

Alan Travis

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Why so defensive on migration, Brown? | Tim Finch

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0800

If anything, we've tightened up our borders too much since the late-90s immigration spike. The PM should get off the back foot

What was Gordon Brown trying to achieve with his speech on immigration today ? Although he devoted a lot of time to policy changes, they really don't amount to much more than tweaks to the system. Net immigration is now falling substantially anyway. So, the purpose of the speech was surely political – and part of a government-wide strategy, following as it did the home secretary's recent intervention in the debate.

Clearly, immigration has been a political disaster for Labour (though the evidence shows it has not caused the economic and social damage that critics claim). Those close to the government in the first term admit now that they didn't really have a properly thought-through policy – and that when asylum spiked in the late 1990s their strategy amounted to little more than plugging gaps in a weak system and trying to keep a lid on the problem. These admissions show just how unrealistic are the Daily Mail's claims that there was a grand conspiracy to use high levels of immigration to change the face of the UK for party advantage. As is usually the way of these things, Labour's relatively relaxed approach to surging immigration was more accident than conspiracy.

Since then, however, and particularly since the "not fit for purpose" days, the Home Office has really pulled its socks up. The issue now is not whether the government has a grip on migration, but whether that grip is too tight. Many economists and migrant-supporting NGOs would argue it is. The Institute for Public Policy Research has some sympathy with this standpoint, and over time we would like to see a more progressive migration policy; but we recognise that the government had a real problem it had to deal with.

Where the prime minister's speech is disappointing is that it still strikes such a defensive and backward-looking note. Admittedly, there was plenty on the great contribution of migrants to the UK, but these sections had a ritual feel. The central message – yet again – was that the government is getting tougher. Government strategists argue that this is their only option because the public is so implacably opposed to immigration. The opinion polls and blogosphere certainly seem to confirm that. But we think this is because the debate has been allowed to be framed in divisive "pro" and "anti" terms. Given a choice between these two, the public does go for "anti". But this is a false dichotomy. Our research suggests that most people are – surprise, surprise – somewhere in the middle.

The little Englanders and zero-immigration merchants, never mind the BNP and its ilk, talk for a tiny minority of public opinion. People don't want to see immigration stopped: they understand the economic benefits, they like our multicultural society, and they often admire migrants. They also want controls and management, they want to see migrants integrating and making a contribution, they want to see compliance with immigration law and enforcement action where it is being violated.

But these policies are already in place – and a few more changes to tighten up are probably unnecessary, even damaging. Brown should have come out confidently to say that the Labour government has already put in place a policy framework that will allow this country to reap the benefits of immigration in the coming years. Instead, the impression was created that immigration is still a problem for the UK, that Labour is still on the back foot, still making concessions to its critics, and still not able to put across a strong case for immigration. That is a real shame and a missed opportunity.

Tim Finch

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Video: Gordon Brown justifies tougher immigration rules

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:18:42 -0800

The prime minister makes his first speech on the issue since taking office nearly 18 months ago

Gordon Brown's immigration speech seen as first shot in election campaign

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:23:28 -0800

Prime minister's speech follows poll showing immigration is biggest issue cited by defecting voters

When both the prime minister and the home secretary make their first major speeches for some time on immigration you can be sure that the election campaign has started in earnest.

Labour ministers have been spooked by private polling showing immigration as the single biggest issue sparking defections among the party's past voters.

This anxiety has recently been fuelled by a meaningless "projection" from the Office for National Statistics that Britain's population will rise to 70 million and an unfounded Tory conspiracy theory that the 1997 Labour government deliberately let in millions of new migrants to ensure that there would never again be a Conservative government in Britain. If there is even a grain of truth in that conspiracy theory then the opinion polls all demonstrate it has manifestly failed.

But either way, Labour believes it needs to reassure its core working-class voters on immigration. "So if people ask me, do I get it?, yes, I get it. I have been listening and I understand," says Brown, promising that new migrants will have to demonstrate their commitment to British values before being allowed entry to "our British family home".

So we have the spectacle today of a Labour prime minister boasting in a speech in Ealing, Southall, the historic home of London's Indian community, that overall net immigration is down 44% on last year and promising that in the coming months thousands more jobs in shortage occupations will be closed to overseas skilled workers.

Nearly all the measures to further tighten the new points-based immigration outlined today – such as raising the earnings entry threshold for graduate skilled migrants to £24,000 and doubling the period for jobs to be advertised first to British workers from two to four weeks – were recommended earlier this year by the government's own Migration Advisory Committee.

But the Mac's chairman, Professor David Metcalf, while recommending the changes to ensure that British workers were not being undercut or displaced, also warned the government that it would be a mistake to make deep cuts in the number of skilled migrant workers at a time of recession. He implicitly criticised the idea that there was only a set number of jobs to go round and recognised that migration had actually boosted job growth and the economy over the past decade.

It was vital to ensure that Britain was still thought of as a good place to do business, invest or study, he said, arguing that the points-based system should act as an automatic stabiliser and not be constantly adjusted in response to the economic cycle.

But the prime minister makes only a cursory case for the economic benefits of immigration in his speech. He makes far more of the need to tackle the abuses – such as the latest scandals over student visas, where people with no English at all have been waved into the country – and implies that as the economy recovers more will be done to ensure that those with low skills are helped into work first.

At the same time, the extension of the points-based system to the 130,000 people who apply for a British passport each year will mean much tougher "citizenship tests", including questions on British history. Immigration lawyers have speculated that this could include questions about the difference between the European court of justice and the European court of human rights, but also questions about the controversial role in Britain's imperial past of figures such as Winston Churchill and Oliver Cromwell.

The draft immigration "simplification" bill also published today should be regarded more as a first glimpse of the Labour 2010 general election manifesto than a serious piece of legislation. Its proposals for sweeping new expulsions for failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants look as though they would sit more comfortably in a party election broadcast than in what would be the eighth major immigration and asylum bill introduced since Labour came to power in 1997.

Alan Travis

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Brown promises stricter limits on migrants

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:25:56 -0800

Prime minister will seek to address rising public concern