Can only victims win? – how UK immigration law has moved from consideration of rights and entitlements to assertions of vulnerability (original) (raw)
Related papers
This Special Issue takes stock of current debates across different disciplines and problematises the concept of vulnerability in the field of migration and its relationship to law, building on discussions held during the MAPS Project Conference of December 2020. The Conference considered the treatment that migrants are facing in Europe and elsewhere, focusing on the difficulties they encounter in accessing their rights and interrogating the law's ambiguous position in their regard: exacerbating vulnerability, while, at the same time, also providing a possible source of protection that can unravel restrictive policies of deterrence and control. This dual role of the law vis-à-vis migration, as simultaneously a generator of vulnerability and its potential antidote, is what contributions to this Special Issue grapple with and aim to elucidate.
Vulnerability and the Quest for Protection: A Review of Canadian Migration Case Law
Laws, 2022
Although the concept of vulnerability has become increasingly prevalent in both domestic and international migration policy in recent years, its precise meaning and implications remain ambiguous and under-examined. Without a coherent understanding of what makes individuals vulnerable, the concept can either act as a justification for additional consideration or reinforce stereotypes of disempowerment. To address this lack of clarity, this article presents the results of an extensive review of Canadian case law. Drawing on data from over 750 cases primarily from the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada, this study sought to examine how the concept of vulnerability is used by both decision-makers and parties to cases involving migrants seeking legal status and various forms of protection (including, but not limited to, asylum) under national or international law in Canada. Although an analysis of case law necessarily produces only a partial image of the landsc...
The new grounds for deportation of European Union citizens in the United Kingdom
International Migration, 2023
Politicians often mention immigration enforcement, and deportation in particular, as a means to assert state sovereignty. This article looks at deportation through exiting the European Union, an event that was interpreted as regaining sovereignty from the supra-national organisation. New immigration regulations in the United Kingdom were meant to end the EU Freedom of Movement and equalise the statuses of EU-and non-EU migrants in the United Kingdom. The research question this article addresses is the following: how do the new immigration regulations and policies affect the possibility of deportations of EU citizens in the United Kingdom? With the lens of Interpretive Policy Analysis, the article analyses primary sources and expert interviews. It concludes that the deportability of EU citizens has increased post-Brexit. It also anticipates that the deportability of EU citizens will be differentiated, as rough sleepers, former convicts and irregular migrants may be first to be targeted with deportation.
This paper analyses the 'responsibility to protect' (RtoP) from a moral cosmopolitan perspective. It argues, first, that RtoP postulates a remedial responsibility on the part of those nations that have the means and capacity to effectively protect individuals against vulnerability and to provide for the means of human security. Second, the paper explains that human security implies access to human development, including access to social and economic rights. Finally, it argues that developed nations can discharge their remedial responsibilities towards those who lack social and economic rights by adopting just immigration regimes, part of which can be based on temporary foreign labour programs that allow individuals access to the economic opportunities, thus providing them with means to establish economic security. The paper thus argues for an expansion of the interpretation of RtoP.
The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002: Secure Borders, Safe Haven?
Modern Law Review, 2004
One of the more surprising features of the 2002 Act was its precipitate arrival. Only three years earlier, the lengthy and cumbersome Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 had come into law after extensive discussion and debate. 5 Despite this Act's overhaul of UK legislation, the Government published a White Paper in February 2002 entitled Secure Borders, Safe Haven^Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain. 6 This laid out yet further changes to UK immigration and asylum law and o¡ered, according to Home Secretary Blunkett, a holistic approach to nationality, managed immigration and asylum. 7 The White Paper considered a broad range of important issues: citizenship and nationality, working in the UK, asylum, people tra⁄cking, illegal entry and illegal working, border controls, marriage and family visits, and war criminals. The subsequent Bill and ¢nal version of the 2002 Act incorporated the majority of the White Paper proposals and re£ected the high pro¢le given to asylum and immigration during the 1990s. 8 Whereas the ¢rst asylum-speci¢c statute passed in 1993, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act, contained only 16 short sections and two schedules, the 2002 Act extended to 164 sections and nine schedules. There are eight Parts: 1 (Nationality), 9 2 (Accommodation Centres), 3 (Other Support and Assistance), 4 (Detention and Removal), 5 (Immigration and Asylum Appeals), 6 (Immigration Procedure), 7 (O¡ences) and 8 (General). Many provisions are dependent on secondary legislation for their further clari¢cation and implementation. At the time of writing, in March 2004, six commencement orders have been published, bringing numerous sections into force, though many remain outstanding. 10 This review will address the following areas: the support of asylum seekers, the regulation of asylum seekers, and appeals.
The hostile environment and crimmigration: blurring the lines between civil and criminal law
Soundings, 2020
The recent media furore surrounding the UK government's hostile environment policy and the treatment of the Windrush generation drew attention to the use of criminal law for regulatory purposes within the context of immigration. The proliferation of immigration offences, and the reproduction of criminal provisions in immigration laws, signals a blurring of the lines between the civil and criminal legal realms: while immigration law purports to be administrative in character it is often effected through criminal law, which is used against citizens and non-citizens in breach of immigration rules when immigration measures alone are ineffective. These 'crimmigration' measures can be understood as examples of hybrid proceduralism. The civil/criminal procedural hybrids used in 'crimmigration' processes are borne of ideologically motivated political expediency, and disproportionately disadvantage vulnerable populations, who are frequently portrayed as deviant. They priv...
The UK's hostile environment: Deputising immigration control
Critical Social Policy, 2021
In 2012, Home Secretary Theresa May told a newspaper that she wanted to create a 'really hostile environment' for irregular migrants in the UK. Although the phrase has since mutated to refer to generalised state-led marginalisation of immigrants, this article argues that the hostile environment is a specific policy approach, and one with profound significance for the UK's border practices. We trace the 'hostile environment' phrase, exposing its origins in other policy realms, charting its evolution into immigration, identifying the key components and critically reviewing the corresponding legislation. The article analyses the impact and consequences of the hostile environment, appraising the costs to public health and safety, the public purse, individual vulnerability and mar-ginalisation, and wider social relations. We conclude by identifying the fundamental flaws of the policy approach, arguing that they led to the 2018 Windrush scandal and risk creating similar problems for European Economic Area nationals after Brexit. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0261018320980653
CMR Working Papers, 2021
Politicians often mention immigration enforcement, and deportation in particular, as a means to assert state sovereignty. The scholarship on deportation in philosophy and political anthropology also names exclusion as a founding act of sovereignty. This paper looks at deportation through an event that is interpreted as regaining sovereignty by a State, that is exiting a supra-national political organization, namely the European Union. New immigration regulations in the UK are meant to end the EU Freedom of Movement and equalise the statuses of EU- and non-EU migrants in the UK. The research question this working paper addresses is the following: how will the new immigration regulations and policies affect the possibility of deportations of EU citizens in the UK? With the lens of Interpretive Policy Analysis, the working paper analyses primary sources, such as regulations, policy papers and policy implementation guidelines as well as expert interviews with immigration advisors. It concludes that the deportability of EU citizens will increase. Deportability of EU citizens will be differentiated, as rough sleepers, former convicts and irregular migrants may be first to be targeted with deportation and form a new deportspora.
The role of lawyers, judges, country experts and officials in British asylum and immigration law
International Journal of Law in Context, 2020
This paper examines the work of lawyers, judges and country experts involved in asylum and migration litigation. I begin by analysing their work in the wider semi-autonomous asylum field within which a number of powerful institutions operate to shape policy, define the roles of key actors and determine access to legal redress/justice by asylum applicants and migrants. To understand the work of these three legal actors, I analyse four very different types of legal cases involving asylum, foreign adoption and migration law. An analysis of these cases helps to identify the constraints on effective litigation on behalf of refugees and migrants against the British Home Office and it illustrates the fact that it is Home Office policy, and the decisions taken by Home Office officials, that created the injustice for the individuals concerned by blurring the ‘bright line’ differentiating between the rights of nationals and those of ‘foreigners’.