Immigration Act 2014

You may be interested to know that the Immigration Act received Royal Assent earlier this month. I give below a Ministerial  summary of what it does:

• reduce the number of immigration decisions that can be appealed from 17 to 4, whilst introducing a quick and cost-effective system of Administrative Review to correct case-working errors – preserving appeals for those asserting fundamental rights;

• ensure the courts have regard to Parliament’s view of what the public interest requires when considering Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in immigration cases;

• reform the removals process, replacing the current multiple decision points with a single decision notice to ensure individuals are in no doubt as to their immigration status and their liability to removal;

• reinforce our commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes by putting key elements of the family returns process into law;

• restrict the ability of immigration detainees to apply repeatedly for bail unless there has been a material change of circumstances;

• require private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants, to prevent those with no right to live in the UK from accessing private rented housing (this will be implemented in one geographical area first and the results evaluated before it is extended);

• introduce a new requirement for temporary migrants with a time-limited immigration status in non-exempt categories to make a financial contribution to our National Health Service;

• require banks to check against a database of known immigration offenders before opening bank accounts;

• make it easier for the Home Office to recover unpaid civil penalties;

• introduce new powers to check applicants’ immigration status before issuing driving licences and to revoke licences where immigrants are found to have overstayed in the UK;

• clamp down on people who try to gain an immigration advantage by entering into a sham marriage or civil partnership;

• allow the Home Secretary to deprive a naturalised British citizen of their citizenship in cases where they have conducted themselves in a way which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK, where the Home Secretary has reasonable grounds for believing the person is able to become a national of another country;

• correct an anomaly in nationality law to enable certain children born before 1 July 2006 to a British father but whose parents were not married at the time to apply to be registered as British citizens and acquire their father’s British nationality. This rectifies a historical anomaly and provides all children with the same rights, irrespective of whether their parents were married when they were born.


This new legislation deals with some of the complaints bloggers here and others have been making about a lack of control over our borders. It remains true that control over who comes here to work from the rest of the EU cannot be changed without renegotiation or exit from the EU, which depends on the result of the 2015 General Election.


  1. Freeborn John
    May 25, 2014

    Cameron would be better focussing on EU exit and not concentrating on immigration. I am sure a deal with UKIP could be brokered solely on the question of EU exit leaving Cameron free to appeal to the liberal center ground on other policy issues, including immigration. This leads to the broadest possible electoral appeal whereas if Cameron feels he can ignore the EU issue and appeal only to social conservatives on matter like immigration he is narrowing his appeal and sealing his own fate at the general election.

    1. Lifelogic
      May 25, 2014

      Indeed he is heading for self destruction, but then his heart and soul clearly lie in the EU and the destruction of any remaining UK democracy.

      1. Hope
        May 26, 2014

        Today he states that he is sticking to his plan. The listening part has now needed and he is back to telling us what we think even though the results from the EU elections were clear at we do not want his plan.

        He ordered a three line whip to prevent an in out EU referendum, he wanted us to move on. Now he wants us to believe him that he will deliver on this, even though he has failed to deliver on all his promises made Uturns and failed his cast iron guarantees. ken Clarke wrote last week how good EU regulation was, he is in Cabinet and the EU watch man. Clearly he has Cameron’s support or he would not be there. A poor con man.

  2. Gary
    May 25, 2014

    Reduce all that waffle to one line :

    If you don’t have a job here, you don’t come to stay here.

    1. Gary
      May 25, 2014

      ….and no welfare.

      1. JA
        May 25, 2014

        Gary – And no welfare for the people who refused to take the jobs that migrants do.

    2. alan jutson,
      May 25, 2014


      Also no appeals whilst you stay in the country, but all to be returned the same day from where they came by the same airline, ferry, train company that they arrived in at their cost.

      Those illegals without documentation who are caught, to be kept in secure detention centres until they admit the truth of their nationality then returned home immediately.

      It all seems so simple, but no doubt the EU will all say this new legislation is against their regulations and we will have endless legal battles, while thousands still walk through the doors and are given train tickets and told to report back in a month.

      Why do I have such little faith that these new rules will make such little difference !

      The simple fact is we do not want free movement of people.

  3. Nick
    May 25, 2014

    It remains true that control over who comes here to work from the rest of the EU cannot be changed without renegotiation or exit from the EU, which depends on the result of the 2015 General Election.


    Completely untrue. There are two examples that show that the above statement is false and untrue.

    First, accession countries. They were denied the rights. One example of migration being optional.

    Second, and the more relevant one is Cyprus. First you have to read the actual law on freedom of movement.

    1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
    Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
    It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
    (a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
    (b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
    (c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
    (d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
    The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

    So there are several things you can do.

    1. Sack all EU nationals in the public sector.
    2. Notice the bit about policy? You already have declared it public policy to limit migration. Just carry it through. Except you won’t. You will carry on claiming that your hands are tied when they aren’t. You can restrict EU migration.
    3. Why aren’t you restricting non EU migration? Where is the test that people earn over 40K a year per migrant? That is what is needed to break even and they make a net contribution.

    For the other readers, listen to politicians when they claim migrants make a contribution and ask do they mean less than 2p a week like Cameron, or a net contribution?

    Now for Cyprus. The reason its relevant for controlling migration is that movement of people is just as equal right as movement of capital. However, the EU prevented that. It’s that public policy bit again. You can stop people moving their capital, and you can stop people moving for work.

    All you need to do is make it public policy (already done) and make it the law. The bit the Tories won’t do.

    Reply The law has moved on from this through ECJ judgements

  4. Lifelogic
    May 25, 2014

    Cameron wants and clearly likes (as he confirmed only a few days ago) totally open borders to immigration from within the EU. He does not even want to renegotiate this.

    He has ruled out a deal with UKIP. His heart of soul in the EU, he does not want a Greater Switzerland (but can give no reasons for this at all), he could not debate Fararge (as he lacks any rational arguments and would look even dafter than Clegg did).

    Cameron’s position will only deteriorate from here to May 15. He is clearly history and that is very richly deserved, he has treated his supporters with a complete dishonest, say one thing do the opposite, contempt. He could not even beat sitting duck Brown and that was before everyone new what Cameron was.

    Miliband is worse but only just (with his idiotic rent act) but there is so little difference Miliband it will clearly be.

    The above list of tinkering at the edges might help very slightly, the further imposition on Landlords is totally absurd. Net migration is out of control but Cameron clearly likes this but pretends not too. Say one think do the other is his hall mark the man is totally contemptible.

    1. JA
      May 25, 2014

      – migration out of control
      – increasing national debt
      – a PM wanting wars where it doesn’t concern us…
      – with armed forces starved of funding
      – violent prisoners wandering our streets
      – an out of control housing bubble
      – White D able to take the piss out of us (until The Sun intervened)
      – ever more EU meddling…

      Thank goodness we don’t have a Labour government otherwise we might have ended up with all of that.

      1. JA
        May 25, 2014

        Britain is an island, for goodness sake. It should be the easiest place on the planet to control immigration. We didn’t have this crisis until after we’d signed Maastricht (under the Tories)

        Either there is a lack of will or a lack of power to deal with it. I suspect a bit of both. Whatever. There is not the sense of urgency in Government that there is in the nation.

        1. Hope
          May 26, 2014

          LL, Cameron is going to stick to his plan- that is what the people want, he arrogantly tells us this morning. Shapps last night basically said the same thing, Osborne and Hammond are deluded that they will get voters back after insulting them and going against every value they hold. May is in cuckoo land over immigration, then She would be because she should have led the cuts. Or the increase that has happened. You know, the No ifs or buts guarantee from Cameron.

          Now all cabinet ministers,including Hague, this morning are making false claims that the result of the EU elections was not about the EU, immigration etc. If they are correct why did they not win yesterday? Utter rubbish. More false promises and after all the insults want people to vote for them. There appears, according to Cameron’s insult, to be many closet racists, fruitcakes and loonies out there. Only last week the racist insults were still being made by these people. My message is simple: get stuffed.

          1. Cliff. Wokingham.
            May 26, 2014

            It is funny because, for the first time in my life, I was not going to bother to vote because I could see no point however, when Mr Clegg told me I was unpatriotic for being Eurosceptic, I went out and voted UKIP in the Euro election.
            For Mr Clegg’s information, it is not I who was educated by Europe, nor do I have a big pension from Europe, nor do I wish to sell my country out to Europe…..Remind me again Mr Clegg; who is unpatriotic?

  5. Bert Young
    May 25, 2014

    Dr, JR , your last sentence said it all . We can legislate what we like but , as long as we are governed and controlled by the EU , it is all a waste of time . Recent events have highlighted the public’s dislike for uncontrolled immigration and the need for independence . David Davis has signalled for an early referendum and the cry has gone out to rid ourselves of the political establishment ; more voices have yet to be heard in the coming days and weeks . I expect the dissent within the Conservative Party will grow and herald the departure of David Cameron .

  6. matthu
    May 25, 2014

    Obviously, I welcome any attempt to tighten up the processes in this way.

    Some of thewm I can hardly believe needed tigthening up: “clamp down on people who try to gain an immigration advantage by entering into a sham marriage or civil partnership”. Was this not already being done?

    “to revoke licences where immigrants are found to have overstayed in the UK”. You mean that previously we allowed them to continue driving around and now they will only be able to do that without insurance or a driving licence?

    “require banks to check against a database of known immigration offenders before opening bank accounts”. This was previously a loophole? Really?

    Other changes I feel many will be sure will be challenged in the European courts …

    What I would like someone to explain to me is why it might be considered racist to want to prevent (lots of Europeans ed)rom coming across the border, but not racist to want to prevent a flood of (people from outside Europe ed)

    1. Lifelogic
      May 25, 2014

      Indeed the racism is clearly inherent in the governments current discrimination in favour of any one (even criminals, drunks or drug addicts) from EU over even highly skilled immigrants from other countries. UKIP policy is not at all racist.

  7. Hope
    May 25, 2014

    Therefore it does not change the 201,000 people who came here from the EU, it does not stop them claiming welfare, it does not stop them having in- work benefits, Boles will continue to build on every piece of countryside to house them with no money to provide the requisite infrastructure. Public services will continue to be swamped. Nor does it stop the huge amount of time to get rid of undesirables from the country. Breathtakingly, Blaire will continue to represent the country, presumably to get more asylum seekers to come here. In short not a lot of help to the UK citizen.

    May made pathetic excuses on TV today blaming Lib Dems for lack of change to immigration. Has she lost leave of her senses it is the EU that prevents immigration from the EU. Who decided to do a deal with the LibDems? In the he same interview she trotted off the party line we do not deals! Another stupid and false remark by a cabinet minister. How did she think she got into coalition to blame the LibDems? Arrogantly Hammond and Osborne are telling us why envy one should vote for them. Note to their demands, get stuffed. You had four years and miserably failed your supporters as well as calling them insulting names.

    1. JA
      May 26, 2014

      The fact is that UKIP could get much stronger – especially if the economy/housing market tanks before 2015.

    2. Livelogic
      May 26, 2014

      Indeed and there is a deal with the Ulster Unionists too. Lies, lies and more lies.

      A UKIP deal is the only way and a brain/heart & soul transplant for Cameron.

  8. Jagman 84
    May 25, 2014

    How long before the ECHR tear it to pieces, as they surely will. It’s pure theatre to combat the rise of UKIP.

    1. Lifelogic
      May 25, 2014

      Indeed a pure bit of theatre (to try but fail) to combat the rise of UKIP.

  9. Peter L
    May 25, 2014

    A step in the right direction. It beggars belief that this was not already law and is at least 15 years too late.

  10. bluedog
    May 25, 2014

    ‘allow the Home Secretary to deprive a naturalised British citizen of their citizenship in cases where they have conducted themselves in a way which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK,

    and, ‘where the Home Secretary has reasonable grounds for believing the person is able to become a national of another country;’

    Long overdue. Well done JR. May there be many instances of reasonable grounds, particularly where the miscreant already holds dual nationality.

  11. Peter
    May 25, 2014

    I doubt any of this will make very much difference.

    Because as long as the UK has welfare, health and education services that are “free” whether one has paid into the system or not, there will always be a huge number of would-be immigrants.

    The truth that no one wants to admit is that the “Welfare State” is incompatible with the free movement of people.

    1. Lifelogic
      May 25, 2014

      Of course the “Welfare State” is incompatible with the free movement of people.

    2. Nick
      May 25, 2014

      Or that can be sold for less than 2p a day. That’s Cameron’s position on getting tough with benefits tourism.

      It’s worth pushing the evidence, because it shows just how barking the evidence is. and put in 150 quid a week. The getting tough bit. No income tax and less than 2p a day in NI.

      Now what do you buy with that? About 45K of benefits and services for a family of 4.

      10K a year pension payments.
      8K a year NHS
      12K a year schooling
      13K a year HB
      Income support
      Child benefit
      Free school meals

      It’s a lot of cash. has the accurate numbers bar all the stuff off the books like pensions.

      Sorry, but being tough on benefits tourism is not what is happening.

  12. JoeSoap
    May 25, 2014

    The fact that this has only happened in 2014 says it all really. These are little chips chiselled out of the wooden block when the it is the wooden block itself that needs removing- small corrections to what otherwise would be gross injustices to indigenous British by immigrants but not really hitting the immigration problem itself. Hence your numbers are way out of kilter. Hence your haemorrhaging votes to UKIP.

    1. JoeSoap
      May 25, 2014

      Also why should landlords, banks etc. be employed free-of-charge to solve a problem which the Tory-lead coalition is unwilling to tackle itself? Landlords will stick 2 fingers up to this, and the EU will have words to say about human rights issues surrounding people in the country being denied shelter. It’s a non-starter, isn’t it?

      1. Iain Gill
        May 25, 2014

        Landlords already have far too much power in the landlord/tenant relationship this is just another lever for the bad landlords to nose into folks private details that is frankly none of their business.

        Given that lots of Brits don’t have a passport, and that a British birth certificate does not entitle the person named on it to British citizenship, its going to be a complete nightmare.

        Not thought through at all.

      2. zorro
        May 25, 2014

        How many private landlords are there? Will this be a phone line or online service? How will this be effectively policed?


        1. Livelogic
          May 26, 2014

          Indeed it will just be another overhead for Landlord and thus higher rents and less profits & thus tax receipts.

    2. JA
      May 26, 2014

      And haemorrhaging votes out of Britain. One expects that most emigrees will have to be qualified/funded and, therefore, likely to have been Tory voters.

  13. outsider
    May 25, 2014

    Dear Mr Redwood, I understand that the Home Secretary has admitted that the present government will miss its 5 year target of cutting net immigration. It is hard to take this effort seriously when the NHS depends on recruiting staff at all levels from abroad.
    I was recently a regular visitor at a famous London hospital (mostly intensive care) and was surprised at the number of Portuguese nurses. They told me that they had come over at roughly the same time in 2012-13 in response to a recruitment campaign by the health authority in their country. It seems that the health authority had simply shifted its overseas recruitment policy from its previous happy hunting grounds, such as the Philippines, to the poorer EU countries. Such are the ways of Whitehall.

    1. qubus
      May 25, 2014

      If, in a developed country like the UK, the Health Service is so totally dependent on foreigners, both nurses and doctors, there is surely something fundamentally wrong with it. School-leavers are breaking their necks to be admitted to university to study medicine. Where are all the graduates? I know that in the past the BMA has imposed a limit on the number of trainees, they were selfishly worried about there being too many doctors, but is that still the restraining case?

      1. Lifelogic
        May 25, 2014

        Cheaper to import doctors & nurses rather than train them in the UK it seems even if they do not all speak English.

      2. stred
        May 25, 2014

        Many UK born and trained medics head off to the US and down under where opportunities and pay are better. In England, thanks to the coalition, they now pay a fortune for qualification so why not?

      3. outsider
        May 25, 2014

        @qubus. It is hard for outsiders to get straight answers on this. The last I heard, there was a bottleneck in postgraduate hospital training for doctors as well as in medical degrees. And you now need a degree to be a nurse, which may put off a lot of caring folk. Maybe it is hospital pay, or dislike of bureaucracy, or the closure and sale of staff accommodation (especially in London). It is noteworthy that there has not, I think, been a high-level committee of inquiry into the issue, though there are so many on other things. That suggests that no recent government was interested, which in turn suggests that it is simply cheaper to rely on pre-trained immigrants.

        1. stred
          May 26, 2014

          Outsider. Do nurses from other continents have to qualify at degree level to work in the NHS? I sometimes wonder where the nurses guilty of callous or incompetent care are properly trained. On the other hand some doctors from abroad seem to be more comprehensively trained than some British.

          The same goes for drivers, especially in London, where increasing aggessive horn blowing and charging at drivers trying to clear off traffic light junctions make me wonder where they past their test.

        2. qubus
          May 26, 2014

          Yes, I tend to agree, but the knock-on effect is that the ratio of English to foreign consultants is now far too low, and I assume that they all get the same generous salaries; so not much saving there.

      4. LONGINUS
        May 25, 2014

        Many doctors have emigrated to NZ, Australia, Canada & US. Government reaps what it sows.

      5. sm
        May 27, 2014

        Where is the supply response?

        Where is the monopolies and competition aspect? It seems there needs to be much more than one route to qualification for those that wish to become Doctors etc.

        Why hasnt the NHS been directed to increase UK sourced supply?

  14. JoeSoap
    May 25, 2014


    -ignore or remove EU restrictions
    -get a decent education and training system going to make British youth employable
    -remove and restrict benefits to those unwilling to find a job or training
    -import employment strictly on a points system according to need, and not when we already have people here available to do the job.

    Then you could do away with this “tinkering round the edges” Bill…..

  15. Denis Cooper
    May 25, 2014

    And these national measures that you list – those which were not declared illegal by one of the transnational supreme courts which most of the present members of our national Parliament supinely accept as being superior to our national Parliament, the EU court in Luxembourg and the ECHR court in Strasbourg – these measures would cut immigration by how much, roughly speaking?

    Would immigration, gross immigration not net immigration, be cut down to the 70,000 or so a year maximum that the typical citizen of this country might consider reasonable according to the opinion poll mentioned here?

    Although according to another poll in 2006 the median view was that gross immigration should be restricted to about 10,000 a year.

    Personally my response to such polls would have been an uncompromising “zero”, simply because we have already had more immigration than we should have had over a couple of centuries not over just a couple of decades, and in that I would be agreeing with about a fifth of my fellow citizens; but somehow most of our mainstream politicians seem incapable of getting it through their thick skulls that apart from a small minority like themselves, maybe 6%, the citizens of this country are fed up with mass immigration and want immigration, gross not net, greatly restricted if not stopped altogether.

    1. Jennifer A
      May 25, 2014

      The problem is that they think we’re the thick ones, Denis.

      1. Hope
        May 26, 2014

        Well said Dennis. Corporations want cheap labour subsidised by the taxpayer and the cartel are happy to oblige. How on earth is Blair and Campbell involved in Egypt at the moment. Why would any sensible government let them anywhere near such a hot spot? Socialist Dave of course.

        1. sm
          May 27, 2014

          Surplus labour pushes down wages costs, this restricts the ability of labour to defend purchasing power.

          Surplus labour therefore allows QE to be larger and longer than otherwise would be tolerated by capital markets. Prices rises would have been evident much sooner.

          We are desperate to continue the bailout & bonus mentality.

          All the rest is soothing noises to manage the farm animals.

  16. Lifelogic
    May 25, 2014

    Is the BBC actually going to do anything about Jasmine Lawence? After all we do know the views of most people who work at the BBC (they are nearly all in this BBC thing mode). But at least the rest of them are not dim enough to tweet their silly half baked opinions. All cheered on by Cameron’s idiotic choice of Lord Patten no doubt.

    The bias, propaganda, anti-science greencrap and arty stupidity of the BBC is one of the main reasons why the UK has had to suffer so much damaging, pro EU, greencrap, ERM, big government, socialism for the past 40 years.

    A huge opportunity for a change at the top of the BBC trustees and what does Cameron just wants a woman regardless of merit it seems.

    Rod Liddle in the Spectator, with his amusing application letter last week, had it about right. Give him the job.

    1. Lifelogic
      May 25, 2014

      12 trustees and not one looks like a sensible choice to me. I do not this there is a single scientist there. The trustees are fairly good reflection of the pro EU, magic money tree, green crap, big state lefty drivel they pump out.

      1. Hope
        May 26, 2014

        Looking at the letter from her boss, staff were told to be more discreet rather than censure her behaviour for being contrary to her legal duty under the Royal Charter and the internal code of conduct. It really is time for it to be dismantled. It is hugely expensive and the cost should not be borne by the public.

  17. Max Dunbar
    May 25, 2014

    The old saying ‘Prevention is better than cure’ must apply here.
    To say that this legislation deals with some of the complaints that there is a ‘lack of control over our borders’ is missing the point. It’s not really an issue of borders so much as an issue of the bait that entices these people to come here in the first place. There needs to be a strong disincentive for immigrants to travel here initially and even if border controls are tightened we have thousands of miles of unprotected coastline easily reached and landed upon from the Continent and Ireland.
    Trying to shift the responsibility for immigration control onto banks and private landlords is a mistake and is an admission that the government is incapable of fulfilling a basic duty to protect the country and its citizens from illegal immigration. This misguided and irresponsible legislation could result in a legal minefield with countless cases of racism claims made against individuals and private companies.

  18. Qubus
    May 25, 2014

    Well, at least it is a start, but it is, nevertheless, somewhat vague. When are you going to log the people leavening the UK?

  19. Leslie Singleton
    May 25, 2014

    What the Act should have said was that we don’t want anyone to have an automatic right to immigrate (ie similar to the USA) and that if there is a need for exceptions they should be from the Anglosphere, meaning English is their first language.

    1. ian
      May 25, 2014

      hi, The only thing that is guaranteed after the election is more British people leaving and a double of oversea people coming in to replace there spending power

  20. Iain Gill
    May 25, 2014

    Come on John you know that’s not good enough.
    We still have massive abuse of the intra company transfer visas, we still have far too many people being granted indefinite leave to remain or Citizenship for flimsy reasons. We still have seriously ill people coming in to be immediately put into the NHS to pick up the tab. We still have work visa holders children getting a free education from countries which would not provide a free education to British families in the reverse situation. We are still issuing masses of work visas to nationals of countries which make it much harder for Brits to work in their country. We are still giving massive tax dispensations to work visa holders to allow them to undercut British wages.
    Ms May tells us there have been arguments between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives on immigration, come on then folk tell us what the disagreements are the Lib Dems have not held back in their complaints about Conservatives. That’s just a smokescreen though isn’t it because we can all find out what Cameron said in India the last time?

  21. Ex-expat Colin
    May 25, 2014

    I watched on NHK news last night the US, Canada, Oz and NZ forging trade agreements with significant countries east of S. Arabia. And we were no where to be seen, you know…the old UK. Am sure Russia is there in it somewhere. What a lost opportunity that Farage indicated often we could easily, easily do. And have done as history keeps showing.

    The closest analogy I can arrive at about the EU open border junk is that its almost like the local council telling me I must have my front door open (24/7/365) to everybody in the town. Please install benches and BBQs in your garden also. And the rest!

    I shall say…old hooky really had a good run on us….never forget this Gov for that and the idling of his family (criminals) at our expense in a very expensive house. I guess if it were me….on the street you go m8!

    All too complicated and if to any degree effective….far, far too late.

  22. ian
    May 25, 2014

    hi john, The only thing that can be guarantee is 2 million or more British people will be leaving after the next election and a double of oversea people coming in to make up the short fall in spending .

  23. Mark B
    May 25, 2014

    You cannot renegotiate the ‘Freedom of Movement’ (on of the Four Freedoms of the EEA / Single Market) of people across the EU / Single Market. From Merkel too Barroso, you have been told that this is not negotiable. It would also require other Member States to agree to the changes and that is very unlikely to happen.

    1. Lifelogic
      May 25, 2014

      Cameron does not even want to negotiate it, he stated this the other day he like it just so.

  24. Kenneth R Moore
    May 25, 2014

    Great but why has it taken 4 long years after another 1,000,000 odd people have arrived.
    If David Cameron spent a little less time on holiday, cooking, combing his hair and watching DVD box sets perhaps he might have got around to making this happen sooner?.

  25. acorn
    May 25, 2014

    This is the bit you don’t get told by the ruling class. I suspect only senior Ministers, are ever told of this backroom “Sir Humphrey” plans. 😉 .

    To get the ratio of working to non-working population to rise, you need the middle classes (preferably), to be popping out lots of little Brits to keep the economy growing to pay for the costly resource consuming, old farts that insist on hanging around into their nineties. You have to stop the median age of the population from rising.

    If our own population isn’t producing the rug rats, then you have to start importing them. But the median age of imports, has to be well below the median age of the indigenous population to get a long term affect.

    Over the 25 year period 1985 to 2010, the median age of the UK population (that is the age at which half the population is younger and half the population is older) increased from 35.4 years to 39.7 years.

    And the open door immigration policy punchline is:-

    “The UK has gone from being one of the most aged countries in Europe in the mid-1980s to one of middle ranking among the EU-27 countries by 2010. It is projected to be one of the least aged countries in the EU-27 by 2035.”

    And that makes the Treasury very happy. (Population Ageing in the United Kingdom,
    its Constituent Countries and the European Union – ONS).

  26. Kenneth R Moore
    May 25, 2014

    This has got Mr Slipperys fingerprints all over it.
    A response from a panicked and impotent Conservative leadership desperately trying to look like they are’ doing something’. Pathetic.

    It won’t do anything because they are quite relaxed about high levels of immigration. To them it’s just another issue demanding ‘public relations management’ so that the perception of it isn’t too harmfull to prospects of staying on the Westminster gravy train.
    Anyone who enjoys the peace and wide open spaces around pleasant places like Wokingham and thinks London is getting a bit too crowded these days and feels their quality of life is being squeezed… then they simply could not care less.
    Mr Cameron would rather bragg about all the thousands of new jobs being created washing cars and the individuals claiming to be ‘self employed’.

    How long before the ‘tough’ measures are watered down or abandoned amid howls of protest from special interest groups. The rest will either be ignored or not implemented.

  27. ian wragg
    May 25, 2014

    Why do we continue to issue 200,00 or so passports ton foreigners each year.
    This then enables them to bring their extended families in and hey ho we can get pensions, healthcare, education etc etc.
    In my mothers care home ther is (EU person ed)who arrived here 2008 after his family came to work and is now fully funded by the state. Bet this doesn’t happen anywhere else in the world.
    Mark Reckless in todays paper acknowledges that no one believes CMD and his referendum pledge and suggests it be modified if UKIP voters are to return to the Tories. I don’t think anyone will accept more jam tomorrow.


  28. Alan Wheatley
    May 25, 2014

    As to “require private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants”, is the government going to make it clear what the private landlord has to do to satisfy the government’s requirement of them, and further provide facilitates available to the landlord where by the process is a practical proposition.

    As the immigration status of a tenant can not be known until the check has been done, the requirement will mean that the check will have to be done for every tenant.

    Perhaps the Department should cary out some role play to evaluate the practicality of their plans against the full range of scenarios landlords will encounter. Only after they have satisfied themselves their proposal truly are practical should the guinea pigs in the first geographical area be subjected to playing the role for real.

  29. ian
    May 25, 2014

    hi john,do you think double of oversea people coming in will be good for your dividend payment going forward

  30. JA
    May 25, 2014

    It is good that you’re writing about a taboo subject. Thank you.

    Not wishing to sound ungrateful (this is news of an obvious improvement) but net immigration was 210,000 last year. Well in excess of two packed Wembley stadia of people who need to be housed, fed, employed (or not)…

    In fact there were around 500,000 new arrivals with an exit of 300,000, mainly Britons. We can bet that more Conservative voters left the country (self sufficient) than Labour voters and that more potential Labour voters were imported – this is in accordance with the Nu Lab plan which is why your party’s days are numbered. The defections to UKIP are only part of the story. Many Conservative voters have protested with their feet.

    Mr Cameron’s great deceit was to deliberately conflate immigration with race and expect that we would be happier if migrants were white Europeans. Few noticed when he said “We are going to limit immigration from outside the EU.” (outside the EU being the salient point) as though we would be satisfied, perhaps, with a limit on different coloured races from the other side of the world. This is actually highly insulting. The British people are not so much worried about race as numbers and about the lack of skills and means of support among many migrants .

    It is also the case that to pick up a UK passport is not difficult and that the requirements for UK citizenship has become very cheap and that non EU citizens can become EU citizens so easily. The three month bar on benefits is as much a con as capping benefits at £35k pa and letting Skull Cracker waltz out of a cushy prison whilst telling us you’re tough on crime.

    It is the amount of people that our government is allowing to come in LEGALLY which is the greatest problem.

    210,000 is 210,000 whichever way you cut it.

    The social impact is difficult to quantify. However, the proof that it is not good for us economically is in the housing crisis and in the increasing national debt.

    2017 is jam tomorrow. In the meantime immigration and EU law making continues unabated.

    Who does David Cameron think it is more important to impress ? The EU or his own people ?

    This is an immediate crisis and I’m sure that Margaret Thatcher would have known how to deal with it.

    1. stred
      May 26, 2014

      J.A. New Labour’s ‘socially useful’ (re Telegraph investigation) plan for immigration seems to have worked well in London, where Labour has gained seats and UKIP only has support from older generations of immigrants.

      Add to this the ease with which postal voting is managed in communities where close family links exist and the result is unsurprising. Recently, having been denied a postal vote, I was offered a vote by proxy two weeks before the election. If another person is allowed to mark the voting paper, just how easy is it to cheat? Of course the other established parties do not seem keen to clamp down as they are organised to maximise their own postal vote. The Libdems won the recent by- election by a few hundred with a high postal vote.

    2. Max Dunbar
      May 26, 2014

      See JA post for more accurate and honest figures for immigration, not the weasel worded ‘net’ numbers of 210,000.

  31. Narrow Shoulders
    May 25, 2014

    Three items missing from this list are immediately apparent.

    1) Counting in and counting out with deposits on arrival in certain instances that are forfeited if overstaying. I would like to see shorter visas introduced too, 6 months was the minimum last time I checked, what is wrong with a two week or one month holiday visa?

    2) The requirement on the civil service to employ British citizens before other citizens (by birth) unless and until we have full employment in this country.

    3) The presumption that the incomer is here by choice and therefore knew the costs and circumstances of their stay here. Consequently there is no need to pay any form of benefit in order to improve that person’s existence here or equalise their rights.

    I jumped through hoops to bring my wife into this country (my first child was one of those born prior to 2006 to an unmarried father; more hoops) after having lived in her country for six years (that country really did have draconian immigration laws). It should be difficult to gain access to this country but it seems that is only for the law abiding and non-EU citizens.

    EU citizens should not have the right to come and live here without being invited just the same as those from any other country (I am aware of the four pillars I just do not agree with them).

    1. Narrow Shoulders
      May 25, 2014

      My many trips to the Border agency in this country (without needing an interpreter) always involved interactions with heavily accented employees hence my civil service comment above.

  32. The PrangWizard
    May 25, 2014

    The measures described above should be welcomed and those who worked to achieve them commended; it is part of the process to turn round the supertanker. Let us hope that they will be implemented in accordance with their intent. But I do wonder to what extent their impact be limited by obstructionists in the bureaucracies, the departments and agencies, and in the judiciary, who are ideologically wedded to the European Project and will do whatever they can to protect it, even to frustrating the Will of Parliament.

    There is of course the bigger picture which worries many of us. I, among many, am not persuaded that nothing could, nor can be done now, to stop the hundreds of thousands getting here in the first place. The idea that any country like ours could or should be expected to absorb 5 million or more foreigners in five or ten years without complaint or adverse effect is a deceit and betrayal.

    We have a crisis in our health services, in our education, and in our housing. That this has anything to do with mass immigration has been denied for years, and those who asserted it did were accused of being racist. Their accusers were dishonest. It is still claimed that nothing substantial can be done, but this cannot be so; there has to be a lack of will. It cannot be in the public interest to do almost nothing.

    The mere fact that there is considerable unrest about it, so far only political, gives the lie to that. I would venture to suggest that there would have been much greater unrest if, on the one hand, our politized police had not thus taken such a aggressive response to street protests, for example, and on the other, we had not been subjected to the mass propaganda of accusations of racism directed to the ordinary citizen that have been made for years, under the threat of police action. Again the fact that the claims we have been making are now being taken up in the mainstream proves that we were not wrong.

    1. Max Dunbar
      May 26, 2014

      Very good post Prang Wizard.
      ‘A lack of will’, and when did you last see the police checking the credentials of suspected illegal immigrants here? It’s a regular occurrence on the continent however.
      I can fully confirm your comments regarding the police. They are accurate.

  33. Merlin
    May 25, 2014

    1) UKIP will win UK EU Election best result ever
    2) Tories will come third worst ever election result
    3) the UK cannot control EU immigration, since it does not have the power

  34. zorro
    May 25, 2014

    Appeals – The Administrative Review idea makes some sense, although the preserved appeals will be Human Rights Act related and will include asylum. I suspect that there will be more Judicial Reviews and an increase in asylum claims to prolong the process.

    Single Decision Notice – there have been previous attempts under the Labour government involving the same thing. Let’s see how they shape up under legal challenge.

    Private Landlords – It is not clear how this will work or be effectively policed too clamp down on those who may be renting accommodation to those unlawfully in the UK.

    Civil Penalties – Any improvement in the collection would be welcome and help fund the system.

    Driving Licences – Interesting, an admission that immigration status has not been legally checked before issuing a UK driving licence…..

    Dual Nationals have been deprived of their UK citizenship previously, and now it is naturalised UK citizens who may lose their citizenships but not those born as UK citizens it seems.

    Overall, the most important one will be the effective imposition and collection of fines to hit the profits, and that performance will need to be monitored closely. I cannot see how these proposals will make any substantial (if that) difference to the ‘net migration’ target.


  35. stred
    May 25, 2014

    My Syrian Christian friend at the local shop has disappeared. His boss is evasive when I ask how he is. I thought his permit did not look too convincing and did not offer him a room, as fines are over £5k. I hope he is not back there and being blown up or gassed by one side or the other. At the same time, having just come back from Paris, there seem to be as many people from the non- French EU there as there are non- British in London.

  36. Stevie
    May 25, 2014

    Won’t any of these controls that prove effective just be overturned by judicial activism by politicians serving as democratically unaccountable ‘judges’ at the ECJ?

    Our laws are no longer controlled by our parliament and were given away by the last four prime ministers without democratic consent as all parties conspired to do the same thing and lied about it.

    I’m no ‘liblabconner’ but really, it is difficult to believe that any effective controls on immigration from any country in the world will prove effective without article 50, the only remaining democratic instrument remaining genuinely under British control.

  37. BackTheMAC
    May 26, 2014

    All common sense stuff in the immigration bill, however, not much about the elephant in the room. Apparently it is only the loss of low skilled jobs which bothers the political parties and this Government.

  38. Vanessa
    May 26, 2014

    You are right that nothing can be done about the EU immigrants.

    And what is never said is that some countries in the EU i.e. France and Greece and others are selling EU nationality to whoever will pay the price and they get an EU passport so can come to Britain and settle. We do not have any control over this new waive of immigration from “outside” the EU and never will unless we leave the European Union and take back control of our borders. Needless to say the EU does not stamp down on this – the more the merrier in their eyes.

  39. Lindsay McDougall
    May 26, 2014

    Lots of useful bits and pieces there. However, two elephants remain in the room. The first is automatic right of entry for citizens of EU Member States. The second is automatic approval of the importation of brides and bridegrooms, often through arranged marriages. BOTH of these problems need to be addressed.

  40. Mark
    May 26, 2014

    We have been members of the EU/EEC for over 40 years, yet immigration has only raised its head as a significant problem since Blair became PM. If we compare with former times, we find that

    * we used to accept around 50,000 foreign students per year, most of whom returned at the end of their courses. This built to almost 250,000 a year until Mr Grayling managed to close a number of bogus colleges, cutting the numbers by about 70,000 a year in the most recent period. However, the data show that fewer than 70,000 emigrants a year are former student immigrants, suggesting that around 175,000 a year are staying on legally or illegally. Moreover, only 40,000 a year are from the EU (albeit this is double what it was in 2004-8), and EU students are less likely to stay on and remain in close touch with the student loan scheme. Looking at the data from HESA, it is far from clear that foreign students are a money making proposition: the average fee they pay does not exceed the average cost of tuition, a fortiori for EU students entitled to places on the back of loans that are already suffering low repayment rates. There is scope to reduce immigration significantly through further tightening of the student route without having to secure EU permission.

    * we have seen an upsurge in net immigration via the family route since the “primary purpose test” was removed. Imposing a slightly tougher income/financial constraint has excluded some genuine love matches but appears to have done nothing to reduce the numbers or tackle sham marriages in a substantive way. We should return to the test. It should also be noted that the numbers are understated, because the ONS admits it failed to count the numbers of children under 15 properly – no wonder there is unexpected pressure on school places.

    * we know that migration statistics failed to reflect large numbers of A8 migrants because the previous government, UKBA/ONS did nothing about improving them for three years even though it knew of the problem. Current statistics utterly fail to capture Mode 4 migration (by definition from outside the EU), despite its economic impact on employment and taxes. More honesty is still needed in providing the numbers, in part so that politicians can guage the problems accurately and devise solutions. We could start with requiring all carriers to provide data on traffic they carry, which would not be onerous as this must be standard management information, to act as a cross-check on the official estimates.

  41. Asupporter 10
    May 27, 2014

    An example of typical comments by immigration lawyers:

    ‘The Immigration Act 2014 represents the most aggressive attempt by the coalition government to meet its stated aim of cutting net immigration to tens rather than hundreds of thousands.

    Particularly when taken in conjunction with other recent measures (such as the tightening of access to civil legal aid and changes to the immigration rules) these measures are likely to have a devastating impact on those wishing to enter or stay in the UK.”

    Indicates good attempts by the Coalition to reduce non-EU immigration. The challenge is to do the same for the ballooning EU immigration.

  42. Trent Miller
    June 1, 2014

    Concerning correcting an anomaly in nationality law to enable certain children born before 1 July 2006 to a British father but whose parents were not married at the time to apply to be registered as British citizens and acquire their father’s British nationality. This rectifies a historical anomaly and provides all children with the same rights, irrespective of whether their parents were married when they were born.

    Thank you to the UK Parliament for finally putting this long standing discrimination & injustice right! I, among a few out here, were being discriminated against due to choices & decisions of parents. You cannot punish a child born out of wedlock. Finally now I am able to recognize the other part of my ancestry. I urge you, Mr. Redwood, along with your fellow MP’s & Ministers, to do all that you can to move forward the Home Office in putting into practice this important legislation. Thank you.

Comments are closed.