Immigration cap: Arise Commonwealth!

RECENT political manoeuvring in the just ended elections in the United Kingdom has left some people wondering as to the significance of the Commonwealth within the British Establishment.

The hot topic on the agenda was on immigration and on this note, readers would remember the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown being taken to task by that old lady, whom he later referred to as being ‘bigoted’. She had asked the Prime Minister a perfect question about immigration in respect of European Union nationals whom she said continued to flood the UK with no end in sight.

Whilst the Labour Party lauded its Points Based System for having effectively reduced immigration levels by making sure that only those with relevant skills entered the UK, the Conservatives proposed an immigration cap on immigration from non-EU nationals and the Liberal Democrats advocated for a once off amnesty for those who have lived in the UK for up to 10 years without leave. The latter’s proposition is nothing out of this world but only reduces the current 14-year rule that allows those who have been in the UK illegally to apply for indefinite leave to remain.

However, an interesting point in this debate is that nationals of the Commonwealth have been lumped together with the rest of the non-EU nationals and one wonders whether the so-called special relationship is still of any significance within British politics.

My view is that citizens of the Commonwealth deserve a special deal with the United Kingdom. I say so because it is the Commonwealth that built Great Britain, both in terms of natural and human resources. Wars were fought in support of the Empire and mineral wealth was uplifted to the corridors of power within Great Britain. It was not the EU nationals that the British colonised, and it was not EU nation states that had their wealth taken away from them. The Commonwealth nationals deserve a special place and treatment well ahead of the EU nationals.

Therefore, if there is talk of an immigration cap, that cap must apply to other nationals apart from Commonwealth citizens. It is arguable that a case can be made to the Highest Court in the land about this ill-treatment of citizens from the Commonwealth by the Government of the United Kingdom. I have often heard arguments from British people when it comes to acknowledging responsibility for their past actions that; (well it was our forefathers and not us; so we must not be held accountable for this).

We have the Queen who is the Head of the Commonwealth and has been on the throne from the time most of the Commonwealth countries were colonised. She would, therefore, know what went through in those countries. It is a complete abdication of responsibility for the British Government to ignore its historical links with the Commonwealth countries. In this regard, the so-called cap on immigration must not apply to Commonwealth citizens – period.

The best deal would be to continue with the current points-based system and as long as citizens from Commonwealth countries qualify, they must be allowed to enter the UK either for work, family reunion or education. The UK Border Agency cannot argue that they are expected to maintain an effective and robust immigration system that is fair to everyone, because it is only those countries that were colonised by the British that appreciate how humiliating and degrading it was. They came and condemned the people’s way of life and presented their way of life as the most civilised one. Whole cultures and communities were destroyed and natural resources were plundered. Now the people are only coming into the United Kingdom because the British first invaded their countries. Now they say they want a cap on immigration but it is now too late because some of the people are already here, albeit illegally.

This now brings me to the Liberal Democrats’ position of an amnesty. It makes sense that those who are already in the United Kingdom but are not documented must be given an incentive to come out in the open. This would allow them to contribute meaningfully to the revival of the British economy by paying their taxes. It will also remove them from the grip of those exploiting them whilst at the same time not paying national insurance contributions out of their work.

During the campaign debates, I was surprised to hear arguments to the effect that, this would make the UK the main destination for illegal immigrants. How this will be the case, I wonder, because if it is a one off thing it will have to target those already in the United Kingdom. Those not already in the United Kingdom cannot be attracted to come to the UK simply by the prospects of being able to get an amnesty after 10 years because it will no longer be in the statute books.

I would, therefore, encourage Commonwealth citizens to always be live to this debate and make sure the British Government does not sideline citizens from this group. As it is, the government has not come out clean on how the cap will operate.

However, no matter how it will be designed to achieve that goal; Commonwealth citizens deserve a better deal and I think there is a legitimate expectation that the Queen may render a sympathetic ear on this one; (although of course she is often excluded from political discourse, she nonetheless has some capacity to influence from the sidelines).

This fight is not very different from the one just won by the Gukhas. How could you justify a situation whereby a Gukha fights hand-in-hand with a British national for Queen and Country and yet he was not allowed to come and settle in the country he had fought for? Similarly, what good is the Commonwealth to Great Britain when its citizens are treated less favourably than EU nationals?

George Tizirai-Chapwanya, BL (Hons) LLB LLM is a Solicitor with Bake & Co Solicitors. He can be contacted on gtchapwanya@bakesolicitors.co.uk or visit Bake & Co Solicitors’ website at www.bakesolicitors.co.uk; 0121 616 5025 or 07815958475

Disclaimer: This article only provides general information on immigration law. It is not intended to replace the advice or services of a Solicitor. The specific facts that apply to your matter may make the outcome different than would be anticipated by you. The writer will not accept any liability for any claims or inconvenience as a result of use of this information