The Conservative Party has been thinking about marriages involving non-EU spouses. According to the Telegraph, here are some of their proposals, in respect of entry into the UK:
- increase in qualifying age of entry from 18 to 21;
- English tests; and
- citizenship tests.
In making these proposals, the Tories are thinking about immigration, sham marriages, and integration, but they need to tread very carefully.
Damien Green, the party’s immigration spokesman, is quoted as saying:
“Too many young women are brought to England to marry when they cannot possibly integrate with our society. They need better protection.”
If so, why increase the age from 18 to 21? Is it not better for the spouses to come in when they are younger, and have more chance of getting an education, perhaps going to a college, joining an apprenticeship, or learning a trade? Many employers looking for trainees will happily take on an 18 year old, perhaps more so than they would a 21 year old; so if it really is integration that the Tories are concerned about, they should not be raising the age of eligibility. The younger one is, the greater the chances of integrating, I would have thought.
I also suspect the Tories are on dodgy human rights grounds with these proposals. So if a bride fails the English test, she is to be sent back whence she came until such time as she can pass? Also consider these two scenarios: an English man who marries a Canadian woman who speaks only French, and an English man (from say, Bradford) who marries a non English-speaking girl from Islamabad? Both are non-EU foreign brides, but somehow I think that only one couple is the target of these proposals. What then happens? Will the immigration officers apply the law literally, and turn away the Canadian, in the name of ‘consistency’? Or will they disingenuously find some narrow grounds for admitting her, while turning away her Pakistani sister?
As for citizenship tests, I have no problem with them. Everybody applying for citizenship should sit a test, regardless of whether or not the applicant is a ‘non-EU spouse’. Perhaps a foreign spouse could be granted indefinite leave to remain, and then upgraded to citizenship on taking, and passing, the test.
These proposals come very close to interfering with the right to marry. Earlier this week, the Court of Appeal ruled that regulations requiring non-European citizens to obtain a certificate of approval before marriage were illegal, and breached the right to marry. Of course, the Tories would argue that they are not restricting the right to marry. Their argument would probably be that one may marry as one wishes, as the restriction is not on marriage per se, but on the right of entry to the United Kingdom. Maybe so, but these proposals, at the very least, interfere with family life.
Take another example: an English man marries an 18 year old girl from Islamabad, who speaks perfect English, and is in every respect ‘fit for UK society’. However, because she is only 18, they are told that she can’t come in until she’s 21. There is nothing he can do to fix that. All he can do is wait three years. Interference with family life? Most certainly, especially given the fact that in the United Kingdom, one may legally marry at 18. At least in the case of a 21 year old, non-English speaking Pakistani bride, a few months in a language school should ensure she passes the English test, and can therefore enter the country. In the case of her 18 year old sister, no such advantage. She stays out of the country until she ‘comes of age’.
My message to the Tories: it is good that you are thinking, although quite why one should credit you for doing that most basic of functions, I don’t know. Still, thinking is good, and there has not been much evidence of that in recent days. However, these ideas are still half-baked, and need a lot more work. Please think about them a bit more before putting them out for consultation.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Well Bel, the Tories seem quite happy to back away from the HRA. If you ask me this would be a mistake. You don’t walk away from honourable legislation if it bothers you, you should work to reform it.
As you say re. the logic behind the changing of the ages, it’s muddled policy that is designed to grab headlines rather than improve the system. Let’s be honest here Bel: a Cameron government will just as media-savvy as the Blair one, and probably just as vapid and incompetent.
Have a nice Bank Holiday weekend.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Let’s be honest here Bel: a Cameron government will just as media-savvy as the Blair one, and probably just as vapid and incompetent.
Yes, tyger. In fact, as far as spin goes, a Cameron government would be worse than Blair’s. For the simple reason that, rather than learn from the errors of Blair’s government (eg the damage caused to public trust by spin etc), they seem very eager to embrace them.
May 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Surely the answer is simple if harsh
Imigration should not be influenced by marriage. I believe that there has to be a cap on imigration and that entrance should be gained through one of two mechanisms. Worthiness, and luck. There should be an independant body that creates a list of attributes, of skills that are needed, wether docters or nurses, or cleaners, speaking english, lack of crinimal record etc. And from all applicants only the best, the most valuable would be granted citizenship. And secondly for all the others there should be a lottery, a chance that ignores worthyness and embraces fairness. Together i think thats a good balance. But marriage, religion, skin colour those should play no part in imigration, because to link them means that they become abused in order to gain entrance.
It doesnt matter what age you state, if marriange is a green card into the country then for some it stops being what it really is, two people deciding to bond to each other inspite of location or convenience, and becomes just a precursor to a new passport.
harsh maybe, fair i think so.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
This will be stuffed on current HRA grounds, it is pure discrimination. More good reason for Cameron to repeal them!
May 29th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
You are right Bel to point out that it is certain groups who are being targetted.
Also there are major human rights issues.
Leaving aside the fact that there is a level of interference here in people’s interpersonal relationships that needs serious justification before being implemented, it seems that the fundamental issues ofv what the potential spouse may or may nor bring to the country in terms of skills, etc is not even being considered.
This is pandering to right wing bigots, whilst pretending to be forward looking. The language in itself gives this away.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Should the changes ever happen I seriously doubt there will be any difference in enforcement due to race, the current immigration system makes no such distinction. I’m also unconvinced that the HRA will have any impact either, that is if it’s classed as economic migration from outside the EU and it’s enforced equally.
We often see the right accused of peddling myths about immigration, but I suspect the left is just as capable of throwing up its own myths on the subject when it suits. Throwing up “racism” is now a stock tactic of anyone who opposes immigration control of any kind, it somewhat debases and trivialises the issue of genuine racism.