Immigration Rules In Difficulties

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32382, 22 August 1970, Page 13

Immigration Rules In Difficulties

(By

ALLAN GRAHAM,

N.Z.P.A.

Staff Correspondent)

LONDON, August 21. New Conservative Party restrictions on the rights of Commonwealth citizens to work and settle in Britain are unlikely to be brought down for some time. When the Tories won the election two months ago it was thought they would give urgency to introducing the new rules, which were intended to make it tougher for black Commonwealth citizens, and thereby New Zealanders, too, to gain work in Britain. It appears the Government is running into a swag of loopholes in its plans, plus a team of civil servants who have doubts that the plans should be adopted. Basically, the Government wants to abolish the existing “Commonwealth preference” in immigration and to put all would-be visitors or immi-

grants on the rules now applied to aliens. Like several subtle amendments in recent years to the Commonwealth immigration rules, the change would in theory serve to restrict the numbers of black immigrants to Britain. But figures produced by the Runnymede Trust show that in fact far more aliens are settling in Britain than Commonwealth citizens. The trust, a private body whose main concern is race relations, said in 1969 that the number of alien workers granted settlement in Britain was 9598, while only 4021 Commonwealth workers were allowed in to settle. Further study by the trust has shown that an alien has fey’er civil rights than a Commonwealth immigrant during his first four years, but the alien can get in easily and stay for four years, after which he has quicker and simpler rights to British citizenship than Commonwealth citizens. This view has been con-

firmed by New Zealanders living in Britain. One Wellington economics student who recently inquired about staying in Britain to work after his right, to stay expires on graduation was told by the Home Office: “Frankly, you’d be better off if you were an alien.” Many people want to see Britain’s immigration rules rewritten. Many of the provisions are confusing, mainly because the two statues dealing with aliens and with Commonwealth people have evolved separately, and partly because there are yet separate rules for Irishmen and for overseas holders of British passports, such as Kenya Asians. There are also a series of instructions to immigration officers, some of them published in Parliament, but many “secret,” which in general make it tougher for blacks to enter than whites. What seems to be the present problem is that this situation would not necessarily be improved by simply

adopting one set of rules, the one now used for aliens. Under these rules there is no quota for alien immigrants as there is for Commonwealth people. It is possible for unskilled aliens to enter, which is not possible for unskilled Indians or Jamaicans. It is easy for aliens to bring in dependants, but a Pakistani has difficulty doing so. The alien, once in Britain, can change his job, but for a Commonwealth person this is tricky. Indians or Kenyans are not allowed entry for settlement, if someone can show he would be denying an Englishman a job, but such checks are rarely made in respect of French, or Italian, immigrants. The big fear seems to be that if the existing alien rules were simply adopted for Commonwealth citizens, either it will make it far easier for blacks to get in, or alternatively the existing form of discriminatory obstructions to black entry will quietly return. Procedures for checking alien immigration might, for

instance, be greatly tightened up, or immigration quotas might be put on various countries.

This latter course, according to officials, would be hard to enforce, would be harmful to race relations, and would damage law and order by diverting policemen to patrolling immigration. Further, the Commonwealth would be annoyed, and so would France and Germany if their tourists to Britain were suddenly hit by massive red tape by airport officials—an inevitable outcome of any tightening of alien immigration rules. Peter Evans, a staff writer, said in “The Times”: “In the absence of strong arguments to the contrary, present assumptions must be that the Government’s proposals will do more harm than good, and for the sake of little return.” The Home Secretary (Mr Maudling) is keen to have his party’s plans adopted as soon as possible. But New Zealand officials in Britain have ascertained that no new law is likely to emerge for a year, possibly longer.