Cracking down on migrants

David Cameron unveiled new restrictions on non-EU migration coming to the UK last week. It includes restricting work visas to skill shortages and specialists’ jobs, higher visa fees and increased salary threshold for the visa to be granted.

As a tier 1 visa holder I don’t believe these measures address the real problem. The current system restricts civil liberties; under the visa mandate professional, social and family life of migrants are regulated in a utilitarian manner. The system determines what the skilled migrant should be doing, when and how the business should be managed; the Home Office and the Police monitor professional and personal life respectively.

The system envisions only an economic role for skilled migrants, which is incidentally also viewed as criteria for civic participation and a desirable virtue for natives. but despite meeting the definition of community invested citizenry, skilled migrants are not considered part of the society as such limiting their civic rights including political and economic rights. 

Changing the immigration system for new migrants does not address the current situation. People who are invested in the UK need to be integrated into the society. The current system imposes an identity on migrants defining them in terms other than members of the community. The immigration system is creating and feeding stereotypes; in the long term such policies serve xenophobia and racism.

Franchise for the EU referendum

Britain needs a debate about giving none EU residents the right to vote as legislation about EU referendum is discussed. It follows the simple principle of fairness granting all considering UK their home the right to determine its future. I pay taxes, run businesses and engage in recreational and cultural activities in the UK, which are the criterion for civic participation.

I immigrated from Afghanistan as work came by hard in the face of rampant violence under the Tier One visa; we have few rights for instance we have no recourse to benefits or child welfare; while mandated to pay £25,000 in visa related fees, run a business regulated to suit UK economic priorities and create jobs for British citizens.  We live under constant fear of removal from the UK with no other place to go and without right of appeal.

It’s understandable that the government is trying to stop immigrants from abusing the social welfare by placing limits on civic rights. It’s illogical to include political rights in that bundle; political rights are not prone to such abuse as benefits and won’t serve as pull factor for economic migrants.

We need a gradual system of inclusion and integration that help newcomer feel at home based on a system of human rights. The British society should be fair to all who consider themselves a member of the society; we should not allow the wish to curb benefit fraud to fuel xenophobia.

In the eyes of the law are we defined by rights or privileges?

An article in The Guardian on David Cameron visit to Berlin for talks with Merkel over EU reform discusses the concept of freedom of movement and limiting migrant access to benefits.[1] The assertion throughout the article is on the right to work and travel freely. I wonder to what extent it is a right or wouldn’t it be more intellectually coherent and practical if we see it as a privilege.

George Byczynski, coordinator of the British Poles Initiative, said “... But with regards to people who want to work, want to provide for their families, I think that it is important to make them feel welcome and equal.” I think what you mean is not “people” but “polish people”, I appreciate the attempt to apply a broad principle since British are too “people” but contrary to your assertion and the human rights rhetoric not all “people” are “equal”.

(sorry for quotations, I want to be accurate).

For instance I was born in Afghanistan currently in the UK on an entrepreneur visa. In order to obtain the visa i had to meet strict requirement for instance masters degree equivalent English fluency, once in the UK I pay £25,000 in visa fee till settlement, create two full-time jobs for UK citizens, invest quarter of a million pound in the UK, sever restriction on work/business, requirements on the operation of the businesses, requirement on work schedule and plan, security requirement of regular checking in and reporting to police, no access to benefits, no access to in work benefits and even limits on my children rights in what might be considered crucial to child welfare. The psychological dimension of my life is living under continuous fear if something goes wrong or business is not doing well then one would be sent to the savages of war where i hail from. Even a slightest administrative error could see me removed since i have no right of appeal. so you see the lot of “polish people” is not that bad while compared with “people people”; for all practical purposes polish have equivalent to citizen rights in the UK.

some people are not good enough and its up on them to prove their worth and i am one of them. Before we hastily conclude that some how this is a fault of British people such as lack of compassion or supremacy complex allow me admit that i have found the British the most tolerant and welcoming people, by way of comparison for instance on my way here i was held against my will and without formal arrest or charges at Turkish Airport for several hour, supposedly to obtain superior clearance, more likely due to concerns about my place of birth.

Unfortunately, concepts of privilege and rights are engraved in human nature; to live and work in the UK is considered a privilege, so is the residence right in Poland. as a matter of fact as somebody who has visited Poland this privilege is tightly monitored in Poland than in the UK. as somebody with a different shade of skin i was exposed to things in Poland that were deeply disturbing. so if you are genuinely concerned about equality for people you would make better headways if you start in Poland.

I would love to wake up one day to see we are all equal as “people” because we were born with dignity and have inalienable rights as human beings but here is what we can do in the interim. we need to recognise that there are billions of people around the world who live in poverty and oppression with little glimmer of opportunity or chance to improve their lives while there are few bestowed with privileges that are protected by a megastructure of mighty states. we need to recognise this; we need to acknowledge that the status of the few are not their god given right but the privileges that are created and protected by the state. this would help us in many ways to address racism and inequality which is based on a perverted belief that some people are better than others by certain features. This belief will be dampened once we have a wide recognition that certain people are privileged which is often at the cost of others. We will help to diminish the belief in inferiority of unprivileged by having established that the choices available to them are between bad and terrible because they don't have the rights that the privileged call the "human rights". here is how George Byczynski should have said it “... Polish people should be given privileges they shouldn't be treated like citizens of nonwhite countries. I think that it is important to give them legally protected superior status."

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/29/cameron-caps-week-of-seeking-support-for-eu-membership-changes-in-poland#comment-52965466

EU expanding further east into former Soviet Union

Today the EU held Eastern Partnership summit in Riga to discuss further expansion east into the former Soviet Union, at the time of lingering uncertainty about the future of the UK in the European Union and the nature of the long due reforms within the EU.

The European Union is already overstretched, new members such as Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia did not integrate well; Croatia is mired in crisis. The Balkans, which is poised for membership, the process is moving between back and forth. The EU-colony of Kosovo is faced with mass emigration, in Macedonia there is political chaos with armed gangs capturing towns and it was only a week ago when 23 people died in clashes between heavily armed gangs and security forces. 

Its called Eastern Partnership countries, but there is very little in common among them, only that they are former Soviet Republics, and that they strive to west. The desire to be western is so paramount for these countries that any obstacle to its actualisation is seen as an enemy. Many believe that Russia is such an obstacle and as such a threat to the nation. Russofobien yet another factor among the eastern partnership; this is not enough for partnership with these countries but recipe for trouble with Moscow.

The strength of EU comes from the strength of its member states and one of its strong members is the UK which is renegotiating its membership with the Union. The focus of the UK on hard economic benefits – for example, in advancing the single market, reducing bureaucratic burdens, or pushing for trade liberalisation as a healthy balance against too much focus on political integration or on European-style state interventionism has been beneficial to the Union.

Recently many have seen this positive role of the UK diminish, with a much greater focus on the UK domestic policy agenda and a high distrust of the EU among British policy makers and, increasingly, the British public. Even in areas where the UK in the past would have been a champion for European solutions, e.g. enlargement policy or the digital single market, there is a tendency of disengagement.

As the role of the western countries diminish in the EU any further expansion eastward will change the nature and identity of the European Union. The former Communist countries of the EU are active members of the EU and carry more weight in contrast with their size and strength, any further eastward expansion will shift the centre of power in the EU from the West to Eastern Europe. Under the current EU voting system Eastern Europe already has significant power. Germany, France and the UK combine have a population of 217 Million and a nominal GDP of close to US$ 10 Trillion and a total vote of 87 in the European council while Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia which pretty much cover all of Easterner Europe have a combined nominal GDP of US$1.3 Trillion and a population of 70 million have a total combine vote of 96. Any future accession from the east will shift the power of EU votes to the East despite the candidate countries being small and medium income.

There are three important implications for the EU policy. 
first, the EU will become more Russofobien, as the Euro barometer study of EU attitude toward Russia shows that eastern European countries are the most Russofobiske countries in Europe. furthermore the candidate countries have deep Russian complex. 

Second, the EU will become more xenophobic as there is strong anti-immigration sentiment in the Eastern Europe. A PEW study shows that 60% of population in Czech Republic is against immigration and there has been slightly over 1100 asylum applications in 2014 while that figure for Germany is over 220,000.  This is while Czech Republic is the most prosperous of all Eastern European countries.

third, the EU will become less coherent and influential as the institutional strengths and economies of member states diverse, the western nations will seek to curb immigration from the east and south states which will put the free movement pillar at risk.   

The dangers of conflict with Russia, weak national institutions within the EU, weakened EU and deterioration of human rights within an expanded union might or might not be clear to Brussels bosses, but what is clear is where to find new markets and play geopolitics.