Free citizenship for immigrants from the Windrush era
Home Secretary in bid to draw a line under scandal
THE WINDRUSH generation and others who arrived in the first wave of Commonwealth immigration will be offered British citizenship for free, the Home Secretary announced as she attempted to draw a line under a scandal which has plagued the Government for days.
Amber Rudd and her predecessor Theresa May have faced a tide of criticism as countless stories have emerged of British residents having their immigration status wrongly and aggressively questioned by the Home Office, which she admitted needs to show a more “human face”.
Ms Rudd blamed attempts to crack down on illegal immigration by successive governments since the 1980s for the “unintended and sometimes devastating” impact on Commonwealth citizens who were invited to Britain to rebuild the shattered country following the Second World War in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.
It will be seen as a move to shore up the Prime Minister, whose “hostile environment” policies introduced during her stint as Home Secretary between 2010 and 2016 have been pinpointed by campaigners as the source of many of the problems faced by the Windrush generation.
Ms Rudd told MPs fees for any children of the Windrush generation who need to apply for naturalisation, and charges associated with returning to the UK for people who have retired to their countries of origin after making their lives here, would also be waived.
The issue of citizenship fees was highlighted last week by The Yorkshire Post.
Joseph Bravo, a 62 year-old electrician who has lived in Leeds since the 1960s since arriving in the UK from Jamaica, told of his heartbreak at missing his daughter’s wedding in Australia after being told he had to apply for British citizenship at a cost of hundreds of pounds before he could get a passport.
Yesterday, Mr Bravo said he was listening to Ms Rudd’s statement on the radio and would pursue his case through Leeds North East MP Fabian Hamilton.
The Home Secretary told the House of Commons she would also waive the requirement for the Windrush generation to take a test on life in Britain and the English language, prompting howls of derision from opposition MPs. “In effect, this means anyone from the Windrush generation who now wants to become a British citizen will be able to do so,” she added.
Later, Ms Rudd confirmed the measures would apply to all Commonwealth citizens who arrived in the UK before 1973 after being given indefinite leave to remain in the 1971 Immigration Act, in a move which could affect thousands from the Indian subcontinent and Africa.
Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott branded the incident “one of the biggest scandals in the administration of home affairs”.
(It is) one of the biggest scandals of home affairs. Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott.
THERE IS no more emotive, and even toxic, subject in British politics than immigration, which makes the mess that the Government has got itself into especially damaging.
As the row over the grossly unjust treatment of the Windrush generation rumbles on, it has exposed more than just a woefully incompetent and clumsy policy towards people who have every right to call Britain their home.
It has laid bare a much wider and damaging muddle over the whole issue of immigration that shows no sign of going away, and holds out the prospect of leaving millions of voters who backed Brexit both frustrated and angry.
The frantic back-pedalling by the Government over the mistreatment of Commonwealth citizens who have worked all their lives in Britain is unlikely to mitigate the roasting Home Secretary Amber Rudd has received over the issue ahead of her inquisition before the Home Affairs Select Committee tomorrow.
But the person who should really be on the receiving end is not Ms Rudd, who has been landed with an appalling mess not of her making to sweep up, but her boss and predecessor at the Home Office, Theresa May. She was responsible for the policies that have left some of the Windrush generation facing deportation or being refused treatment on the NHS, when after a lifetime of paying taxes – and often in retirement – they have been wrongly branded illegal immigrants.
It is not only this almighty blunder that has Mrs May’s fingerprints all over it. The fevered polarisation of views over what is a sensible and workable level of immigration for Britain owes much to her rhetoric as Home Secretary.
Let’s not forget that it was her nononsense image that won her the Conservative leadership – and the keys to 10 Downing Street – and that was based on tough talking at the Home Office.
When former Prime Minister David Cameron pledged in 2010 to bring immigration down to below 100,000 people a year – always an arbitrary and unrealistic number – it was Mrs May who gleefully postured about being hard on those who had arrived here illegally.
That did much to prevent a reasoned debate about immigration, based on facts and not prejudice, that needed to take place.
Such a debate was necessary after the wave of effectively unchecked immigration that took place during Labour’s 13 years in power.
There needed to be a pause to rhetoric and a forensic examination of exactly how many immigrants had arrived, and the number of those who had done so illegally.
As part of that study, there should have been a proper assessment of how many migrant workers Britain needed. Even at that point, it was clear that the NHS simply could not function without its foreign-born staff, and a similarly realistic view should have been taken of the rest of the economy.
But that didn’t happen. Worse, it still hasn’t. The country continues to approach the key questions about immigration based on conflicting emotional viewpoints and not evidence.
Brexit has only made matters worse. The referendum campaign served to entrench already polarised views because immigration was at its heart, especially in northern working-class communities where there was a widespread belief that jobs were being taken by foreign workers.
Yet the issue has been quietly sidelined. As negotiations approach what must be the final stage, the people who voted for Brexit because of their honestly held concerns over immigration have no real idea how many people will be allowed to come here once we leave the EU.
Worryingly, the Government appears not to have any real idea either. Meanwhile, both the private and public sectors who have relied upon immigrant workers are left in limbo wondering what the future holds.
This raises the possibility that in the next few years, we’re going to see another mess over immigration policy that rivals the Windrush disgrace.
That was the consequence of bad policy, made on the hoof, with too little thought for what the long-term effects would be.
It’s difficult to find any sign of the postBrexit policy on immigration being any better thought through, and a key result of that is likely to be a profound sense on the part of those who backed Brexit of having been cheated.
They thought they were voting for strict controls on future immigration. It turns out that what was on offer instead was a lot of hot air, and that’s not a recipe for a happy country determined to build the best possible future outside the EU.
If any good is to come out of the Windrush fiasco, it needs to be recognised as a cautionary tale of what happens when rhetoric and knee-jerk policy drive the way immigration is dealt with.
This is an opportunity for the Government to pause, reflect on what has happened and change the tone of the debate, consulting properly on what level of immigration Britain needs – and only then making policy.
But the person who should really be on the receiving end is not Ms Rudd, who has been landed with an appalling mess not of her making to sweep up, but her boss and predecessor at the Home Office, Theresa May.