Eu Plebiscite Briefing 4: Immigration

Steve Peers

Introduction

What impact does the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) receive got on immigration together with asylum? This postal service examines that controversial issue, looking inward plough at migration to the Great Britain yesteryear non-EU together with European Union citizens.

Non-EU migration

It’s cardinal to distinguish betwixt non-EU together with European Union migration inward the plebiscite fence for 2 reasons. First of all, because piece European Union migration is manifestly closely connected to the UK’s membership of the EU, non-EU migration is not. That’s only because the Great Britain has negotiated together with used opt outs from European Union laws on non-EU migration together with asylum, especially from the EU’s borderless Schengen zone. This agency that the Great Britain tin command its borders amongst the residue of the European Union equally regards non-EU citizens, applying its ain law to acknowledge them or to spend upwards them entry. So it’s faux to say that the Great Britain has ‘lost command of its borders’ equally far equally non-EU migration is concerned.

As I noted inward the first European Union Referendum Briefing, these opt-outs could only last removed yesteryear a Treaty amendment which the Great Britain regime together with parliament agreed to. Moreover, the Schengen opt-out tin only last removed yesteryear a world referendum.   

Secondly, the distinction is of import because non-EU migration genuinely accounts for a greater share of cyberspace migration to the Great Britain than European Union migration does, equally demonstrated here:

Moreover, for those who would similar to consider cyberspace migration to the Great Britain reduced to the degree of (say) 50,000 or below 100,000, it is self-evident from this graph that leaving the European Union volition not, yesteryear itself, attain this. Even amongst no European Union migration, non-EU migration lonely would soundless last good higher upwards the 100,000 level, equally nosotros tin clearly see. Conversely, about would similar to consider to a greater extent than non-EU migrants admitted to the UK. Fine: the Great Britain tin acknowledge them whatever fourth dimension it likes. It’s exclusively the government’s conclusion non to. But doing so would clearly displace the Great Britain farther away from a target of 100,000 migrants, fifty-fifty if the Great Britain leaves the EU.

Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 little minority of non-EU citizens inward the Great Britain are covered yesteryear European Union law. First of all, non-EU identify unit of measurement members of European Union citizens are covered yesteryear European Union costless motility law. However, the UK’s renegotiation bargain (as discussed here) would allow it to limit their numbers considerably, yesteryear tightening the rules on their entry.

Secondly, the Great Britain opted into the ‘first phase’ of European Union asylum law, inward 2003-05. At that time, though, it had a veto over asylum law proposals, together with used it to insist that the European Union rules would non modify Great Britain law. Although the ‘Leave’ side claims that the European Union courtroom ‘controls Britain’s asylum system’, inward fact the only British asylum cases which the European Union courtroom has decided occupation the ‘Dublin’ arrangement of allocating responsibleness for asylum applications betwixt European Union countries.

This arrangement allows the Great Britain to insist that other Member States receive got dorsum asylum-seekers who receive got entered their territory earlier they got to the UK. If the Great Britain left the EU, it would no longer last dependent area to these Dublin rules, unless the European Union agreed to sign a treaty amongst the Great Britain to that effect. This is pretty unlikely, since the European Union has only signed such treaties amongst countries similar Kingdom of Norway together with Switzerland, for the sole argue that those countries also signed upwards to last role of the Schengen surface area at the same time.

Let’s remember nigh what all this agency inward practice. Some non-EU migrants who receive got travelled through the residue of the European Union arrive at elbow grease illegal entry into the UK, or would likely similar to arrive at so (those inward Calais together with Dunkirk, for instance). But why would that change if the Great Britain left the EU? The people concerned wouldn’t all of a abrupt lose all wish to come upwards to the UK. Their intended illegal entry would non larn harder inward whatever way. It would last against the law – but it already is now. Brexit would non genuinely displace the Great Britain farther away from the continent geographically. People arrive at elbow grease illegal entry into non-EU countries, similar the USA; together with refugees flee to together with rest inward non-EU countries (like Turkey, Republic of Kenya or Lebanon) too.

Some on the Leave side receive got suggested that the Great Britain is vulnerable to sexual onslaught from non-EU migrants on the continent. Let’s unpack that. None of the non-EU migrants concerned receive got the right of entry into the UK. The Great Britain tin only spend upwards them entry at the border. In contrast, the Orlando killer was a U.S.A. of America citizen, who could receive got come upwards to the Great Britain without a visa, on the ground of the UK’s visa waiver for U.S.A. of America citizens.

It’s sometimes suggested that non-EU migrants inward the residue of the European Union volition all gain European Union citizenship together with come upwards to the Great Britain presently afterward. But equally shown inward 3 split upwards analyses – yesteryear Full Fact, BBC Reality Check, together with Open Europe – gaining European Union citizenship is really hard for non-EU citizens. It requires a long wait, a build clean criminal tape together with satisfaction of many other criteria. If non-EU citizens don’t receive got legal residence status, or their asylum application fails, they tin last deported. Nearly 200,000 non-EU citizens are inward fact expelled from the European Union every year.  

Finally, let’s apply this analysis to this poster produced yesteryear about on the Leave side, unveiled finally week:

No 1 on the poster has whatever right to go into the UK. All of them tin last refused at the border. Brexit would modify null inward this regard – likewise making it harder to withdraw to the European Union those who arrive at deal to go into illegally together with apply for asylum. The prospect that many of them would gain European Union citizenship together with displace to the Great Britain is remote. 

So the poster is essentially unrelated to the referendum. As such, it is non an elbow grease at rational declaration - but rather an appeal to irrational fear.

EU migration

In contrast, equally noted already, the migration of European Union citizens is indeed relevant to the plebiscite debate. Much of this fence is nigh the economical impact of European Union migration, including its impact on world services. I’ll leave of absence that side of the fence to the economists. But in that location are about of import legal issues that should last clarified, related to access to benefits together with exclusion on grounds of criminality. The key betoken is that the costless motility of European Union citizens, piece generous compared to ordinary immigration laws, is non unlimited.

What are these limits? First of all, European Union citizens receive got to run across the criteria to stay. The top dog legislation on the costless motility of European Union citizens – known equally the ‘Citizens’ Directive’ – provides that European Union citizens together with their identify unit of measurement members tin displace to about other fellow member province initially for a menstruum of 3 months. But it also says explicitly that the European Union citizen has no right to whatever social assistance benefits during this time. Indeed, the Great Britain has confirmed that in that location is no right to rest precisely to obtain social assistance without always working inward the host country. Recently it also confirmed the Great Britain government’s refusal to pay kid arrive at goodness or kid revenue enhancement credit to those who did non qualify to stay.

It’s sometimes suggested that ‘500 1000000 people tin displace to the UK’ nether European Union costless motility law. Yes – if in that location were 500 1000000 jobs for them to come upwards together with do. Or 500 1000000 academy places available. Or if all of those 500 1000000 people had a little fortune stashed away. Obviously null similar those numbers of jobs, academy places or self-sufficient people exist.

What nigh European Union migrants who come upwards to the Great Britain together with await for work? David Cameron has suggested they tin last automatically removed after half-dozen months if they don’t uncovering work. This isn’t correct: the Citizens’ Directive says that they tin rest if they ‘can supply testify that they are continuing to seek occupation together with that they receive got a genuine endangerment of beingness engaged’. But equally mentioned already, they are non entitled to whatever benefits from the Great Britain piece looking for work. Also, they must run across the criteria of self-sufficiency, otherwise they would non last entitled to rest after 3 months anyway.

What if an European Union migrant plant inward the Great Britain for a time, then becomes unemployed? It is possible that they tin retain condition equally a (former) worker, and thus maintain access to social assistance benefits. There are limits to this, however.  In particular, if the European Union worker has been employed for less than 1 yr inward the UK, he or she would only retain ‘worker’ condition for half-dozen months after becoming unemployed. At that betoken the Great Britain tin cutting off access to their benefits, equally the CJEU has confirmed.

Workers are entitled to equal handling equally regards benefits, including top-up benefits paid to those inward work, which are a large role of the Great Britain revenue enhancement together with arrive at goodness system. However, the deal on the renegotiation of the UK’s European Union membership specifies that if the Great Britain votes to rest inward the EU, the electrical current European Union rules volition last changed so that the Great Britain tin apply a four-year ban for workers from other European Union fellow member states on in-work benefits.

There renegotiation bargain also says that the Great Britain volition last able to boundary on the kid arrive at goodness exported to European Union workers amongst children inward other fellow member states, fixing the charge per unit of measurement of that kid arrive at goodness to the toll of living inward the solid ground of the children’s residence.

After 5 years’ legal rest on the ground of the Citizens’ Directive, European Union citizens together with their identify unit of measurement members tin obtain permanent residence status, important that they no longer receive got restricted access to social benefits.

As for criminality, it is sometimes suggested or inferred that the Great Britain cannot spend upwards entry or expel European Union migrants on criminal law grounds at all. This is clearly false. The Citizens’ Directive allows for expulsion, entry bans or refusal of entry for those who are a threat to ‘public policy, world safety or world health’. There are limits, however. Restrictions must last proportionate together with ‘based exclusively on the personal demeanour of the private concerned’. People cannot last excluded on full general preventive grounds, but on ‘personal conduct’ which ‘must correspond a genuine, introduce together with sufficiently serious threat affecting 1 of the fundamental interests of society’.

British authorities tin cheque on an individual’s police pull tape after entry, together with tin also number an entry ban preventing that individual from coming to the Great Britain inward the showtime place. For those who are on the territory, in that location is greater protection against expulsion over time, but in that location is never whatever absolute ban on expulsion.

It has been suggested that the European Union courtroom has prevented 50 European Union criminals from beingness removed from the UK. This is false. Any such judgments were made yesteryear Great Britain courts or the European Court of Human Rights.

To essay that point, let’s await at a list of all the cases which the European Union courtroom decided on European Union citizenship inward the finally 5 years. There are 53 cases, together with only 5 of them occupation expulsion or larn out bans of European Union citizens due to criminality. Of those 5 cases, precisely 3 occupation the UK.  

In those 5 cases, the Court decided that: 

a) fourth dimension spent inward prison theater inward the Great Britain  by an European Union citizen’s identify unit of measurement fellow member did non count toward getting permanent residence nether European Union law (Onuekwere); 

b) an European Union citizen convicted of kid cruelty could non count prison theater fourth dimension toward a ten-year threshold giving extra protection against expulsion (G case);

c) the Great Britain does non receive got to laissez passer on an European Union citizen data which could compromise national safety during an expulsion proceeding (ZZ case);

d) people amongst a drug trafficking conviction tin last banned from leaving the solid ground (Gaydorov); and 

e) kid abusers tin last expelled on grounds of ‘public security’ fifty-fifty if they receive got been resident for over x years (I case).

So inward every unmarried relevant judgment inward the finally 5 years, the European Union Court confirmed that Member States could boundary the rights of convicted criminals or terrorist suspects.

The ‘Leave’ side has referred to about other supposed European Union courtroom ruling, nigh the daughter-in-law of a terrorist inward the UK. In fact in that location is no ruling inward that illustration yet – only the non-binding opinion of an ‘Advocate-General’. And according to that opinion, the individual concerned tin indeed last expelled, if a British courtroom believes that she is a endangerment to world security.

It is also possible to expel European Union citizens on grounds that they rely on social assistance.

One finally betoken nigh the costless motility of European Union citizens. The Leave side has referred several times to the possibility of Turkey joining the EU. It’s sufficient to betoken out, equally I discussed inward a previous Referendum Briefing, that: a) every Member State has a veto on this; Turkey has agreed 1 out of 35 negotiating chapters, inward eleven years of talks; together with in that location would also last a lengthy menstruum after Turkish accession earlier the costless motility of persons applied.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 13

Credits - Meme: Pawel Swidlicki; Graph: The Independent; Photo: home.bt.com

Share this post