Open%20borders%20The%20case%20against%20immigration%20controls%20-%20Teresa%20Hayter

Refugees: Tightening the Screw 77
Guardian of 14 March 1995 to be ‘considering legislation to “crack down on
illegal immigrants”’, which, said the Guardian, would ‘be seen as a victory
for right-wing Conservative MPs who have been demanding even tougher
controls’. The 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act extended the grounds on
which an application could be ‘fast-tracked’. It abolished the right of appeal
when removal was to another EU country. It introduced a ‘white list’ of ‘safe’
countries, which included India, Pakistan and Romania, and also included
Nigeria until protests forced its removal from the list. It removed the right to
welfare benefits for those who applied for asylum after entry to Britain, or
who were pursuing their legal right to appeal against a Home Office refusal
of their claim, thus potentially either making them destitute or forcing them
to abandon their appeal. It introduced employer sanctions, placing a legal
duty on employers to check the status of their employees and making it a
criminal offence to employ somebody who did not have permission to work
in Britain.
The Labour Party, as usual in opposition, strongly opposed the harshness
and illiberality of this legislation. Jack Straw, shadow home secretary,
accused Michael Howard of ‘playing the race card’ before the 1997 general
election, and the Independent on Sunday of 10 September 1995 quoted Straw
as follows:
It is obscene that, of all people, Mr Howard, whose family directly benefited from liberal
refugee laws, should allow asylum and immigration to be used in political stunts.
A document produced before the 1997 election by Jack Straw and Doug
Henderson, shadow home affairs minister, entitled Fairer, Faster and Firmer:
Labour’s Approach to Asylum and Immigration, castigates the Tory government
for the failings of their immigration policy and the 1996 Act and quotes
Andrew Lansley, the outgoing head of the Tory Research Department as
saying:
Immigration ... an issue we raised successfully in 1992 ... played particularly well in
the tabloids and has more potential to hurt [the Labour Party].
‘No other act in this Parliament has aroused such justified and widespread
opposition as the Asylum and Immigration Act’, said Straw and Henderson,
and they quoted The Economist of 9 January 1996:
... by promoting anti-immigrant policies the government risks encouraging racism
and undermining liberty. It deserves contempt, not votes, for proposing this nasty
little bill.
They continued:
Labour fought the act every step of the way because it:
1 hits genuine asylum seekers as hard as fraudulent applicants,
2 threatens race relations,
3 places a dangerous and impractical burden on employers,