Reverse parts of the Immigration Act that created the hostile environment, says think tank
The institute believes that following their recommendations will prevent another Windrush scandal
AN ONGOING ISSUE: A Black Lives Matter Solidarity against racism and the hostile environment protest outside the Scottish Parliament (Photo via Getty Images)
THE INSTITUTE for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has called for key parts of the Immigration Acts of 2014 and 2016 to be “reformed or replaced.”
The organisation believes this is necessary in order to “transform” the government’s approach to immigration enforcement.
They say that through the hostile environment policy, the government has effectively outsourced immigration enforcement to landlords, employers and other workers on the frontline.
Only 17% of victims involved in the Windrush scandal have received compensation as figures show £2.9m has been paid out to 300 people.
Official figures show the Home Office has received some 1,761 claims as of the end of December, with £2,869,068.16 paid out to 303 people.
The scandal, brought about in 2012 by the Government s hostile environment policy, saw migrants who arrived from the Caribbean between 1948 and 1973 wrongly deported, detained or stripped of their homes and jobs.
The Home Office has faced criticism for its response to the Windrush scandal, with Home Secretary Priti Patel last month pledging to overhaul the current system amid claims it was complicated and onerous
The UK’s immigration watchdog has published a report on the Home Office’s use of penalties and sanctions to encourage immigration compliance. More, here.
Publishing the report, David Bolt said:
The Home Office is able to make use of a range of sanctions and penalties to encourage and enforce compliance with the Immigration Rules. Some of these are directly within its control, while others are “owned” and administered by other government departments, agencies or third parties with input from the Home Office in the form of data, typically about individuals who do not have right to enter or remain in the UK or whose rights, for example the right to work, are restricted.
This inspection examined how efficiently and effectively the Home Office used these sanctions and penalties, which included looking at what it was seeking to achieve with each and to what extent it was succeeding.