Final Shame on You

7/30/2019 Final Shame on You

1/50

3318640502

Shame on you Theresa May:

Ethnography of the UKBA

1


2/50

3318640502

Key to terms

APPG All Party Parliamentary Group

ILR Indefinite Leave to Remain

JCWI Joint Coalition for the Welfare of Immigrants

MRN Migrants Rights Network

UKBA United Kingdom Border Agency

UFFL United Families Fight for Love

Key Words

family migration, human rights violations, UKBA, discrimination, structural violence,

bureaucracy, state policies

Abstract

The purpose of this project is to highlight the draconian immigration policies

implemented on the 9th July 2012 by the current UK government. Due to the relatively

short time since the family migration policies came into effect there is little

anthropological research surrounding this topic, however, this paper contributes to the

wider body of academia concerned with migration. By engaging with grassroots

movements and established organizations dedicated to supporting migrants, I have

become a part of a wider community which is working towards the reform of these

migration policies. Specifically I explore how these policies are in violation of Article 8

of the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 16 of the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights. During my research many individuals expressed feelings of

marginalization. As I will illustrate, these policies discriminate against people based on

2


3/50

3318640502

their class, gender, race, sexuality, age and region. Ethnographic accounts are integral to

this report as they demonstrate the suffering experienced by individuals across the UK

and globally who have been separated from their families by these migration policies.

Introduction

On 9 th July 2012, the Conservative Government of the UK made four changes to

family migration policy. These measures were an attempt to meet the goals set by the

present government to restrict migration. In the words of the Prime Minister, David

Cameron, the goal of the current administration is to limit migration from hundreds of

thousands to tens of thousands. The administration refers to its approach to immigration

as soft touch; a review of the history of migration and the current policies suggests the

term soft touch is far from the truth. Britain has a long history of anxiety towards

migration and migrants, fueled by fear of abuse of the countrys resources and

xenophobic attitudes among some groups within society. The concern in some quarters,

that certain groups are incapable of integrating into British society is arguably

exacerbated by immigration law and media representations. Using family migration as a

prism through which to view the global movement of peoples, this essay highlights the

states attempt to restrict the freedom of movement. This issue has risen in importance

over time, as the falling cost of travel, and the virtual connections offered by the internet,

has meant we inhabit a world that is continuously interconnected. In this paper, personal

accounts of lives affected by migration policy are described, as a counterpoint to the

usual polemic, which are often based on economic arguments.

Methodology

The aim of this research was to critically analyze the stipulations applied to

couples that marry across borders. At present, within the UK, couples are required to

conform to the states definition of what constitutes a marriage. However after the

changes in family migration came into effect on 9 th July 2012, my focus was shifted.

Originally my attention was drawn solely to the income requirements but after a

discussion with two fellow campaigners, I decided to highlight all four changes to family

3


4/50

3318640502

migration in the hope that this would bring about solidarity for the cause. As a result I

have used this text to start a discourse on all elements of family migration affected by the

9th

of July changes. The individuals I met by attending conferences, going to localmeetings and communicating through social media support groups became my

informants. These people greatly contributed to my understanding of both the cause and

effect of these changes.

There is little anthropological knowledge surrounding this topic due to its

relatively recent emergence, therefore, I have attempted to pave a path of ethnographic

accounts that provide an emic perspective of this issue. By engaging with the policies of

family migration I found myself immersed in the campaign for their reform.

Consequently this piece is written from the natives perspective (Lughod 1991). My

engagement with campaigns to challenge the 9 th July policy changes was repeatedly

inspired by engagement with families living with the consequences of these policies. The

ethnographic accounts within this paper were collected over a ten month period between

July 2012 and April 2013. Some names have been changed in order to avoid further

complications between those seeking family visas and the UK Border Agency (UKBA).

The appropriate interview method was reviewed and refined as the project

proceeded. The initial conclusion was that it may be most appropriate to be a neutral

recorder of the individuals stories, to avoid leading the conversation into a specific

direction; however, in this highly charged and emotional area, it soon became clear that it

was more productive to adopt an anthropological approach that was focused on

connections rather than disconnections. As the academic research was conducted

alongside and within activist campaigns, often I had information that would assist the

informant with their struggle with the state; I felt this was a valid approach as this topic

concerns human interaction and political engagement. There is an argument within

anthropology that this type of approach can distort the information collected through

interviews, however Levi-Strauss (1966 ) suggests that by simply studying a subject you

alter the issue.

4


5/50

3318640502

The stories are from individuals that I came into contact with by attending and

observing campaign meetings. These are not necessarily a representative sample, as there

are many others suffering due to separation from their families, all with a highlyindividual story, thus this ethnography is a partial truth (Clifford 1986:6). As both an

observer and participant in the campaign against the restrictive policies of family

migration I have written an auto-ethnography which Khosravi (2010:5) describes as

ethnography that blurs the line between informants and the anthropologist. Khosravi

(2010) takes a narrative approach to migration, which was the format followed within this

ethnography as it allows the reader to engage with real stories of those affected by these

policies.

Intention and aims

The academic task was to produce an anthropological exploration of a topic of

choice; it is therefore necessary to discuss what is meant by anthropology. Anthropology

has a long history and has been practiced in various ways, this essay takes a strong stance

that anthropology has little significance unless it engages in activism. This takes the lead

from Nancy Scheper-Hughes (1995) who believes that militant anthropology is the way

to move away from the objective study of others and to engage with political activism.

An analysis of the implications of Scheper-Hughes (2000) work could suggest that

anthropology resembles journalism, as opposed to writing after the issue has concluded.

Writing from the past does little to affect the outcome of the matter at hand, in this case

the state and its policies regarding family migration. This text critically examines state

policies, which Nader (1972) describes as studying up.

Following the work of De Genova (2013), this essay questions the necessity of

national borders, with their literal and legal impact on freedom of movement. This is

essential to this discussion as without borders there would be no category of the migrant

and consequently no families separated due to restrictions on family migration. This

ethnography of activism highlights the issues that punish those families with the least

financial security. Alongside pointing out the various types of discrimination the

5


6/50

3318640502

government has embodied within these new policies, I explore alternate ways to manage

our developing world, with a particular focus on the freedom of movement. Within this

text I focus on the micro issues that are arising out of family migration policies, whileacknowledging the macro as these changes are part of a bigger picture surrounding

border control.

Outline of family immigration changes

Before examining the lives of those affected by changes to family migration

policies, I will provide a brief outline of each of the policy changes, and also provide a

wider context in which to view the current migratory atmosphere within the UK.

Policy 1: Proof of income. Since 9 th July 2012, any British Citizen or settled

person wanting to sponsor their non-EEA spouse to migrate to the UK must prove they

have an annual income of 18,600 (UKBA 2013). This is a more than three times the

prior figure of 5,500 plus housing costs (Economist 2013). According to the Migratory

Observatory at the University of Oxford, 47% of British Citizens in employment will not

qualify to bring in a family member under these new rules. Although this text focuses on

those that are excluded because of the new policies, it is important to note that many

families also failed to meet the earlier, less onerous conditions. On top of the need for

proof of an annual income of 18,600 figure any UK citizen/settled person who needs to

sponsor their child to live in the UK, alongside their spouse, must prove an income of

22,400 and an additional 2,400 for each subsequent dependent. The new income

stipulations must be supported by documented evidence for a period of 6 months before

the application can be submitted (UKBA 2013). Further complications arise when self-

employment is considered, which will be discussed later in the paper. For those that fall

short of this income hurdle they have to provide evidence that they can meet the shortfall

with funds in a savings account, calculated as the shortfall multiplied by 2.5. Taking Bob

as an example; he has an income of 18,300 per annum, a shortfall of 300. The law

stipulates that if short of the income requirement, you must demonstrate a minimum of

16,000 in savings plus 2.5x the amount you were short of the income requirement, For

6


7/50

3318640502

Bob this means 16,000+ 750 in savings, if Bob was unemployed the figure would be

62,500.

Policy 2: Proof of English. The spouse of the UK citizen/settled individual must

prove their competency in English (UKBA 2013). Although this change doesn't come into

effect until October 2013 it is likely to act as a barrier to entry to the UK for many. Until

October 2013 the necessary English language level was A1, which is the level of

breakthrough or beginner, whereas post October it will shift to B1 which is the level of

threshold of intermediate (Council of Europe 2013). The UK now joins Germany, Estonia

and Denmark in requiring B1 language levels (Guardian 2013). This statement by the

UKBA expresses the governments reasoning for the increased income and English

language requirements; To play a full part in British life, family migrants must be able to

integrate, that means they must speak our language and pay their way (Guardian 2013).

Those planning to learn English subsequent to entering the UK are finding this route has

closed and those seeking to join their spouse must pass the test in their country of origin

(UKBA 2013). This is extremely problematic as the chances of learning a second

language is much higher if you are immersed in the language, i.e. living in a country

where it is the main language spoken. As Guy Taylor explains:

Raising the level of English required to enter the UK is not a step towards

integration; it is a barrier to immigration. Thousands of EU nationals come to the UK

with poor English, and the majority of them learn good English quite quickly." (Guardian

article)

This policy change will make it difficult for those with little knowledge of

English language to gain access to the UK, specifically those coming from countries

where English language courses are hard to come by or costly. The UKBA predicts this

will stop around 6,000 people from entering the UK per year (UKBA 2013).

Policy 3: Probationary period. The third new amendment is that three years have

been added to the probationary period that must be fulfilled before the

7


8/50

3318640502

sponsored individual can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). Previous to the

July 9th changes the period was two years but it has now has been increased to five years.

Within this five year probationary period, access to public services is denied, such thatthose sponsored to live in the UK contribute to the economy through paying taxes but

have no access to public services (UKBA 2013). Alongside denying these individuals

access to services to which they have contributed financially, this serves to keep these

individuals as well as their family members in a type of limbo. With their status, and

therefore livelihood, uncertain, many experience anxiety and unease due to their

vulnerability to deportation (De Genova 2010). The UKBA claims it serves to test the

genuineness of the relationship (UKBA 2013). On top of this waiting period to apply for

ILR, the application must be filed from outside of the UK. This imposes extra travel

expenses on families whilst simultaneously separating partners and parents from children

whilst the application is being processed. Beyond these negative consequences of

extending an already long probationary period, research has shown that in some instances

this causes individuals to stay in abusive relationships for longer periods in order to gain

citizenship (APPG 2013).

This change also affects couples that are returning to the UK from living

overseas. Previously, the right to return, allowed couples living together abroad for a

period of at least four years to return to the UK and enjoy immediate settlement. With

these recent changes those coming back to the borders of the UK must also wait a period

of five years before being awarded settled status (UKBA 2013).

Policy 4: Elderly dependents. The fourth change to the law means that British

Citizens/ settled persons in the UK attempting to sponsor an elderly dependent are facing

more onerous requirements. According to the UKBA an elderly dependent is defined as a

family member such as parent, grandparent, brother, sister, son or daughter that is 18

years and older. In order to meet the requirements, evidence must be provided that the

elderly dependent cannot provide care for themselves. This care includes feeding,

washing and cooking. On top of this evidence, proof must be provided that no one in the

8


9/50

3318640502

country in which the elderly dependent resides, can provide care. This change has made it

impossible for many to sponsor an elderly dependent to come and join their family in the

UK. As with ILR, the application must be made from outside of the UK (UKBA 2013).Since elderly dependents cannot switch a prior status such as tourist visa to a family visa,

the law requires them to leave the UK to apply. This is particularly problematic in this

group as the qualifying requirements laid out by the UKBA state the individual must be

in poor health. In addition to these requirements the sponsor of the dependent has to

provide evidence of full support to negate any need for state benefits (UKBA 2013).

Thus, if a UK citizen/settled person has a family member that is incapable of caring for

themselves and no one in their country of origin can provide this care, they are stuck

without support unless the UK citizen/settled person is financially secure.

These changes were announced on June 13 2012, and three of the four changes

outlined above came into affect a less than a month later. Many families were devastated

as they were oblivious to the new requirements under which their applications would be

scrutinized. These policy changes were introduced through far reaching secondary

legislation, not debated within the House of Commons (UK Parliament 2013(2)).

In addition to these requirements non-EEA citizens are now required to complete

the live in the UK test as part of the guidelines to enter the UK. (See appendix).

These changes in family migration law are not the only means through which an

attempt is being made to restrict bodies from entering the UK, although as The

Economist noted in 2013, Now family reunification- the third main route into Britain,

accounting for 18% of non-EU total in 2010- is under fire (Economist 2013). Citizens

from outside of the European Economic Area (EEA), which includes all countries in the

European Union plus Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway (Welcome Trust 2013), are now

being targeted in attempts to cut migration as a whole. It is becoming increasing difficult

for non-EEA citizens to study, work and live in the UK. As stated earlier, the

Conservative government hopes to restrict migration from hundreds of thousands to tens

9


10/50

3318640502

of thousands per annum. According to figures from the Home Office in 2012, sponsored

student visas issued last year fell by 20%, family reunion visas were down 10% and work

visas fell by 3%. These declining figures provide a picture of the current climate ofmigration within the UK. Family migration is only one area that is being targeted in the

states attempt to fulfill their pledge to bring down migration numbers.

THE UKBA

The United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) is the organization responsible for

processing family migration visas. This agency was established in 2008, reporting to the

Home Office.

10


11/50

3318640502

CHAPTER 1: Agency and Resistance

Wherever there is power there is resistance. (Foucault 1978:95-96)

When the changes were announced on the 9 th of July 2012 many gathered outside

of the Home Office to voice their protest against these unfair policies. As the crowd

chanted Theresa May, Shame on you! individuals spoke, demonstrated and voiced their

disbelief and unwillingness to accept migration policies that directly violate Human

Rights. Since that day several grassroots campaigns have sprung up in reaction to the

measures being implemented by the current government. Alongside these grassroots

organizations, many already established organizations directly involved with the plight of

migrants have lent their expertise and support. These draconian policies are being met

with voices and action. These communities are bringing the stress, despair and depression

that these measures are causing to light.

The grassroots campaign, known as BritCits, illustrates how people are coming

together and using collective agency to resist power structures that are imposing

significant and damaging structural change. The main goal of BritCits is defending the

rights of international families, documenting the plight of the divided families (BritCits

2013.) Through my time in the campaign I have worked with the founders of this

organization. Over dinner we discussed their position within BritCits as well as their

personal relationship to family migration. Sonel is attempting to sponsor her elderly

parents and finding many barriers in her way, whereas Steven is not affected by the

changes but feels they are inherently wrong and therefore is active within this grassroots

movement. BritCits has provided information and support to those struggling with the

July 9thchanges. Their website BritCits.com ministers a meeting place for individuals

having to deal with the UKBA. This is seen as essential as the process is complex and

confusing for many, especially as the UKBA is reluctant to provide advice. As an

informant put it the UKBA doesnt want to help you because they want you to fail.

11


12/50

3318640502

Alongside BritCits role in disseminating information and advice about the visa

system, they have also collected personal accounts from those facing separation fromloved ones. They have collated these accounts into a story pack used for lobbying

politicians and highlighting the personal suffering that is occurring due to family

migration policy. This story pack allows for MPs to witness the true consequences of

these new policies, rather than viewing it through an economic lens. It has also served as

a source of solidarity and solace as it allows those separated from their families to realize

they are not alone. For many, writing these stories has served as a form of catharsis.

BritCit founder, Steven, has played an integral role in arranging meetings, which provide

an atmosphere of support, solidarity and communication. This grassroots movement is

continuously involved in the struggle to overturn the new family migration policies. A

comment from BritCits expresses concern about the new rules:

The heartbreak, stress and devastation wreaked on Brits who dared to love, be it

a parent, spouse or child will be so devastating; it will leave a lasting impact on the

economy, our mental and physical health and our values. These rules are causing the

break-up of families and couples, with a generation of kids now being brought up by

single and Skype parents. 1/15/2013 (The Express Tribune).

Although BritCits is serving an important role in providing help to those in need,

some of the stories that emerge from this movement mirror nativism - the political belief

that those born into a nation hold more rights than those that are not native to the

country (De Genova 2005). In relation to family migration, much of the discourse coming

out of BritCit compares the situation of British Citizens to other EEA nationals, as

individuals entering the UK from a nation included in the EEA are entitled to bring their

non-EEA spouses to join them in Britain without stipulations on language and income

(UKBA 2013). This has served as a major tool in pitting individuals against each other,

rather than engendering solidarity. Although many refuse to engage in the nativist

discourse, many feel indignant that others are enjoying the right to family life in their

12


13/50

3318640502

country, while they are stripped of this Human Right. These statements collected from the

BritCit story pack illustrate the nativist discourse:

This used to be a great country but the governments attitude to British people

makes us 2nd class citizens. Clearly, they want to force us out to make room for rich

people and EU nationals

Why is it that there is one rule for Europeans and another for British citizens, in

Britain?

As with any collective, it is impossible to perfectly align objectives and political

ideals. These statements of nativist sentiment serve no purpose in the struggle against the

state in regards to family migration. Although nativist discourse has arisen from some

within BriCits, it is far from being the dominant conversation. In fact this organisation

has brought together individuals from different political, economic and social

backgrounds. This solidarity is invaluable as a united front in response to the negative

images of immigration presented by many politicians and the media. Many of BritCits

members would not have had a forum to converse and form ideas and strategies for

working against the reforms made on the 9 th of July, if it were not for the organisation.

Steven and Sonel have been an inspiration to many as they sacrifice their personal time to

assist those in need of advice and support in their struggle against the state.

During the course of our conversations, Sonel, Steven and I discussed at length

the distress, depression and despair that many are living on a day to day basis as they

fight for their right for family life. The question of the impact this psychological trauma

might have was discussed. Several weeks after this discussion, there were newspaper

reports of a young woman who jumped in front of a train with her newborn baby. It was

reported that she was severely depressed due to separation from her Egyptian husband

who was unable to live in the UK due to visa requirements (Mirror 2013). This tragedy

13


14/50

3318640502

highlights the depression and desperation many are experiencing as a result of the

draconian new family migration policies.

Another organization active in fighting the new family migration policies is the

Joint Coalition for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI). JCWI was founded in 1967 partly

in response to Enoch Powells infamous Rivers of Blood, speech in which he painted a

bleak future for the UK if migrants were given continued access to Great Britain. JCWI

still campaign for the rights of migrants, believing the political and social climate has

changed very little over the intervening years. Their work involves Campaigning for the

justice in immigration, nationality and asylum law and policy (JCWI 2013). JCWI is

challenging the state on the new migration policies, on the grounds that they deny

individuals their human rights, specifically Article 8 of European Conference of Human

Rights. Alongside their legal work JCWI have played an important role in publicizing the

current plight of many migrants in the UK.

On 26th November 2012, I attended the JCWI conference; The Plight of the

Divided Family. Speakers included Jeremy Corbyn, a Labour MP who has expressed his

abhorrence of the current governments approach to migration. Professor Eleanore

Kofman highlighted the gender discrimination implicit in these policies while Barrister

Raza Husain QC, discussed the ways these changes are being challenged in a legal

context. Months later I had the opportunity to interview Guy Taylor, the campaigns and

communications officer for JCWI whose background is with Globalize Resistance, an

anti-capitalist activism organization. Guy outlined the different approaches JCWI (a small

organisation of just seven staff members) is taking to challenge the new government

policies, including the use of legal arguments to challenge government policy, again on

the basis that they deny individuals their human rights. By winning individual cases in

court, JCWI is allowing some families to live together and supporting the case of

migrants as a collective in their challenge to government policy.

14


15/50

3318640502

Guy laid bare the difficulties in gaining public support for the rights of migrants.

Guy has been involved in the campaignI Love Migrants which is dedicated to providing

an alternative discourse on migration. The goal is to start a public conversation thatacknowledges the contributions migrants make to the UK, rather than the threat many

believe they represent to British society. This attempt to challenge the nature of public

discourse is an integral part of the fight for the rights of migrants. Guy and I also

discussed the problems of having to compromise ideals when engaging in politics, such

as having to choose individuals that fit a description such as white and middle class in

order to encourage empathy from the public. JCWI played a role in overturning the age

requirements in spousal visas in 2011 and they are just as dedicated to overturning the

latest immigration policies.

Migrants Rights Network (MRN) is an NGO based in London that started in

2006. MRN engaged with family migration issues before the changes of July 9 th and

continues to campaign against these most recent restrictions to movements to the UK.

Like JCWI, Migrants Right Network uses a rights-based approach to the challenge to

migration policy. I encountered MRN through their organization of an All Party

Parliamentary Group (APPG). This group encouraged individuals to state their opinions

on whether the migration changes are meeting the intentions set out by the Home Office.

(Please find attached a copy of the questions). After filling out this application and

encouraging peers, friends and family to follow suit, I was invited to attend an oral

evidence meeting held at the House of Commons. This All Party Parliamentary Inquiry in

February 2013 hosted a cross-party panel of MPs, academics, barristers and activists

together with many directly affected by the income requirements and added stipulations

on sponsoring elderly dependents.

The Members of Parliament in attendance at the APPG included Sarah Teather

(Lib Dem), Kate Green (Labour), and Lord Teverson (Lib Dem). A key speaker included

David Metcalf, a member of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), the branch of

the Home Office set the task of determining an income requirement that would prevent

15


16/50

3318640502

family dependents from being a burden on the state (APPG recording). The chosen

figure of 18,600 was configured using the median, rather than the mean, which led to a

higher figure being deemed to be the point at which family dependents would not be aburden to the state (AAPG 2013). Alongside his position with MAC, Metcalf is a

professor at the London School of Economics (LSE 2013). Many questions were directed

at Metcalf throughout the APPG meeting, such as what was the number of family

dependents that were considered a burden on the state prior to July 9 th. The UKBA had no

figures available (APPG 2013). This blanket figure clearly shows how out of touch those

making the policies are from those living the consequences. An impression was left of

policy having been made in a factual vacuum.

Another contributor to the APPG meeting was Barry OLeary, a member of

Immigration Lawyers Practitioners Association. He was able to provide some insight

from his legal experience of the complications arising from these changes. Many find it

difficult to provide satisfactory and accepted evidence of meeting the income criteria,

especially for those who are self-employed as they are required to wait until the next

fiscal year to provide evidence of their earnings (APPG 2013). OLeary also pointed out

the complexity of meeting the new criteria, especially for those unfamiliar with the law;

this is difficult even for many solicitors, as immigration law is a specialized section

within the legal system. Many see this as an example of structural violence enacted by the

state, through withholding resources and denying certain individuals access based on

their financial ability to gain legal representation.

Another contributor to the APPG was Mahmud Quayum, an immigration advisor

for the Camden Community Law Centre. Quayaum discussed the problematic nature of

applying these changes to various cultural and kin organisations. Quayum, showed

particular concern that only the income of the sponsor was taken into consideration as

many Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian couples tend to rely on extended family for

financial support in the early years of marriage. He argued these policies were made

without consideration for diverse types of family organisation.

16


17/50

3318640502

Jill Rutters, a member of the Daycare Trust, briefly discussed the English

language requirements, but was interrupted as the APPG was meant to solely discuss theincome requirements and elderly dependents. Despite APPGs wish to limit the agenda,

many individuals affected by the changes and present at the meeting stressed the

difficulty of the English language test they are facing.

The second APPG oral evidence session was held on March 6 th 2013, again in the

House of Commons. The politicians present included Sarah Teather (Lib Dem MP),

Baroness Hamwee (Lib Dem Peer), Virendra Sharma (Labour MP), Kate Green (Labour

MP) and Lord Teveson (Lib Dem Peer). A key speaker was Helena Wray, a professor at

Middlex University. Wray, who has vast knowledge of the legal history of marriage

migration into the UK pointed out the various types of discrimination that these rules are

enabling. She specifically discussed discrimination against those that are disabled,

women, young people and those living outside London.

Another speaker was Anita Hurrell, from the Coram Childrens Legal Centre.

Hurrell provided examples of children suffering because of these new policies. She

highlighted how the UKBA have failed to protect the best interests of children. Dr.

Vivienne Nathanson from the British Medical Association also gave evidence at the

meeting of the dependence of the UK on migrant workers, particularly within the NHS.

She gave illustrations of where valuable doctors have left the UK due to these changes.

Lastly Duncan Hames, a Lib Dem MP, spoke about the numerous constituents that have

approached him for help in sponsoring their family members.

Alongside receiving invaluable information surrounding family migration by

attending these two APPG meetings, I also had the opportunity to interview Ruth Grove-

White, the policy director at MRN. White felt that the APPG meetings were effective as

they provided space for MPs to hear evidence from those affected by these new

immigration rules, allowing the problems associated with these policies to be highlighted

17


18/50

3318640502

and discussed in a formal setting. Unfortunately these committees were an ad hoc inquiry

rather than a formal committee and therefore cannot present evidence to, or demand a

response from, Parliament.

As well as encouraging a serious discussion with MPs regarding family migration,

MRN is working to get media coverage of these issues. White is hopeful that the income

requirements will be made less onerous, although not in the short term, as it is an issue

with which the public can empathise, especially in response to stories in the media that

involve children suffering due to separation from their parents. By forming connections

between journalists and those affected by the 9 th July changes, MRN is trying to get their

message across to the public. White felt that perhaps the cause of elderly dependents will

separate from those fighting for the uniting of spouses, as they involve different

arguments and engender different levels of sympathy from the public. One is fighting for

the rights of low income families while the other pertains to high earners attempting to

bring over their parents.

18


19/50


20/50

3318640502

European Convention of Human Rights

Article 8: Right to Family Life

(1) Everyone has the rights to respect for his private and family life, his home

and his correspondents.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this

right except such as is accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic

society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well

being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of

health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

(European Convention of Human Rights 2012)

As Hannah Arendt theorized, there is only one human right, and it is the right to

have rights, or the right to claim ones rights (The Origins of Totalitarianism 1951). This

idea is a useful starting point in examining those in Britain who are fighting for their right

to family life. As it currently stands you can access this Human Right only if you make

enough money to meet the income requirements or if you are capable of navigating

around the bureaucratic requirements of the UKBA. Although these rights are a nice

sentiment it seems in the current climate they are just that and little else, as through this

research I encountered many individuals that believe they are being denied the right to

share their lives with their family. The state appears to be suspending these Human Rights

through states ofexception (Agamben 2005). The claim is made that this breach is

justifiable in the name of safety and security and in the best interest of the nation.

However, while from the Governments perspective these regulations may be protecting

British citizens from immigrants draining the countries resources for a significant

minority it is denying them the right to family life.

20


21/50

3318640502

The government is claiming they are not violating the Human Right to family life

as the family can move to the native country of the applicant rather than the sponsor. In

the words of an individual caught in the battle to sponsor her husband to join her in theUK I was told my rights to a family life were not being interfered with as I could take

my son and go live with him abroad (Family Migration Alliance 2013). This justification

from the state in regards to not being in violation of Human Rights is questionable in that

it assumes that the applicant resides in a country that will welcome the UK family

member and it fails to acknowledge cases where the non-EEA individual is from a

country that the British government has deemed dangerous for British citizens to visit, let

alone inhabit. According to the UK government Iran, Yemen, Syria and many other

nations should be avoided by British Citizens all together, whilst it also recommends

avoiding parts of Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria, Thailand and several other regions of nations

(UK gov 2013). Another circumstance the new regulations appear to ignore is that of

same-sex couples, where the spouses country of origin does not recognize their union as

a legitimate bond, or where they could face persecution due to their sexual orientation.

One example is the United States where it explicitly states on the spousal visa application

page same-sex marriages are not recognized by immigration law for the purpose of

immigrating to the U.S. (U.S. Department of State 2013).

There is thus implicitly enshrined within the legislation the assumption that the

British citizen/settled is able to relocate to another country. Take for example, Jack, a

British Citizen that I met though in the course of this research. After meeting at one of the

APPG meetings we talked at length about his situation. Eventually he had to leave as he

became tearful recounting his separation from his wife and children. Later that week he

sent me his story which is here paraphrased:

21


22/50

3318640502

Jack grew up in England and has worked and paid tax for the last thirty years. Heis caught in a battle with the UKBA to obtain a visa for his wife and two children

who are currently residing in Lagos, Nigeria. Jack is facing complications in

proving his salary as he is self-employed. Due to this complicated process, Jack

feels he has been denied the right to bond with this 2 month old son; since his

birth he has only seen him for a period of 10 days. In the words of Jack I will

never be able to get these moments back, such as missing his first smile. This

separation affects the wider family, not just Jack. His parents are elderly are

therefore incapable of making the journey to Lagos, and have therefore they yet to

meet their new grandson.

In addition to the emotional distress the July 9th changes are causing Jack and his

family it has put a strain on his finances. The only opportunity he has to see his

22


23/50

3318640502

family is by traveling to Nigeria, as his wife and children are not eligible for a

visit visa as the UKBA believe they could overstay their visa. Therefore, he has to

fly to Nigeria at his own expense in order to see his family. On top of the flightsJack must also pay the $125.00 for a Nigerian visa. Jack is sending money to his

wife as she is caring for their infant child and consequently unable to work.

Additional expenses involve private health care, as Nigeria does not have a

national health care system. Jack is in the position of having to financially support

two households as opposed to one if his wife and children were allowed to join

him in the UK. In order to afford this Jack has rented out the rooms in his home

and is currently sleeping on the sofa bed in his living room. Jack feels this is

absurd as if he were allowed his right to family life; his income would be spent in

the UK, therefore making a greater contribution to the economy.

According to Jack, the Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) denied his family from

entering the UK as nothing is stopping Jack from living and working in Lagos.

However Jack believes this officer neglected to take enough time to review

Jacks situation, as he also has a son from a previous marriage, therefore

relocating to Lagos is not an option as it would require Jack abandoning his son in

the UK. Jack stated, How long does the UK government think I can continue to

send money to Nigeria or do they prefer me to abandon my wife and sons?

Beyond these instances where migrating to the spouses country is difficult, there

are other factors that face individuals. Some have chosen to settle in the UK to live near a

support network consisting of family and friends. This is especially true for individuals

that have children with a previous partner in the UK as in many cases this prevents them

from taking the child with them to another country as this would deny the child a

relationship with their other parent.

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

23


24/50

3318640502

Although many feel they are being denied their rights by the UKBA, some

are choosing to enforce their rights through the E.U Freedom of Movement Act (BritCits2013) The family temporarily moves to another country within the E.U.;

the British citizen/settled person finds employment for a period of time then they re-enter

the UK claiming their right to Freedom of Movement and enjoy the right to family life

within Britain. Surinder Singh won a case in the European Court establishing the legality

of this approach ( UKBA 2013)

Although this provides some with an alternative to meeting the UK requirements

it is not an option open to all, as again it boils down to access. For some it is beyond their

means to move to a European country due to family obligations, work responsibilities and

finances. Another consideration is that many are unaware that this route even exists. As

mentioned earlier, the UKBA is reluctant to provide help to those attempting

to sponsor their family and the law is complex and confusing.

24


25/50

3318640502

DISCOURSE FROM PARLIAMENT

Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical

evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core (Hannah Arendt 1963:49)

Conservative Party Manifesto

Strong families are the bedrock of a strong society. They provide the stability

and love we need to flourish as human beings, and the relationships they foster are the

foundation on which society is built- Britains families will get our full backing across all

our policies. We need good, strong families to help our society work well. We will

support families to stay together (Conservative web-site).

This manifesto pledge is arguably severely compromised by the changes in family

migration introduced by the UK government, of which the Conservative party forms the

majority group. Members of the party, particularly the Home Secretary Theresa May,

argue there is no violation of Human Rights by using an economic argument:

The income threshold is designed to prevent dependent partners from relying

excessively on public funds and subsequently posing a burden on the countrys welfare

system (Express Tribune 2013)

This statement appears superfluous as following successful applications; it

explicitly states on the acceptance document that the individual has no recourse to public

funds (UKBA 2013). This denial of public funds for sponsored family members lasts for

a period of five years which means those who enter the UK through family migration can

work and contribute to the economy through paying taxes during this period, yet are

denied access to the state services they financially contribute to. The statement also

appears to ignore the social and welfare costs of family breakdown; if you turn intact

25


26/50

3318640502

families into single parent structures, the likelihood of needing to claim benefits is higher

due to the added pressure on the parent left with the responsibility of caring for the child

and the home. This is the case for Emma who spoke about her situation at the JCWIconference in November.

Emma is a British citizen who recently married a Moroccan man. They were living

together in Morocco, until Emma returned home for a visit and discovered she was

pregnant. After weighing up their options the couple decided to make the UK their

home. However this has proved difficult due to the July 9th income changes.

Consequently Emma is living alone in the UK with a newborn without the financial

support of her husband. If they were allowed to co-habitat in the UK, Emma would

enjoy the added financial security her husband could provide as they would

potentially have two incomes rather than one. By sharing the duties of childcare and

home maintenance, this family could be more financially secure. Emma is now living

as a single parent.

26


27/50

3318640502

The economic arguments may have some, limited validity, but in the area of

immigration, there have always been other, darker emotions at play. Looking back

through history, the discourse surrounding immigration has changed very little, for themany migrant groups that have come to the UK over the years. These groups have all

experienced some form of persecution and or mistreatment. There are now new groups,

legally able to reside in the UK as a result of E.U freedom of movement that are now

being portrayed by some elements of the popular media as a threat to everything from

jobs to British identity. Polish citizens bore the main brunt of this characterisation for

many years, but the torch is now been passed to Romanians and Bulgarians (Guardian

2013) to the point where Ministers were considering running advertisements in Romanian

and Bulgaria that painted UK in a negative light (Guardian 2013). This is not a matter

specific to the UK, with an oft-quoted example being the White Australia policy that was

in place until the 70s. Similarly Afghan Khosravi (2010) recalls his observations when

returning to his home country of Iran, Afghan immigrants and their children are blamed

for almost all social and other problems in Iran, from unemployment and increasing

criminality to the spread of social disease. Government policy and rhetoric representing

migrants as problems can be observed across history as well as cross-nationally.

When leaders implicitly or explicitly paint migrants as problems and threats the

population often internalizes this discourse and becomes resentful of the new bodies. This

can lead to racist sentiment, and mistreatment of migrant communities. This scapegoating

manifests itself in support for organizations such as BNP and Migrants Watch. The

negative discourse surrounding immigration in the UK is not solely coming from the

Conservative Party. Nick Clegg from the Liberal Democratic Party has suggested that

migrants coming into the UK should pay a bond to ensure they dont overstay their visas

(BBC 2013 (2) The Labour party, perhaps in response to increased media attention to

immigration issues, has de facto apologized for letting too many in while they were in

power.

27


28/50

3318640502

CHAPTER 3: Discrimination

In this chapter, the legislative changes are examined from the perspective of

whether they implicitly, explicitly or accidentally discriminate against particular groups

with in society.

Within any one individual there are many different characteristics, and therefore

any form of analysis by societal group is a form of denial of the individual. However, the

aggregation of people in to groups according to gender, sexuality, nationality etc, is a

research tool to help establish biases in the impact of regulation.

Class / income level:

In both the application process and the criteria for acceptance, it would appear

from prima facie evidence, that those on lower incomes have a lower chance of success.

The application fees cost 826 (UKBA 2013) and these application costs are set to rise in

the future, which at best makes it harder for some to apply, and effectively disqualifies

some of those on the lowest incomes. The increased income requirements would also

appear to be discriminatory against the least well off. The state is implicitly saying those

on incomes above 18,600 are encouraged to marry whereas those on incomes lower than

this are only encouraged to marry those who live within the EEA. To achieve this level of

income on current minimum wage levels would require an individual to work around 57

hours per week. To draw a parallel between those in power making the policies to those

affected, it should be noted that the current annual earnings for a Member of Parliament

is 65,738 (Parliament 2013).

I first met David at the APPG conference in February 2013, where he spoke about

his situation and the difficulties he was experiencing sponsoring his spouse to join him in

28


29/50

3318640502

the UK. We have since spoken over Skype, which allowed me to also meet Dee his

wife. Here is a summary of our conversation:

David is a British citizen residing in Swansea while his wife Dee is currently

living in Ontario Canada while waiting for a spousal visa. David and Dee feel

they have suffered discrimination because of the migration polices that negatively

impact on those earning less that 18,600 per annum. David works as a builder as

well as a security guard and makes approximately 13,500 annually. As David

stated, 18,600 is a lot of money and I wouldnt make that amount even if I

relocated to London. Previous to being separated David and Dee were residing

together in his home in Swansea, where they were not a burden on the system

but rather contributed through working and paying tax. At no point in her stay

did Dee claim benefits from the state. Dee was approaching the period in which

she was eligible to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain. Dee was forced to return

home to Canada as the new rules dictate that the individual applying for ILR must

do so from outside of the UK. Relocating to Canada is not an option for David

29


30/50

3318640502

and Dee, as David cares for his 17 year old daughter who suffers from autism.

Due to her condition, moving to Canada, or for that matter another European

country, in order to exercise freedom of movement, would be detrimental to herhealth.

Despite failing to meet the income requirements of 18,600 David and

Dee are in the process of applying for their spousal visa. David had the chance to

speak to Barry OLeary, a barrister specializing in immigration, during the APPG

meeting in February. OLeary advised David to apply regardless of not meeting

the requirements. Once the couple has been denied they can appeal under the

Human Rights Act. According to OLeary this is the best plan of action for the

couple. To have a hearing based solely on documentary evidence costs 80.00,

whereas, a hearing in person costs 140.00. In the case of failed applications, or

failed appeals, the UKBA keeps the application fee and charges an additional

826 to apply again. Having found sufficient funds to progress, David and Dee

are hoping to get a spouse visa though appeal.

David sounds hopeful about their situation, whereas Dee sounds slightly

more skeptical - possibly due to the hoops they have already had to jump through

in order to live together as husband and wife. By the time they hope to finally

receive their spouse visa the two will have been separated for a year and a half.

Race:

It feels like I am being punished by my own government, for marrying someone

whose religion and race doesn't fit in with the correct image. (BritCits 2013)

The idea of race, a group identity based on shared biological, geographical and

cultural commonalities has been challenged from a biological analysis and that is largely

a social construction (Boas 1944). While acknowledging race holds no biological grounds

30


31/50


32/50

3318640502

The impact of these proposals will be felt most acutely by applicants from the

Indian Subcontinent, other areas of Asia and Africa, which are the areas from which the

most spousal applications are made.(JCWI 2013)

Gender

The new English language requirement is discriminatory towards women, as

globally women receive less formal education than men, and in particular countries these

differences in education standards are marked.Women who are attempting to migrate

from non-majority English speaking countries are required to learn English to the B1

level regardless of the social and political treatment of women in their home nation.

These women attempting to join their families in the UK face hurdles that are more

difficult for them to get over than men applying from the same country.

These new immigration policies are yet another discriminatory act in a long chain

of oppression of women through movement and migration. Historically and

contemporarily Britain is a patriarchal society, judged through the perspective of current

and past policies. According to Wray (2010) from 1905 to 1948 women who married a

non-British citizen were forced to forfeit their citizenship and adopt their husbands

nationality. Wray (2010) discusses the attitude at that time, where a woman was expected

to move from the household of her father after marriage to her husbands, therefore, she

was meant to adopt the nationality of her new keeper. For many, the policies of today

have much the same effect for those that fail to meet the new family migration

requirements. I feel like the Government is trying to force me out because I married a

foreigner (Standard 2013).

The income requirements for marriage visas are discriminatory towards women,

based on an assessment of income levels and success rates for applications. According to

the Migratory Advisory at the University of Oxford, the percentage of women being

affected by these changes is 61%, while men total only 23%. In spite of the concerted

32


33/50

3318640502

efforts of various feminist movements within the UK over the past 50 years, British

women still on average make less than their male counterparts. According to a study

conducted by the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) female managers are now paidon average 31,895 per year compared with 42,441 for men doing the same job (BBC

2013(4). Also the Guardian (2013) reported women in full-time employment earn on

average 5,409 less than men.

Women are discriminated against if they work, as their chances of making the

requirement salary is less than men, and they are discriminated against if they keep the

home, as they dont receive monetary remuneration and therefore would fail to meet the

18,600 figure. It is difficult to argue against working women having the same right to

family life as their male counterparts from an economic perspective. It is equally difficult

to argue that if left with the task of reproducing society through the care of the next

generation, that they should be denied the support of their spouse. These family migration

polices neglect to the contributions that women make to British society.

Aimee, a British Citizen, is married to an Egyptian man and the couple recently

had their first child together. Aimee feels the income requirement of 18,600 is beyond

her means as she is providing full time care for their newborn child since her husband is

not allowed to live with her and help with the needs of their infant. In the words of Aimee

a salary of 18,600 might as well be 186,000 as it is so difficult to attain (BritCits

2013).

Age

According to the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, the increase

in the income requirement is having a significant effect on young British citizens,

specifically people in their twenties. Many youths entering the job market today are

facing un-paid internships, low wages and high unemployment. Many are also entering

the job market with a substantial amount of debt, due to the increase in university tuition

fees. Although the category of youth suggests a homogeneous community there are

33


34/50

3318640502

many sub-sets based on dimensions such as class, race, gender, sexuality and regional

habitation. Regardless of the other demographic markers, these changes in family

migration policies are discriminating against those that are new to the labor market, asyoung people on average make less money than those between the ages of 30-50

(Migratory Observatory 2013). This is especially true for young people who are studying,

as it is virtually impossible to study full time and make 18,600. While speaking with

Cat, a 21 year-old recent graduate from Cornwall, she expressed feeling discriminated

against in many regards, one of them being due to her age. Here is the story of Cat and

Saraj.

Cat has recently received a University degree. She is still in the process of seeking

a job and attending interviews. She has been with Siraj for 2 years. Siraj is

originally from Pakistan. They were married on the 27th of December 2012. Due

34


35/50


36/50


37/50

3318640502

ever thought the day would come that I felt ashamed to be British, but that day

has come.

37


38/50

3318640502

Sexuality

Homosexual couples have faced legal discrimination and personal persecution for

years, although legislation has slowly made steps that have reduced this. This

discrimination has been seen both within the UK and globally. The UK government has

finally taken steps to recognize same sex couples (BBC 2013 (3), but many are facing

hardships due to the changes made on 9th July 2012.

I have not met the following individuals in person as they currently reside in

Thailand, but I had the opportunity to meet the mother of Juliet while attending

the APPG meeting. Through communicating via e-mail I was able to collect the

story of Juliet and Mary. They have lived in Thailand for the past 4 years. During

this time Juliet has worked as a teacher, while her partner was employed as a chef.

After much anticipation, Juliet was successful in becoming pregnant. The couplehas now been joined by twin girls. Regardless of their enthusiasm for becoming

parents, this further complicates the process of relocating to the UK. The income

requirements in this case are particularly hard for the couple to meet. Juliet

currently makes the required amount - but not within the boundaries of the UK.

Since the UKBA requires the 18,600 amount to be earned within the UK, Juliet

38


39/50

3318640502

would have to leave Thailand and leave her family behind, find a job in the UK

that makes 18,600, hold that job for a period of six months and then she could

apply to sponsor her civil partner. The processing time for the familys visa couldtake months, meaning Juliet, her partner and their twin babies would face up to a

year of separation. This case is particularly complex in that they wish to live in

the UK because in Thailand Juliets partner is not recognized as the second parent,

due to laws pertaining to same-sex couples. Within the boundaries of the UK,

Juliets partner could enjoy legal rights to her own children.

Regional

During the APPG meeting in Feburary 2013, the audience erupted into laughter when

David Metcalf, a member of the MAC, stated that the income threshold across the UK is

not that different. According to reports produced by the Migratory Observatory at

Oxford (2013) 51% of people in Wales will not qualify to bring in a family member due

to the income requirement of 18,600. Also reports carried out by Migratory Observatory

(2013) show that areas of England with the lowest eligibility are Merseyside, where

56% of people will not be eligible. Despite these areas where the capacity to earn therequired amount is more difficult, the MAC brought forth a blanket figure that neglects to

take cost of living, expenses, and regional earnings into consideration.

39


40/50

3318640502

CHAPTER 4: Bureaucracy of Love

In practice bureaucratic procedure invariably means ignoring all the subtleties of

real social existence and reducing everything to preconceived mechanical or statistical

formulae (Graeber 2006:9).

According to the UKBA (2013) those that wish to obtain a marriage/civil

partnership visa must provide evidence that your relationship with your partner is

genuine and subsisting. Using bureaucracy to determine if couples are legitimate or

illegitimate is problematic as love is an abstract idea and therefore is understood and

communicated in various ways. There is strong political sensitivity around this issue,

because of the fear of sham marriages. Through the restrictions of family migration

intimate relationships are being reduced to pieces of paper.

In the case of marriage/civil partnerships the UKBA requires the couple to share

financial resources. This, part of the states definition of a genuine relationship, seems at

odds with the visa requirements that only take in to account the income of the spouse

resident in the UK in to account. Their definition of a relationship suggests that both

individuals earnings should be taken into consideration regarding the 18,600 figure.

This logical conclusion is supported by the research evidence, as most individuals that I

spoke to intend to support each other in various ways, including financially. Due to the

bureaucratic surrounding visa applications, many that meet the income requirements are

facing hardship.

Rob and Lindas experience with the UKBA illustrates the disconnect between

those administrating the visa applications and those attempting to sponsor their family.

Before the July 9th changes Rob applied for a spouse visa so Linda could join him

in the UK. They submitted their application on the 26 thof June 2012. They thought

40


41/50

3318640502

they had included all the necessary documents and forms, however, after two and

a half months they received an e-mail stating they needed to include an SELT

(secure English language tests (UKBA 2013) English Test within seven days orthe visa would be denied. Despite the late notice the couple was able to submit the

test within the deadline. After another month passed they received a message that

they could come and collect their application, only to find the application had

been rejected due to the English Language test. They were both puzzled as Linda

has an excellent grasp of English. After investigating their denial they discovered

Linda had passed the reading, writing and listening portion but had failed to

submit the speaking requirement. Needless to say the couple was distraught and

frustrated as instead of the UKBA informing them of the missing element, their

application was refused.

Rob and Linda are now being asked to pay another 826.00 application fee to re-

submit the spouse visa. Their re-submission now falls under the changes made on

9th July and Rob now fails to meet the income requirements of 18,600 per

annum. They contacted a lawyer but the solicitor felt they had little chance of

winning an appeal. As they have little other choice, Rob is now trying to sell his

home in England and relocate to Indonesia, as at this point, it seems the only

avenue that will allow them to be together. (BriCits 2013)

Regardless of the fairness of the regulations regarding spouse visas, and despite

the relatively high cost of making an application, the services received are far from

efficient. In recent news there was found to be a large backlog of cases that had yet to be

processed.A backlog of immigration applications as big as the population of Iceland will

take 24 years to clear at the rate the shambolic UK Border Agency is working, according

to a House of Commons committee (Express 2013).

Further evidence of the ineffectiveness of UKBA visa processing system is expressed by

JCWI, The fact that there is a 53% success rate on appeal shows the poor quality of

decision making.

41


42/50

3318640502

For those that are denied family visas it is frustrating and complex to retrieve

information as to why they were denied their visas. By law, the UK Border Agency must

provide applicants with information according to the Freedom of Information Act of2000. This act requires public authorities to provide information to those requesting data

(Government Legislation 2000), however there are additional stipulations added to this

act. For instance the UKBA may deny information if they determine that providing the

requested information will cost them more than the set amount of 600. This means that

if they declare the request for information will take more than 24 hours to find, as the

hourly rate is 25, the request is denied due to being too costly (BritCits 2013). Sonel

from the group BritCits made a clear request for information in three cases in which the

elderly dependent visa requirements were believed to have been met. The UKBA

responded that they could not provide this information as it would take too long to find.

It appears that the most emotional and significant milestones in the lives of

individuals only exist and have some truth if they are also recognised and processed by

that state. Torpey (2000) provides a clear understanding of the implications of the

invention of the passport. Using Marxs model of the means of production, Weber applies

this to the modern nation-state in regards to violence. By deciding which acts are

legitimate the state appropriated the means of violence. Again borrowing from this model

Torpey (2000) theorizes that the state has monopolized the means of movement through

documentation and surveillance, using technology, administration and bureaucracy as

ways to uphold the monopolization ofmovement. Without these forms of infrastructure it

would be impossible to maintain surveillance of so many people. In todays global world

those with the correct documentation are allowed to move freely while those that fail to

obtain the correct paperwork are denied access to family life.

The recent changes in family migration have caused many individuals that were

previously disinterested or ill-informed in the politics of migration to engage with these

issues. Grassroots movements and organizations focusing on immigration, such as the

ones discussed above, are making connections outside of family migration. By building

42


43/50

3318640502

ties and bonds with those engaged in struggles concerning asylum and refugees a united

front that discusses the issues in all their complexity is emerging.

43


44/50

3318640502

CONCLUSION

There is as yet no conclusion to be drawn on the impact of these new policies, as

nothing has been settled or resolved and campaigning remains vigorous. This research

shows that individuals across the globe are suffering due to being denied their right to

family life. Their very individual stories, their lack of homogeneity, show the crude

bluntness of the new policies and the ability they have to destroy lives. This faceless

category contains individuals that live, breathe, and experience emotion. By engaging

with these individuals who are being separated from their families, we are able to get a

better understanding of what these restrictive policies really mean. Those involved in the

campaign remain hopeful that these policies, if not overturned, can become more

sensitive to the realities of peoples lives and can be made more humane and indeed more

in line with the Governments manifesto pledges on treatment of families. My

involvement with this issue is far from over, as I will continue to campaign and raise

awareness. Although I am optimistic that the four changes made on 9 th July will

eventually be overturned, as was the age requirement in 2011, the real matter at hand is

the mistreatment of people in the meantime. As it is impossible to reimburse lost family

memories and shared time, it will be difficult for the state to regain support from those so

severely mistreated.

I will be outside the Home Office on 9 th July 2013, the one year anniversary of

when the new family migration policies came into effect, protesting and voicing my

discontent. As these restrictive measures to family migration are but one way to halt

movement of human beings, this is an issue that deserves constant attention and

consideration.

44


45/50

3318640502

Bibliography

Books

Agamben, Giorgio (2005). States of Exception. United States: The University of Chicago

Press. 1-74.

Anderson, Benedict (1991).Imagined Communities . 13th ed. United States: Verso. 1-

206.

Arendt, Hannah (1963). On Revolution. United States: Viking Press. 49-105.

Arendt, Hannah. (1994 (1955) ) The Origins of Totalitarianism, New York: HarvestBooks

Blom Hansen, Thomas & Stepputat, Finn. (2001). Introduction. In: Blom Hansen,

Thomas & Stepputat, Finn States of Imagination. United States: Duke University Press.

1-38.

Boas, Franz (1944). The Mind of Primitive Man. 4th ed. United States: Macmillian

Company. 1-273.

Clifford,James. (1986). Introduction: Partial Truths . In: Clifford, James & Marcus,

Geroge E Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. United States:

University of California Press LTd.. 1-26.

De Genova, Nicholas. (2010). Deportation Regime. In: De Genova, Nicholas & Peutz,

NathalieDeportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space and the Freedom of Movement. United

States: Duke University Press. 34-65.

De Genova, Nicholas (2005). Working the Boundaries: Race, Space and 'Illegality in

Mexican Chicago'. United States : Duke University Press. 1-249.

Foucault, Michel (1978). The History of Sexuality Vol.1. 2nd ed. United States of

America: Random House Inc.. 1-161.

Khosravi, Shahram (2010).Illegal Traveller: An auto-ethnography of Borders. United

Kindgom: Palgrave Macmillan. 1-134.

45


46/50

3318640502

Paul, Kathleen (1997). Whitewashing Britian. United States: Cornell University Press. 1-

253.

Torpey, John (2000). The invention of the passport:Surveillance, Citzenship and theState. New York : Cambridge University Press. 1-167.

Weber, M. [1904-1905] 2003. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Dover

Publications

Wray, Helena (2011).Regulating Marriage Migration into the UK: A Stranger in the

Home. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited . 1-241.

Journal ArticlesCarrithers, Michael. (2005). Why Anthropologists should study rhetoric.The Journal of

the Royal Anthropological Institute. 11 (3), 577-583.

Lughod, Abu. (1991). Writing Against Culture . School of American Research Press. 8

(8), 137-162.

Nader, Laura. (1972). Up the Anthropologist: Perspectives gained from studying

up.Reinventing Anthropology. 3 (1), 284-311.

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. (2000). Ishi's brain, Ishi's ashes. Anthropology Today. 17 (1),

12-18.

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. (1995). Primacy of the Ethical: Propositions for a Militant

Anthropology. Current Anthropology . 36 (3), 409-440.

Claude Lvi-Strauss, Anthropology: Its Achievements and Future (1966). Current

Anthropology Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1966), pp. 124-127

Talks

Corbyn, Jeremy/ Husain, Raza/ Kofman, Eleanore (2013) Joint Coalition for the Welfare

of Immigrants 26th November 2012

De Genova, Nicholas (2013) Goldsmiths University. We Are of the Connections:

Migration, Methodological Nationalism, and Militant Research 30th January 2013

46


47/50

3318640502

Graeber, David (2006). London School of Economics. Beyond Power/Knowledge an

exploration of the relation of power, ignorance and stupidity Thursday 25th May 2006

Hames, Duncan/ Hurrell, Anita/ Nathanson, Vivienne/ Wray, Helena (2013) House ofCommons.All Party Parlimentary Inquiry 6th March 2013

Metcalf, David / OLeary, Barry/ Quayum, Mahmud/ Rutters, Jill (2013) House of

Commons.All Party Parlimentary Inquiry 13th Feburary 2013

Web-sites

Ball, James . (2011). Wages throughout the country: how does your area

compare?. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/nov/24/wages-britain-ashe-mapped. Last accessed 2 March, 2013.

(1)BBC News. (2013). Theresa May: Tories to consider leaving European Convention on

Human Rights. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21726612. Last

accessed 1st April 2013.

(2) BBC News. (2013). Clegg backs 'security bonds' as he sets out immigration

stance. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21884415. Last accessed 14

April 2013.

(3) BBC News. (2013). Gay marriage: MPs back bill despite Conservative backbench

opposition. Available: Gay marriage: MPs back bill despite Conservative backbench

opposition. Last accessed 12 April 2013.

(4) BBC News. (2011). Gender pay gap widens to 10,500 for managers, CMI

says. Available: Gender pay gap widens to 10,500 for managers, CMI says. Last

accessed 26 December 2012.

Council of Europe. (2012).Language policy Unit. Available:

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Cadre1_en.asp. Last accessed 4th April, 2013.

Dawar, Anil. (2013). Chaotic UK Border Agency will not clear backlog until

2037. Available: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/386746/Chaotic-UK-Border-Agency-

will-not-clear-backlog-until-2037. Last accessed 20 April 2013.

47


48/50

3318640502

European Convention on Human Rights . (2012).Article 8 . Available:

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#Convention. Last accessed 7th December, 2012.

Family Immigration Alliance . (2012). Testimonials . Available:http://familyimmigrationalliance.wordpress.com/. Last accessed 11th April 2013..

Green, Steven. (2013).Freedom of Movement. Available:

http://britcits.weebly.com/opposing-the-rules.html. Last accessed 7th December, 2012.

Kenyon, Georgina. (2012). UK test risks 'keeping couples apart'.Available:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jul/10/uk-english-test?INTCMP=SRCH. Last

accessed 7th December, 2012.

Joint Coalition for the Welfare of Migrants. (2012).English Language Test: Dividing

families to appease the tabloids. Available: http://ilovemigrants.wordpress.com/i

%E2%99%A5my-family/. Last accessed Feburary 12 2013.

Khaliq, Fazal . (2013).Immigration Woes: Can't buy me love .Available:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/491578/immigration-woes-cant-buy-me-love/. Last accessed

1st January 2013.

London Evening Standard. (2013).Japanese husband of UK businesswoman may miss

child's birth due to visa rules. Available:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/japanese-husband-of-uk-businesswoman-may-

miss-childs-birth-due-to-visa-rules-8551359.html. Last accessed 8th April 2013.

Mabbutt, Alan. (2012). Conservative Party Family Manfiesto. Available:

http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Family.aspx. Last accessed 1st

March, 2013.

National Archives. (2000).Freedom of Information Act 2000. Available:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents. Last accessed 7 January 2013.

News Politics . (2013). UK Border Agency 'not good enough' and being

scrapped. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21941395. Last accessed

26th March 2013.

Penrose, Justin. (2013).Donna Oettinger Purley rail deaths: Mum had tried to commit

suicide just months ago Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at

48


49/50

3318640502

Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/donna-oett. Available:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/donna-oettinger-purley-rail-deaths-1781828. Last

accessed 1st April 2013.Syal, Rajeev. (2013).Immigration: Romanian or Bulgarian? You won't like it

here. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/27/uk-immigration-romania-

bulgaria-ministers. Last accessed 27th January 2013.

The Economist. (2012).Family Migration Sons and Lovers. Available:

http://www.economist.com/node/21556926. Last accessed January 2012.

The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford. (2012). Women, Young people

and non-Londoners are most affected by changes to family migration policy. Available:

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/press-releases/women-young-people-and-non-

londoners-are-most-affected-changes-family-migration-polic. Last accessed 31st January,

2013.

The Observer. (2013).Political rhetoric ignores immigration facts.Available:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/31/immigration-politicians-dont-

stoke-fears. Last accessed 30th March 2013.

Theresa May. (2012).Biography. Available: http://www.tmay.co.uk/biography. Last

accessed 1st January 2013.

Travis, Alan. (2013).Net migration to UK drops to 163,000. Available:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/28/net-migration-to-uk-drops. Last accessed 28th

of February, 2013.

United Kingdom Government. (2013).National Minimum Wage Rates .Available:

https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates. Last accessed 9th April 2013.

(1) United Kingdom Parliament. (2013).Pay and expenses for MP's . Available:

http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/. Last accessed 4th

April, 2013.

(2) United Kingdom Parliament (2013). House of Commons Tuesday 19 June, 2013.

Available: http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/. Last

accessed 4th April, 2013.

49


50/50

3318640502

United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights .Available:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a4). Last accessed 15 November,

2012.U.S Department of State. (2013).Immigrant Visa for a Spouse of a U.S. Citizen (IR1 or

CR1). Available: http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_2991.html#15. Last

accessed 2 March, 2013.

Welcome Trust. (2012).European Economic Area. Available:

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/funding/biomedical-science/application-

information/wtd004113.htm. Last accessed 4th April, 2013.

Documents

Final Shame on You