United Kingdom |Developing

UK Home Office ‘failed to foresee policy’s terrible Windrush effects’

Talk (2)

SB

Suzanne Barrett

"Thank you for your questions! With re..."
JW

John Waterton

"It would be interesting to explore ..."

In 2010, the UK’s Home Office destroyed the landing card records of people who arrived in Britain decades ago, in the country’s first wave of immigration from former Caribbean colonies, potentially exposing them to wrongful deportation.

The Home Office was originally thought to have not kept records of the citizens who had been granted permanent status. However, it emerged that while the decision to dispose of the landing cards was made in 2009 by the Labour government, they were in fact destroyed in 2010 by the Home Office when, now British Prime Minister, Theresa May was home secretary.

These landing cards filled out by the Commonwealth immigrants have previously been used as evidence to support the right of descendants of other immigrants into the UK.

Tell us what should be in the story

Talk

The scandal has broken as Britain has made efforts to develop new links with Commonwealth countries as it leaves the European Union. May apologized to the leaders and ministers of 12 Caribbean countries during a meeting in Downing Street on Tuesday, reassuring descendants of the “Windrush’ generation who came in the 1950s that they will not face deportation.

One of the first ships to bring West Indian immigrants to London in 1948 was called “Empire Windrush,” so this group of people to come to Britain has become known as the “Windrush Generation.”

May said: “Those who arrived from the Caribbean before 1973 and lived here permanently without significant periods of time away in the last 30 years have the right to remain in the UK.”

The former head of the UK’s Civil Service, Lord Kerslake, said on BBC television that some of his colleagues believed May’s Home Office immigration operations were “almost reminiscent of Nazi Germany.” He called for an investigation into the fate of the documents.

Having grown up and resided in the UK their entire lives, while contributing taxes, some of these citizens have never felt the need to formalize their citizenship. The 1971 Immigration Act gave those already living in the country the option to accept or refuse “leave to remain” in the United Kingdom; it also revoked freedom of movement between Commonwealth nations. An estimated half a million people were born in a Commonwealth country and migrated to the UK before 1971, says the Migration Observatory at Oxford University. Although 57,000 Commonwealth born people self-identifying non-UK nationals could be affected by this, the exact number remains unknown.

Discuss or suggest changes to this story

Talk

The Guardian has interviewed Windrush citizens who were wrongfully classified as illegal immigrants because of the tighter immigration rules and how this resulted in them being sent to immigration removal centers, losing their right to work or losing their access medical care, for example. Unless they are able to produce documents confirming their right to live in the UK, the Home Office has threatened them with deportation.

Albert Thompson was denied treatment for his cancer because he was unable to prove he legally living in the UK. May publicly assured Thompson that he would receive the care he needed. However, the Royal Marsden Hospital appear to have not made his case urgent despite originally being scheduled to start his 12-week radiotherapy last November (The Guardian).

On BBC’s Today show on Friday, a former senior immigration official, David Wood, said in reaction to Thompson’s situation: “Yes it’s a terrible consequence of a policy that has not been thought through for unforeseen consequences like this.”

Something missing from the story? Say so

Talk

On April 16, the UK Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, apologized for the “appalling” treatment of Windrush migrants by her department. A Home Office taskforce of 20 is trying to find out whether anyone deported so far had arrived from the Caribbean as children. It is also directly dealing with Windrush applicants to ensure they can find evidence necessary to support their citizenship (The Guardian).

David Lammy, a Labour MP, directly addressed the Home Secretary in the House of Commons and said: “It is her department that has deported them. She should know the number.” He later added: “Today is a day of national shame.”

When Britain’s Immigration Minister, Caroline Nokes, was asked during a TV interview whether any of these people may have accidentally been deported, her response was: “Potentially they have been, and I’m very conscious that it’s very much in error and that’s an error I want to put right.” A day later, On BBC Radio 4’s  Today program, the UK’s Cabinet Office Minister, David Lidington, said: “The position is that we have no information. We do not know of any cases where somebody who has been deported is in this category.”

Adam Wagner, a human rights lawyer at Doughty Street Chambers and the founder of the UK Human Rights blog, tweeted to almost 40,000 followers in defense of the Prime Minister and the Home Office. He said: “I don’t really blame Theresa May or Amber Rudd for what’s happened – I see them as products of a political choice many many years ago to cut net immigration to ridiculously low numbers – 100,000 or so.”

In another tweet, Wagner added: “That choice, which we need to remember was a popular one, created the modern immigration system. in a sense the voters, not Theresa May, are the culprit here.”


Sources & References

  • Nokes, Caroline, (2018) ‘Immigration Minister: Immigration status of the Windrush generation’, in www.HomeOfficeMedia.blog.gov.uk. [online]

Started by

United Kingdom

History for stories "UK Home Office ‘failed to foresee policy’s terrible Windrush effects’"

Select two items to compare revisions

20 April 2018

15:24:31, 20 Apr 2018 . .‎ Ed Upright (Updated → update)
11:54:04, 20 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → Updated/changed text for editing)

19 April 2018

12:37:52, 19 Apr 2018 . .‎ Angela Long (Updated → publishing)
12:37:29, 19 Apr 2018 . .‎ Angela Long (Updated → explainer par)
12:27:38, 19 Apr 2018 . .‎ Angela Long (Updated → Nazi quote)
12:22:51, 19 Apr 2018 . .‎ Angela Long (Updated → adding Kerslake)
10:50:12, 19 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → Today's news update for editing)
10:48:32, 19 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → Quick update of todays news for editing)

18 April 2018

16:58:44, 18 Apr 2018 . .‎ Burhan Wazir (Updated → )
14:22:57, 18 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → May update for editing)
11:42:46, 18 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → Updated for user - ready for editing)
11:17:42, 18 Apr 2018 . .‎ Angela Long (Updated → trade?)
11:16:52, 18 Apr 2018 . .‎ Angela Long (Updated → saving updates)
10:50:29, 18 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → Updated for editing)

17 April 2018

15:27:42, 17 Apr 2018 . .‎ Ed Upright (Updated → update)
15:25:36, 17 Apr 2018 . .‎ Ed Upright (Updated → updated with apology)
14:32:01, 17 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → intro updated - for editing)
13:18:40, 17 Apr 2018 . .‎ Peter Bale (Updated → Updated)
13:06:11, 17 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → may update for editing)
13:05:34, 17 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → may and adam wagner update for editing)
12:14:06, 17 Apr 2018 . .‎ Ed Upright (Updated → formatting fix)
11:52:02, 17 Apr 2018 . .‎ Ed Upright (Updated → updated with May meeting)
11:34:01, 17 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → Links and updated Jamaica response for editing)
10:50:52, 17 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → Updated for editing)

16 April 2018

19:21:57, 16 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → Typo corrected)
16:25:09, 16 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → Rudd comment sent for editing)
15:01:21, 16 Apr 2018 . .‎ Ed Upright (Updated → added deportation update and embedded tweet)
14:48:38, 16 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → Sent for editing)
14:22:35, 16 Apr 2018 . .‎ Peter Bale (Updated → Adding picture)
14:01:07, 16 Apr 2018 . .‎ Peter Bale (Updated → Publishing PGB)
13:57:42, 16 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → Content for editing)
13:55:26, 16 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → Content sent for pending)
13:21:53, 16 Apr 2018 . .‎ Peter Bale (Updated → Putting into Pending for Suzie)
12:57:45, 16 Apr 2018 . .‎ Peter Bale (Updated → Back to pending)
12:45:56, 16 Apr 2018 . .‎ Suzanne Barrett (Updated → Created and sent to pending)

Talk for Story "UK Home Office ‘failed to foresee policy’s terrible Windrush effects’"

Talk about this Story

  1. Rewrite

    It would be interesting to explore
    – how many of the affected people immigrated legally, lived continuously in the UK since before 1 January 1973, but are unable to prove it (in which case it might be the Home Office procedure which is inequitable, and needs to be changed)
    – how many of the affected people have not lived continuously in the UK since before 1 January 1973, or did not immigrate legally (in which case it might be UK law which is inequitable, and needs to be changed)

    1. Thank you for your questions! With regards to your first question, there are approximately 57,000 Commonwealth born people who immigrated legally before 1973 who will be affected by this. I will update the article now. As for your second question, I will look into it now and try to get back to you.

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive news, alerts and updates

Support Us

Why this is important and why you should care about facts, journalism and democracy

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Previous page Next page Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Email us Message us on Facebook Messenger Save for Later