MIGRANT CENTRE NI — Written evidence (FAM0028)
Introduction to Migrant Centre NI
Migrant Centre NI (MCNI) is a registered Charity (no.105750) and a limited company (no.611585). The organisation was initially established as the Belfast Migrant Centre in 2010 and officially recognised as a charity in March 2012. In 2014, to reflect the work of the organisation the name was changed to the current Migrant Centre NI. MCNI was established to protect the rights of migrant workers in NI, tackle racism, eliminate barriers against migrant workers, and raise public awareness about their rights. MCNI has 3 offices across Northern Ireland, in Belfast, Lurgan, and Derry-Londonderry. Our current services include advice and support for applicants to the EU settlement scheme, financial health and wellbeing advice services, advocacy and support services for victims of racially-motivated hate crime, and the administration and management of the Comic Relief and National Emergencies Trust Global Majority Fund for Northern Ireland.
General Comments
We welcome the inquiry by the Justice and Home Affairs Committee into the experiences of Family Migration. Our submission is information by our position with over a decade of experience as one of Northern Ireland’s foremost service providers to migrant and ethnic minority communities. Our submission is based on the experience of the clients we serve and our experience providing these services to them, as well as on pieces of research and policy documents written or commissioned by Migrant Centre NI.
Design of family migration law
Although the definitions of family and relative are mainly consistent across the UK immigration pathways, they don’t always reflect the societal and cultural understanding. Appendix EU, for example, treats siblings as extended family members with no rights to join those in the UK under the Withdrawal Agreement unless prior authorisation was sought from the Home Office before 31/12/2020. Even within the UK, few would argue that siblings are considered close family members with whom there may be shared sense of caring responsibility and familial and economic ties. The current definition also includes the exclusions of other family members who would be considered, culturally and within family systems, as close or dependent family members but who have no recourse through UK immigration pathways. Therefore, current definitions often do not reflect both overseas and UK definitions of what constitutes ‘family’.
Another example of the failure of existing pathways to reflect the needs and expectation in the UK and overseas is the lack of route for family members who wish to enter the UK and stay for a period of time required to care for sick relatives.
Furthermore, there are issues as it relates to durable partners. Even those with children who have EU settled and pre-settled status are not protected should the relationship deteriorate between themselves and their sponsor under the EU Settlement Scheme before they are able to obtain settled status under EUSS.
The presence of Nationality-specific asylum routes as separate from the ‘general’ pool of asylum seekers (i.e. schemes for Ukrainian, Syrian, and Afghan asylum seekers and refugees) has generated criticism of how these populations are designated for perceived preferential treatment versus those who are not eligible to apply through a particular nationality or country of origin-based scheme.
Perceptions around the difference between the availability of nationality-specific schemes include a lack of consistency with regard to which populations receive support, a lack of fairness or even racist discrimination in the lack of theses schemes for applicants from, for example, African countries of origin, and critiques of unequal policies around the right to work for asylum seekers based on nationality. There are also discrepancies in right to family reunion for those applying through these schemes versus those who cannot avail of them. Other differences include the availability of public resources such as entitlements and public housing for those accessing schemes such as the Ukrainian visa scheme versus those with No Recourse to Public Funds. The resulting outcome and optics mean that, for example, Black Somali asylum seekers are living in ‘limbo’ hotel accommodation through private providers struggling to cope with demand while White Ukrainian visa scheme holders are given the resources through the infrastructure of the scheme to begin living a life with a greater sense of normalcy and security in comparison. The infrastructure provided by these schemes work, which is a positive outcome. This infrastructure should be put in place at greater scale to those seeking asylum regardless of background, race, religion, or national origin. The United Kingdom must support the indivisible right under international law to seek asylum regardless of country of origin.
3. Does the financial requirement for spouses and partners (also known as “minimum income requirement”) achieve its objectives? How could the requirement, and the process of demonstrating it is met, achieve them better? How could it be adapted to reflect changes in the economy and the labour market? Are there any unintended consequences for individuals and families?
Regional cost-of-living variations across the UK mean that it is more difficult to meet the financial requirement for those living in Northern Ireland, as wages are lower here compared to the rest of the UK. Regional cost-of-living differences should be accounted for in order for this requirement to fairly meet its objectives.
There are consequences to this policy for couples relocating from abroad. Families moving together from, from example, the United States must consider the sponsorship requirements which oftentimes in practice means that the sponsor applicant moves to the UK first to work for six months in order to meet the requirements. This leads to the separation of families and means that this option may not be feasible for families with children.
How family migration policies affect society
The lack of a designated immigration route for carers entering the UK to care for sick or disabled relatives is a missed opportunity on several levels. The introduction of this route would lighten the burden of the NHS in the long term and would allow families to care for each other where otherwise the responsibility would fall to the state. The introduction of such a route would save money and lead to greater wellbeing outcomes in communities.
A disproportionate amount of EU migrants in Northern Ireland are employed in low-wage and precarious sectors, such as hospitality and agri-food production. Shortages of labour are more acute in certain sectors of the economy, i.e. care work.
Incentives have greatly reduced for EU migrants entering the UK post-Brexit as talented and ‘skilled’ workers who arrive via the points-based visa system may face issues brining family members with them should they choose to settle in the UK. This is visible in statistics which demonstrate that current EU-national migration trends are lower compared to non-EEA nationals since Brexit. This is another missed opportunity, as not only ‘sponsor’ applicants of families bring skills, but their families bring skills as well. The loss of these potential migrants is a loss for the UK economy.
Migrant workers constitute a vital and significant workforce within the health and social care sectors. Unintended consequences of family migration policy means that the NHS and care homes, who are already under-staffed or working at or over capacity, lose out on skilled workers to fill roles within this sector. Family migration policies should be aimed at attracting workers who staff our public services rather than deterring them.
6. What is the impact of family migration policies on local authorities?
As a region with devolved powers, there are knock-on consequences to the deterrent effects of family migration policy at the Northern Ireland level to include housing, healthcare, and benefits entitlements.
How migration policies affect families
7. In what circumstances may family immigration law and practice result in an extended (or indefinite) period of family separation or place families under stress in other ways? How could they be adapted to prevent or shorten periods of family separation or be more accommodating of the wellbeing of families?
One of the greatest burdens of families is the total cost of visas and applications for Indefinite Leave to Remain, which are very high.
Furthermore, outdated policies may not reflect the current reality of family arrangements, with durable partners being unable to prove two years of living together. This evidence may be impossible to supply where durable partners were together but unable to live together due to COVID.
The lack of a route for family carers means that family members are unable to look after sick, dying, and disabled relatives.
Non-EEA spouses and durable partners are often refused family visas and told instead that they can travel short-term to the UK as visitors to see their children.
All of the aforementioned issues cause stress and burdens for families which are unintended consequences of current family migration policies.
8. How do family migration policies affect children separated from one or both of their parents (or other relative)? How do families separated by immigration law use modern means of communication, and what is the impact of this use?
Family migration policies which do not mitigate for unintended consequences cause distress for children separated from their parents. Despite the presence of technology, this is not a replacement for face to face communication and has implications for family stability and the wellbeing of children.
September 2022