‘Papers, please!’ Harsher laws for immigrants could mean Nazi-style ID checks for British citizens

Tags

account, appeal, bank, BBC, benefit, benefits, bill, bma, border, British Medical Association, bullying, bureaucrat, check, Coalition, Conservative, contribute, contribution, control, deport, Dominic Casciani, Don Flynn, Dr Richard Vautrey, expensive, forced labour, government, Habib Rahman, health, Home Office, Home Secretary, ID, identity, illegal, ILPA, immigrant, Immigrants, immigration, Immigration Law Practitioners Association, ineffective, intrusive, Joint Council, landlord, Mark Harper, Migrants Rights Network, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, minimum wage, NHS, officer, overseas, people, politics, racist, railway station, Residential Landlords Association, sick, social security, spot check, streamline, student, tenant, The Guardian, Theresa May, Tories, Tory, unworkable, Vox Political, welfare, work

Prove who you are: Theresa May and David Cameron check the credentials of two police officers, to ensure they aren’t illegal immigrants. No, not really – but don’t be surprised if police checkpoints start appearing everywhere with people in peaked caps demanding your papers, just like in Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 40s!

Theresa May has responded to criticism of her policies on immigrants by revealing her plans for the latest Immigration Bill – countering a threat that is perceived to be much worse than the reality.

Experts say this will require a system of identity checks for everyone, requiring British citizens or those with permanent residence to prove that their own presence in the UK is legal.

In a move that seems designed to appease the Daily Mail and its readers, she wants banks to check the immigration status of people applying to open accounts, and private landlords to make similar checks on their tenants.

You will notice that this means the government wants other people to carry out its responsibilities.

The Home Secretary also intends to “streamline” the appeals process in immigration cases. Under the current government, this word generally means “make less fair”, and this is borne out by a passage stating the measures aim to “deport foreign criminals first and hear their appeal later”. In such circumstances, how can we be sure they really are criminals?

There will also be a requirement for temporary migrants like overseas students to contribute towards NHS costs. This is not necessarily a bad thing – although it would be unfair if this money found its way to the private companies now infesting the NHS, rather than the public service itself.

But there will be no tightening of border controls, no “streamline” for bureaucratic deportation procedures, and no measures to tackle forced labour or lack of enforcement of the minimum wage.

Immigration Minister Mark Harper was quoted on the BBC website, saying: “The law must be on the side of people who respect it, not those who break it.” Fine words from the man who was unable to say whether flak-jacketed immigration officers had discriminated against people of ethnic minorities when they carried out their spot-checks at railway stations in August.

The BBC article also quotes Don Flynn of Migrants’ Rights Network, who reiterated that evidence contradicts the view that immigrants are attracted to the UK by benefits and free services; and Dr Richard Vautrey of the BMA, who said a system is already in place for hospitals to recover the cost of treating patients who are not eligible for NHS care – and introducing a system for GPs could be a “bureaucratic nightmare”.

The Guardian tells us the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) has warned Theresa May her plan, for millions of private landlords to face “proportionate” fines of up to £3,000 if they fail to conduct checks on the immigration status of new tenants and other adults living in their properties, is unworkable.

“British citizens, European economic area nationals and third country nationals alike would be required to produce identity documents at many turns in a scheme that would be intrusive, bullying, ineffective and expensive and likely racist and unlawful to boot,” said the ILPA response.

And the Residential Landlords Association said landlords would need to know about a potential 404 types of European ID documents, in order to operate the scheme – saying some landlords would refuse to house migrants, for fear of falling foul of the new rules – and isn’t that the point of the exercise?

The Guardian quotes Habib Rahman, of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, who predicted that “these measures will divide society, creating a two-tier Britain, a return to the days of ‘No dogs, no blacks, no Irish’ and of ill people with no access to healthcare walking the streets of Britain. This bill is a travesty and must be stopped,” he said.

BBC home affairs correspondent Dominic Casciani tells us the ultimate goal is increased public confidence in the system.

But if we are doing all the work ourselves, why should this add up to increased confidence in the government?

Why the Kate Fitzgerald furore has failed those she most wanted to help

Tags

bullying, depression, Irish Times, Kate Fitzgerald, mental health problem, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, suicide, workplace bullying

Workplace bullies in both Ireland and the UK must be celebrating wildly in the wake of the Kate Fitzgerald affair.

For those who aren’t aware, Miss Fitzgerald was the author of Employers failing people with mental health issues, a piece that was published anonymously in the Irish Times on September 9 last year (the eve of World Suicide Prevention Day). The piece detailed some of the author’s history of depression and spoke of an attempt to take her own life, followed by voluntary hospitalisation.

It then discussed the problems she encountered when she returned to work. After stating that she loved her job, and had checked out of hospital against medical advice after being unable to get a firm answer about when she would be able to leave, she wrote: “I did not… expect that I would be met with casual hostility, with passive-aggressive references to my mental incapacity for my profession, and my apparently  perceived ‘plan’ to leave the company entirely in the lurch.”

She wrote: “My manager… met the story of my misery with confusion and the suggestion that I could not be trusted with seniority. I was accused of planning my absence. Every question seemed posed with the hope that it might bolster a preconceived notion… Much of what my employer has done and said since my absence has been illegal. And I do not think for a minute that what my employer did was an isolated incident.”

References to her mental incapacity, accusations of planning to leave the company in the lurch, suggestions that she could not be trusted with seniority, questions designed to prove preconceived notions about her – these are clear signs of workplace bullying. But the article was about the way relationships with colleagues can change after they become aware that a person has a mental health problem like depression, or has tried to self-harm. The aim was clearly not to accuse businesses but to advise sufferers. Towards this end, the paper published helplines for readers who were in a similar situation.

Nobody at the paper knew that, by the time the article was published, its author Kate Fitzgerald had already taken her own life. She was 25.

Her father Tom rang the newspaper the day after publication, to say he thought that the author was his daughter and that she had taken her own life between its having been submitted and published, and the paper ran a moving article revealing her identity in late November – thereby opening a can of very nasty worms.

As soon as the identity of the article’s author became known, it became possible to work out the identity of her employers whose actions she had described as “illegal”. The minute that information was known, this allegation became legally actionable and the newspaper was in danger of a libel suit from her former employers.

The newspaper acted to rectify this issue within the bounds of the law and, as I understand it, under legal advice after Miss Fitzgerald’s employers registered their “unhappiness” with the article. Its actions included an apology to the company in which it made another mistake, stating “significant assertions within the original piece were not factual”. In essence, the paper was calling Miss Fitzgerald a liar with no evidence to prove this – in the knowledge that it is impossible to libel the dead. Sadly, respect for the dead went out the window, too.

It is certainly true that the employers – I think everyone concerned knows it was a firm called The Communications Clinic – have been put in an extremely difficult position by this. There is no legal case to answer because the allegation cannot be put to the company – but many people know about it, nonetheless. Add to this the fact that another former employee, Karagh Fox, had taken legal action against the firm, alleging that she had been the victim of workplace bullying, and had settled out of court, and any right-minded observer might be forgiven for thinking something was not right there. To my knowledge, the firm itself has issued no public statement of any kind. It doesn’t have to.

The whole saga has shamefully overshadowed what Miss Fitzgerald was trying to do, and I fear that – for many – the point she was trying to make has been lost. The affair has paradoxically proven to be both a distraction from, and proof of, what Miss Fitzgerald was trying to highlight: that working people with depression need support from their colleagues, not intimidation.

And, believe me, people who are suffering at work, not through a lack of professionalism on their part but a lack of understanding from senior members of staff, will feel intimidated by what has happened here.

What have they learned from this? If they blow the whistle, they won’t be believed. Their employers will use the law to gag anyone who suggests they have a case. Even after they die, they won’t get to prove their case.

This is what this story shows. Bullying in the workplace will continue because there is no way to show up these people for what they are. Trust me; I’ve been through it.

There are three approaches to solving workplace bullying issues: by informal resolution at the workplace; through a formal complaints procedure, again at the workplace; or by external procedures such as legal action.

The first time I was involved in workplace bullying was the manager of a company where I was a senior officer. He had ruled that any complaints about any member of staff must be made through him, so the system was corrupt. What do you think he would have done if the complaint was about him? I stuck it out for a year and then quit – and the business suffered as a result.

This is exactly what Miss Fitzgerald warned against (although her references to suicide took the issue to a further extreme than my own experience): “Every day a company loses a valuable employee… At a time when small, medium and large companies rely on dedicated staff for the vision and drive to pull them through challenging times, these are not losses we can risk taking on the chin.”

The second time was in a different firm where a more senior person was bullying me, but I had recourse to a formal complaints procedure and invoked it. I spoke to the manager, who agreed to separate us – but the bully was never told why the changes were taking place as they were too useful for the company to lose. In essence, the hassle was taken away from me but the culprit was never punished.

And here, with the Fitzgerald case and that of Karagh Fox, we see how the law is used in such cases – and out-of-court settlement on one hand, and the implied threat of legal action on the other.

Is it any wonder that workplace bullying is on the rise?

It’s time for company executives to take a hard look at themselves and the people who work for them. Everyone they employ is a valuable resource otherwise, in this straitened times, they wouldn’t be there. So, if they fall into difficulties, why not try a little understanding?

As Miss Fitzgerald herself said: “It cannot be managed without the help and encouragement of those I work for.”

Vox Political is funded entirely by donations and book sales.
You can make a one-off donation here:

Alternatively, you can buy the first Vox Political book,
Strong Words and Hard Times
in either print or eBook format here: