Thread by @SimonFRCox

There is no “queue” for UK immigration. It’s a long-standing lie, invented to imply migration policy is coherent & equitable. Thread. 1/

https://twitter.com/emporersnewc/status/1064616336536600577

Basic Rule 1: UK immigration policy is - legally- to issue permits to anyone who meets the rules. Without a quota.

There’s no *numerical* limit to how many family members, or visitors, or refugees, can have a permit. Everyone who meets the rules is entitled. 2/

The rules can be very tight But the rules don’t say “a spouse can be refused because there’s already too many people.” And they never have. 3/

Theres *one* exception: work permit holders. For non-EU citz who qualify because they have a certain kind of job, there *is* an annual quota. 4/

Basic Rule 2: Home Office has no queue like at passport control, or supermarke, where its pretty much “first come first served”.

Home Office just chooses to ignore whole sets of cases & makes them wait years, or picks cases with no regard to how long theyve waited. 5/

Home Office staff dealing with a particular kind of case may do them according to when they applied, or to hit some target for decision-making times. But these practices change all the time. There’s no consistency. 6/

The most pernicious use of the “queue” idea is the punitive “queue abroad”. The idea that cases can’t be considered while the migrant is at a port, or in UK - but only while they are personally abroad. 7/

Demanding migrants obtain a visa before they arrive is a relatively new phenomenon in UK. Until Conservative’s Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 , citizens of the Colonies had free movement rights to enter UK. 8/

By 1973 a prior clearance was needed for Commonwealth citz coming as family members. But not for family from other countries: the list of visa national countries was short.

And other kinds of migrants didn’t need a visa at all. They could apply at the port. 9/

By the 2000s, almost all *kinds* of application needed to be made abroad, and even visitors from countries where most people aren’t white had to. 10/

Why the shift from port to abroad?

First, it didn’t improve decision-making or efficiency. In family cases, the British resident sponsor rarely got interviewed - because they were in UK! 11/

And instead of having a small number of concentrated decision-making teams at each of the few busy ports, decision-makers were spread all over the world. 12/

Crucially, moving decision-making from the port slooooowed everything down. At an airport, there IS A QUEUE. There’s a sense of pressure and immediacy. Officers are forced to make quick decisions in simple cases, and focus on the key facts. 13/

UK immigration law didn’t *require* an immediate decision - the officer could allow the person temporary entry for them to come back within a week or two - useful for cases that really can’t be decided immediately. 14/

But at an Embassy abroad, there’s not the same pressure of time. Indeed, the queue is the official’s friend. The longer the wait, the fewer will apply. 15/

In 1990s an inspection at British Embassy in Ethiopia found dozens of files of family members of Somali refugees in UK that had been ignored for years, while the applicants sat in refugee camps believing they were in a “queue”. 16/

And a migrant abroad can’t easily call on British help as they can at an airport: family, the MP, a lawyer.

Visa applicants are more readily “out of sight... and out of mind” /17

From 1960s to 2000s, Home Office normalised the demand for applications abroad. To reduce quality & fairness even further, they persuaded Parliament to abolish most rights of appeal, leaving only expensive & legalistic judicial review. 18/

But at least people already legally in UK get to apply for an extension without leaving? Nope. In 2000s, Ministers changed immigration rules requiring people to leave and apply from abroad. 19/

Crucially, people in UK we visitors or students, who got married in UK - or wanted to - were told they had to apply from abroad.

Even though all the evidence and witnesses for their case are in UK. 20/

Home Office didn’t even try to justify this as efficient for genuine couples. Their argument was that the right to stay in UK for consideration or an application encouraged abuse.

So thousands of genuine couples would have to be separated to avoid (never demonstrated) abuse 21/

Home Office labels *genuine* married couples applying in UK as “queue jumpers”. When it was the Home Office who decided they could no longer “queue” in the UK for a decision. 22/

The “queue” is a brilliant lie. The pretence that Home Office would bring order *if only migrants queue up* - ABROAD where we can’t see them. But where officials will see them “in turn”. 23/

The idea that migrants should queue for a permit is superficially reasonable. Queues are a great idea - where they operate fairly, openly and quickly. 24/

But the migrant “queue” is a cover for the systemic illegality of the Home Office: absurdly complex rules, used to deny applications for no lawful reason but because “net migration target” or just xenophobia - and without effective redress. 25/

UK could expand availability of genuine queues. Simple, straightforward rules applied to people who arrive at port. A culture of expecting fast, realistic decisions - not complex wordy refusals. With a small minority of cases deferred for longer consideration. 26/

It worked in 1960s, without online systems or email for checking. It works at the British passport office. It could cut red-tape & xenophobia down to size 27/27