Immigration and Asylum Report Adopted by Conference 1996
Three Case Studies
1
Mr A came to the UK as a visitor in 1981. He found a course of study and changed his
status to that of student. He met his wife, also from Nigeria, as he finished his course in 1984
and married her in early 1986. Mr and Mrs A had twins in 1986, and Mr A adopted a child his
wife had already. They eventually had two more children. In 1992 Mrs A obtained permanent
leave to remain, having been in the UK for over ten years. Mr A however began to have
problems, though he retained his student visa up to 1989. Eventually the Home Office
insisted he leave, although is wife had obtained permanent
residence. He was kept in detention for over a year, during which he hardly saw the daughter
born in 1994, and was deported in September 1995. His wife is struggling with five children to
look after, and desperately wants Mr A to be allowed to return.
2
Mr B, a seaman, was for many years an active member of an opposition party in
Ghana. In 1981 an engineer on his ship electrocuted himself on a faulty refrigerator. He had
been a member of the party in power, and when the ship docked Mr B was arrested under
suspicion of a politically-motivated murder. For the next two years Mr B was alternately held
in custody, sometimes for months at a time, or bailed and subjected to frequent rigorous
interrogation, but he was never charged.
To escape this harassment of himself and his family, Mr B finally slipped onto a ship, not
returning to Ghana for the next two years. When he did return, he resumed his political
campaigning activities, which again resulted in frequent arrests. One of those arrested with
him was never seen again. The intimidation finally led his wife to leave him, taking their three
children with her. She subsequently met someone else, so she and Mr B were divorced.
Meanwhile the electrocuted seaman's family, learning of Mr B's return to Ghana, swore to
avenge his death. Mr B went into hiding and in 1991 travelled to the UK to the safety of family
living here. After a few months he met and married a young woman. At first his family in
Ghana knew of his address, but after he received death threats he moved house and cut off
contact with them, for his own safety and theirs.
With permission to remain in the UK as a husband, Mr B saw no need to apply for political
asylum as well. But then his wife proved unfaithful and in January 1995 they were divorced.
Now, faced with having to return to Ghana and knowing what he would face there, Mr B did
apply for political asylum in UK. His application has been refused and he is awaiting the result
of his final appeal.
3
A Sri Lankan lawyer, Mr C, who had dealt with human rights cases was fearful of his
life. Two of his friends from university days had already been killed. He obtained a visa to
come to the UK on the basis of a letter from a friend which said that 'he would be glad to see
him any time'. On arrival in this country Mr C was made welcome and supported by his
friend's church. His fear and suspicion of any organisation receiving government funding
made him unwilling to seek advice about an asylum application. His friends provided enough
money for his accommodation when he moved to London. He was advised that by enrolling
on a course at a college he would be able to change his visa from a 'visitor's visa' to a
'student visa'. This is untrue; such a change requires the person to return home to make a
new application. To obtain money for food he worked illegally in a restaurant in Oxford Street
for £1 an hour. Near the end of the six months that his visa allowed him to stay, his family
wrote and advised him that it would now be safe to return. He took this advice and returned
home. His situation at home was affluent and comfortable. Here, as someone too frightened
to claim asylum, he was poor and exploited.
4
The three case studies do not pretend to represent the extraordinary range of
circumstances which face those responsible for managing the rules of entry to the UK. They
remind us, however, that personal stories are often exceedingly complex. No legislation,
however comprehensive, and no set of procedures, however humanely administered, can be
expected to cater for all possibilities. Flexibility is needed in the quest for policies that are just,
compassionate and acceptable to all groups in society. Currently, however, an enormous
amount of pain, anger and anxiety are felt by Black and Asian people in the UK at the way so
many members of their communities are treated.
5
For over thirty years the Churches in Britain have consistently argued that the
legislation and the procedures for managing our borders have been inadequate; have argued
indeed that the general direction in which legislation and procedures have moved has been
wrong-headed, detrimental to the well-being of many people coming to Britain, unjust and in
its outworking racist. We share these overall judgements. Nowadays British policy is being
developed in a European context, so the British Churches are joining their efforts with
Churches in other European Union countries. This report attempts to articulate a Christian
mind on the current situation.
Use of Terms
6
Two of the three case studies use the notion of 'asylum'. Asylum is sought by someone
who wants to be acknowledged as a refugee. When a receiving country recognises a person
as a refugee, it grants that person asylum. But the definition of a 'refugee' is very precise. It is
given in a 1951 UN Convention. A refugee is someone who 'owing to a well-founded fear of
being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social
group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to
such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a
nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence is unable or, owing
to such a fear, is unwilling to return to it.' This definition is the basis of Britain's policy on
asylum-seekers. When the British Government grants refugee status, it gives to the person
concerned a right to reside in the UK, to seek work and to claim benefits.
7
In some parts of the world, wider definitions of a 'refugee' are in use. For example, the
Organisation of African Unity (OAU) has a definition that includes:
 Every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination, or
events seriously disturbing public order in either part or

the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual
residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or
nationality.
The OAU Convention, which 42 African governments have signed, reflects the reality of the
African refugee situation. While wider than the 1951 UN Convention, it also excludes
internally displaced people and those uprooted by economic disasters. Its very existence,
however, poses the question of whether the 1951 definition should be reviewed in the light of
changing circumstances. People seek safety in new places when they feel threatened.
Persecution, war, civil unrest, famine and drought, oppression, devastation of the
environment and other similar overpowering causes force people to flee their homes.
International conventions do not currently provide appropriate mechanisms to deal with these
pressures. A new approach is needed. A focus on loss of protection from the government of
a person's state could usefully be the core criterion in any re-examination of the definition of
'refugee'.
8
The word 'nationality' in paragraph 6 is a slippery one. In one sense 'nationality' is a
legal status. A British national, for example, has British citizenship, with all its rights,
privileges and responsibilities, including access to a UK passport. However, 'nationality' is
also something felt, an expression of identity within a cultural group. Within the UK we are
increasingly sensitive to the issues that this notion of 'nationality' raises: English people all too
easily equate 'English-ness' with 'British-ness', to the offence of the Scots and the Welsh.
Within the UK (which determines the legal boundary of our formal nationality or citizenship)
and the Republic of Ireland there are four nations. The complexities in our situation are as
nothing to what is found in many other parts of the world, where tribal identities, former
colonial boundaries, religious affiliations and language groups confuse the issue. Moreover,
conflicts in many parts of the world are fuelled by the clash of loyalties between
nationality and state authority. The recent war in Bosnia illustrates the difficulties.
9
The notion of 'citizenship' is even more complicated. Before 1948 Britain had no
citizenship legislation: there were British subjects (in the UK and colonies), British Protected
Persons (born in a protectorate) or Aliens. All British subjects had the right of entry to the UK
and the right to share in public life here. The status of Citizen of the UK and Colonies (CUKC)
was introduced in 1948 - for people in the UK and countries which were still colonies.
(Citizens of newly independent Commonwealth countries retained the status of British
subject, with the rights of entry and abode in the UK.) Immigration law was introduced and
developed in the period 1962-1981, leading to the withdrawal of the right of abode in the UK
from some CUKC's and some British subjects. In 1983, CUKC status was abolished and three
new citizenships came into existence. There are now six different groups of people who may
hold British passports, only one of which (British citizens) have the right of abode in the UK
and are not subject to immigration control. Other British passport holders are in the main
treated like foreigners when they apply to enter the UK.
10
'Immigration' should be considered separately from asylum and refugee status, though
they are related. Alongside the special circumstances of asylum- seekers, people are on the
move between states for many reasons: to visit family or friends; to study; to have a holiday;
to obtain medical help; to do business; to find employment in the host country; to marry or to
be reunited to family members resident in the host country. Strictly, 'immigration' is the term
used for all those who require leave to enter the UK, for whatever reason. Within this broad
category there are special provisions for short-term 'visitors', who may obtain leave to enter
for up to six months.
11
Alongside people seeking asylum and immigration for the positive reasons referred to
above, there are always likely to be people who want to slip in with devious intent: they may
be terrorists, political subversives or criminals. The UK government has a duty to protect its
citizens from such unwelcome entrants by all reasonable means. Unfortunately there is also a
sizeable 'business' which smuggles people into the UK or provides false documents. In
addition there are some people who want to come to the UK primarily for economic reasons
(which may include simply survival), who attempt to obtain entry within the fairly narrow 1951
UN Convention definitions: the understanding of this complex situation is not helped by the
emotional language of 'bogus' asylum seekers. (It is explored further in paragraph 51.)
The Scale of Immigration
12
The official statistics provide immigration figures for people intending to be in the UK
for more than one year. Numbers have remained fairly constant over the last thirty years, at
around 200,000 a year (half of whom are UK citizens coming here from other parts of the
world). The majority of people of non-UK nationality moving to the UK for a year or more
come either from within the European Union, exercising their right of freedom of movement,
or as students from outside the EU.
13
The number of people emigrating from the UK is slightly more than those who come in.
Since 1964 the aggregate emigration figures are 750,000 higher than the aggregate
immigration figures. Detailed examination of the figures for the same period shows that there
has been a net outflow of 2,000,000 UK citizens, and therefore a net inflow of 1,250,000
people of other nationalities (ie approximately 42,000 a year on average).
The Scale of Asylum-seeking
14
In the late 1970's there were approximately 1,500 people applying for asylum in the UK
each year; this number grew steadily to nearly 6,000 per annum a decade later. More
dramatic increases were recorded from 1989 (16,775 applications), reaching a peak of 73,400
applications in 1991. The latest statistics available are 42,200 applications in 1994 and
43,963 in 1995 (representing nearly 60,000 people).
15
The UK authorities have been slow to respond to the rapid increase in applications for
asylum in recent years. Around 84,000 applications are outstanding. The average period for
the determination of a claim is 19 months. Where decisions are made, only a very small
proportion are granted refugee status (ranging from 3,335 in 1985 to 800 in 1991). Others
are granted Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR): they are not given refugee status but
humanitarian reasons for their need of protection are acknowledged. Judgements about
ELR fluctuate considerably. In the late 1980's, roughly a third of asylum-seekers were granted
ELR, and in the early 1990's the proportion rose even higher (to 77% in 1993); but in 1994
only 5,445 obtained this status out of 42,200 applications for asylum.
16
The numbers of asylum-seekers applying to the UK need to be set in a historical
context. Britain has a long tradition of giving refuge to people fleeing political or religious
persecution. In fact in the nineteenth century the UK already had a reputation for sanctuary
for refugees. Over the last sixty
years waves of refugees have included East Europeans, Poles, Hungarians,
Czechoslovakians, Latin Americans (including Chileans), Africans (Ugandans, South Africans,
Somalis, Sierra Leoneans and Sudanese), Asians from Vietnam, Malaysia and Sri Lanka, as
well as many others. They have made
positive contributions to our national life, culturally and economically, beyond their numerical
strength. It is this tradition which is now under serious threat.
17
Refugees and asylum-seekers, however, have not always found a ready welcome
here. That was the case for many Jews who fled in the 1930's from Nazi Germany. It is
interesting to note also that as far back as 1882, an influx of Jewish refugees - not very large
numerically - led to a Royal Commission
on Alien Immigration, which found that immigration was not a threat to housing, health and
employment for the host community, but which nevertheless formed the basis for the 1905
Aliens Act, specifically designed to restrict Jewish entry. In the modem era asylum-seekers
have increasingly
experienced the UK as a place which it is hard to get into. The prospect of an application for
asylum is over-shadowed by a fear of detention and of being embroiled in complex and secret
regulations which determine the processing of their application.
18
The numbers of people seeking asylum in the UK need also to be set in a world-wide
context. There are now more refugees than at any time in history. There are around 19 million
registered refugees (see paragraph 5), 25 million other people living in refugee-like situations
and a further 25 million are internally displaced, ie they have fled their homes but not their
country. The vast majority of all these people - over 80 per cent - are living in the poor
countries of the world. For the most part they have crossed into adjacent countries, without
passports or entry visas and have been given temporary refuge on the border. (Only 5% of
the worlld's refugees come to Europe. While media attention has focused on the 'threat' of
mass migration, little attention has been given to the root causes of such movements. These
include human rights violations, famine, armed conflicts and internal instability, severe
environmental degradation, eg desert spread, and economic crises such as world debt and
the extreme poverty in the low income countries of the world. This report cannot address
these causes, but the Church must do so seriously.
19
Contrary to many people's ideas, refugees do not want to leave their homes. They do
so only under extreme pressure of circumstance. For the most part they want to return as
soon as possible, but prolonged residence away from their home country means that they and
their children become adapted to a different culture and society, and it may then be difficult to
return to their country of origin.
Theological Reflections on Immigration and Asylum-seeking
20
Many cultural groups have a history of geographical movement stretching back over
millennia. The Amorites, for example, were Semitic nomads of Palestine and Syria who
invaded Mesopotamia and Babylonia in the third and second millennia BC. When the Amorite
King Hammurabi ruled Babylon (1792-1750 BC), people travelled far and settled where they
liked. They pitched their tents
and made themselves at home where it suited them, and enjoyed the fruits of the land. Their
descendants are found today in Northern Europe and in West Asia. The principal Semitic
groups today are the Jews, the Arabs and some North Africans.
21
From within this culture God called Abraham to leave Harran and journey towards the
Promised Land (Genesis 12: 1-9). Abraham sought asylum in Egypt when famine ravaged
the Negeb (Genesis 12: 10-14). Throughout the biblical tradition a prominent theme is that the
land belongs to God (Psalm 24:I) and the peoples of the earth are sojourners and pilgrims
(Hebrews 11: 1-12:2). God's people can be mobile because their eye is fixed on a heavenly
city, towards which they strain (Philippians 3: 12-21).
22
The goal of our human journeying is envisaged, in the light of Jesus Christ, in inclusive
terms. God's kingdom is for all, Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 10-11). This vision, however, is
fundamentally moral in character. 'The gates of the (heavenly) city shall never be shut by
day, nor will there be any night there. the splendour and wealth of the nations shall be brought
into it, but nothing unclean shall enter, nor anyone whose ways are foul or false; only those
shall enter whose names are inscribed in the Lamb's book of life' (Revelation 21:25-27).
23
Also within the Bible there are many streams of tradition which point in a different
direction. Instead of flexibility of movement, there is the pressure to settle down, build cities
and create permanent institutions (such as monarchy). Instead of a sense of adventure and
discovery built on trust in God's faithful love and protection, societies are frozen in fear and
defensiveness. Instead of inclusive attitudes, exclusivism based on race and religion
becomes dominant. Where the traditions meet and clash, on some occasions rigid boundaries
are drawn, while on others the boundaries are constructed more generously. So hospitality to
the stranger appears as a moral duty in settled societies. Love
must be shown to the alien, in imitation of God. 'God secures justice for the fatherless and the
widow, and He shows love towards the alien who lives among you, giving him food and
clothing' (Deuteronomy 10: 18).
24
In Christian belief, all people are made in the image of God (Genesis 1: 26-27). All are
therefore equal in the sight of God. God's grace embraces everyone, without distinction. This
belief leads us to mirror the divine impartiality in our own attitudes. Accepting that we are
loved by God and called to be God's Children, we accept that we have a right to receive, and
a duty to give, basic care and protection to everyone. 'You shall love the alien as yourself
(Leviticus 19:34, NRSV). These convictions undergird our approach to asylum and
immigration issues.
25
Christian reflection on scripture and tradition leads to a belief in a God who is not static
or self-enclosed, but who is life and love. God eternally reaches out in creative and redeeming
love towards all that God has made. Jesus Christ is the focus and embodiment of God's
mission to all creation. Through the Holy Spirit, God draws alongside each and every human
being, unannounced, an unknown Stranger, and journeys beside them. God waits for an
invitation to receive hospitality in human hearts and in human societies. In the process of
moving across the distance between God and our human life, which from our side cannot be
bridged. God takes the risk of incarnation - rejection and crucifixion, or welcome and the
renewal of human beings as they are caught up in the divine life itself. God's gracious
initiative always embraces with special warmth the poor, the vulnerable, the weak and the
persecuted (Matthew 5: 3- 12; 25: 31-46). God invites us all to share in the struggle for justice
for all his people.
26
It is not possible to read out of the historical Christian tradition an ideal society for the
modem world. Theological reflection now takes place within the context of the democratic
political economies which have evolved in Europe over the past two or three centuries.
Convictions about God and about how to live lives pleasing to God are drawn from scripture
and tradition and developed in the light of human experience in contemporary societies.
Christian convictions provide a critique of the way governments behave and of social values
which become entrenched in nations and states.
27
In response to the question 'What kind of Britain do we want?', the Christian vision
contributes some clear themes relevant to immigration and asylum. Christian teaching and
tradition support the vision of a society which is open to change, which draws creatively on
the cultures and religious traditions of humanity, which invests in social cohesion, which is
safe and prosperous for all its residents, which offers security to those in danger elsewhere,
and which contributes to international agreements which promise to reduce conflict and
injustice between nations. Sensitivity to the needs of minority groups is a litmus test of good
government. Christian conviction is that public policies
should reduce pain and anxiety for those resident within national boundaries.
28
Christians recognise that in free and democratic societies, different ambitions for the
future of the nation compete with Christian convictions.
29
Sometimes a battle seems to be raging for the soul of the nation. For example, 'Britishness' is defined by some political leaders in terms of a largely uniform, traditional Christian,
white culture, so that multi-cultural communities, non-Christian religious groups and black
people are seen as a
threat. Others oppose this view uncompromisingly, and advocate a vision of Britain becoming
a multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-racial society which is at peace with itself. Individual
Christians are on both sides of this divide; many Christians find the whole issue confusing and
complex, and are
uncertain where they stand. In the post-war era Christian leaders and representative
assemblies of the main-stream denominations have supported with increasing clarity a vision
of Britain which welcomes change and which deals generously with people who wish to live
here within the law and contribute to our social development.
30
Sometimes Christians believe that our convictions must be placed alongside different
beliefs in an atmosphere of negotiation and mutual respect, in order to build constructive coexistence. For example, attitudes to marriage and family life are exceedingly fluid in secular
contexts, while Muslim views may be much more coherent but different from mainstream
Christian assumptions.
31
On other occasions, Christian convictions about what sort of society we want to
become struggle to be heard in the context of British history, especially as an imperial power,
and narrow views of economic self-interest. In many ways British popular culture is yet to
come to terms with our colonial past. In the early 1950's British policy had no qualms about
encouraging immigrants from the West Indies to come here to work. We were keen for them
to serve our economic interests; but as a society we did not confront questions of white
superiority, or of how the immigrants' sense of belonging to and being of service to 'the
Mother country' was to be honoured. In practice, it was crudely dishonoured, so that racist
attitudes quickly surfaced. After the oil crisis in the early 1970's, Britain, along with other
European nations, came to the view that all future immigration was an economic threat. This
view was almost certainly alarmist and inaccurate. From a Christian view, both in the 1950's
and in the 1970/1980's, crude economic calculations were an insufficient basis for judging
how British identity can best evolve. We want to share a vision for our society in which all will
celebrate social, cultural, political and economic benefits - as much for others as for
ourselves.
The Aims of UK Immigration and Asylum Law
32
The Immigration and Nationality Department annual report (1993) says in its
introduction that the Government's policy on immigration and nationality is:
1.
to allow genuine visitors and students to enter the UK;
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
to give effect to the free movement provisions of European Community law;
to continue to admit the spouses and minor dependent children of those already settled
in the UK;
to meet the UK's obligations towards refugees under international law, while reducing
the scope and incentive for misusing asylum procedures;
subject to the above, to restrict severely the number coming to live permanently or to
work in the UK;
to detect and remove those entering or remaining in the UK without authority; and
to maintain an effective and efficient system for dealing with applicants for citizenship.
33
This policy must be scrutinised from theological and moral perspectives. Reflection on
the first point which includes the word 'genuine', raises the question of how the state (through
its public servants and its rules of procedure) discerns motives in those seeking access. In
practice, immigration officers seem to draw principally on economic criteria. Many other
factors, however, affect the judgement on a request for admission, eg Britain's foreign policy
in relation to particular states; race issues; and security needs (including the need to exclude
criminals).
34
One sharply controversial aspect of motivation relates to the long-established 'primary
purpose' immigration rule. This states that a marriage must not be entered into primarily to
obtain admission to the UK. Every Christian minister knows how difficult it is both to assess
the reasons why a couple want to marry and to enable a couple to discover their own motives
in seeking to be married to each other. To expect an immigration officer or entry clearance
officer working overseas accurately to perform this task is to ask the impossible. To expect a
couple to prove that their marriage or intention to marry is grounded purely in their love for
one another is exceedingly difficult in a context of suspicion and disbelief. It is made infinitely
more complex when couples come from cultures where 'arranged marriages' are normal and
romantic love may not be a key factor. The outworking of the rule has meant hardship for
many couples, cruel separations and the anguish of awaiting the outcome of campaigns often
lasting two or three years, or more.
35
Theologically, we affirm that only God can identify accurately what is in the human
heart. In practice, therefore, those who take decisions about inclusion/exclusion in relation to
any group:



need a set of varied criteria which embody wise reflection on human motivation;
must recognise the limits of the justice and propriety of their decisions;
must therefore routinely submit their decisions to independent scrutiny and appeal.
36
Points 2, 3, and 7 in the Government's policy (paragraph 27) are unexceptional,
though the substance of Point 7 (applications for citizenship) must always be administered
justly, as well as being effective and efficient.
Point 4 refers specifically to asylum and it merits separate and more careful attention.
37
Points 5 and 6 are rather negative in both letter and spirit. The policy aims 'to
restrict severely the number of people coming to live permanently or to work in the UK' and 'to
detect and remove those entering or remaining in the UK without authority.' It must be
remembered that in most cases people want to come and live or work here for genuine
reasons (though these may not be
admissible under UK immigration law and rules). The detection process against those who
enter illegally or overstay is not very effective and there is evidence that it can be brutal in
certain situations. It is surprising that no explicit reference is made to the positive duty of the
state to provide security
against criminal entry (paragraph 11).
Frome Policy to Legal Framework
38
It is inappropriate to attempt here a summary of complex Acts of Parliaments
relating to immigration and asylum. Some key themes, however, need to be noted.
39
Legislation has been introduced at a number of significant moments throughout
the twentieth century: 1905 Aliens Act; 1948 Nationality Act; assent to the 1951 UN
Convention on Refugees and the 1967 Protocol; 1971Immigration Act; the Treaty of Rome
(signed by the UK in 1972); 1981 British Nationality Act; 1987 Immigration (Carriers' Liability)
Act; and the 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act. Almost always these developments
have been reactive in nature - the Government's responses to, and attempts; to regulate,
particular pressures or perceived crises.
40
In addition to legislation, immigration and asylum procedures are operated by
immigration Rules. These are published by the Home Office and interpreted by the Home
Office. They have the force of law. The latest version (October1994) has not yet been
debated in Parliament; nor has the Opposition pressed for this debate to be held. The
Rules lodge enormous power in the
judgement of immigration officers.
41
The 1987 Act introduced a new principle. Instead of immigration and asylum
procedures being managed exclusively by government officials, airlines and shipping
companies were obliged to play a part. The Home Office can fine airlines and shipping
companies £2,000 for each person they bring to the UK without valid entry documents.
Carrying companies therefore refuse to carry any passenger their check-in staff believe may
be refused admission on arrival in the UK. They thus carry out an untrained, completely
unaccountable immigration control at the point of embarkation.
42
The trend in post-war legislation (and immigration rules) has been to make entry to
the UK increasingly restrictive and difficult. The grounds on which people qualify for entry
have become more and more narrow. The standards which have to be met to demonstrate
that on balance entry is
permissible have increased. The opportunities for careful review of implicated personal
situations have withered as appeal rights have been taken away. The speed at which some
procedures have been operated have left vulnerable people bewildered as they have
attempted to grapple with an unfamiliar bureaucracy, a strange environment and a foreign
language. Other procedures have dragged on for unacceptably long periods, leaving such
people in a limbo of uncertainty about their future. The procedures have also become more
costly and inflexible for some applicants. A person granted
permission to study in the UK cannot, whilst still resident here as a student, apply for
permission to work here at the end of the study period; he or she must return to their country
of origin at the end of their study and apply afresh from there for permission to come to the
UK to work.
43
Definitions of citizenship have changed and become more confusing. As an
illustration of the change: before 1983 a child born in the UK automatically had UK citizenship;
since that date, whether or not a child born here has citizenship depends on the status of the
parents. As an illustration of the greater confusion:
 in addition to the straightforward concept of citizenship (called British nationality),
 some in former colonies have become British Dependent Territories' Citizens or Overseas
Citizens. While British Dependent Territories' Citizens lose this status when the colony in
which they live gains independence,
 in the case of Hong Kong a category of British Nationals (Overseas) has been created for
those who will be able to keep their British nationality status when Hong Kong reverts to
China in 1997.
But only full British citizens have an automatic right of abode in Britain itself.
44
Another worrying feature of the way legislation has changed over the century is the
attachment to asylum-seekers particularly of procedures which are normally
associated with criminality. (Indeed their situation is often worse than for those arrested on
suspicion of crime, held on remand or imprisoned: see paragraph 59.) The introduction in
1993 of mandatory finger-printing for all asylum-seekers illustrates this.
45
Without judging the motives of those who have devised the changing pattern of
legislation, it is important to identify the overall direction in which the pattern has moved and
its impact. It is clearly prejudicial against people coming to the UK from non-white
parts of the world. Notions of 'old
Commonwealth' and 'new Commonwealth' make the point clearly. Britain's policies have been
developed in concert with otther countries in the European Union (EU), though not all the
agreements negotiated at the European level are adopted by each member state of the
Union. Ironically, Britain and its partners in the EU gave assent to the Maastricht Treaty
(which enshrines free movement of peoples in the EU) at the same time that immigration and
asylum procedures were becoming much tighter against people from Asia and Africa. In spite
of its Race Relations legislation, Britain has found it exceedingly difficult to move comfortably
towards a multi-cultural and multi-religious society. The expression of the deep anxieties
within British society and the increasingly ferocious legislation to guard Britain's borders are
rightly labelled 'racist'.
Christian Commentary on the Story So Far
46
The Methodist Church is committed to the principles and practice of racial justice for its
own life. It believes they are essential to the well-being of modern societies. The Church is
therefore committed to the view that legislation, rules and the performance of public duties
relating to immigration and asylum must be free of racism, overt or covert, direct or indirect.
In addition, the Church is committed to the view that all public administrative systems must
operate within the international conventions on human rights. We note with concern that when
the UK Government in 1991 ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it entered a
reservation on immigration and family reunion. The Methodist Church criticises the general
direction in which legislation has gone during the twentieth century. The Church will
challenge racist attitudes when they come to light, and will plead the cause of those who
seem to be unjustly treated because of their race, religion, gender, age, nationality, social
group or political opinion.
47
Clear public accountability for all involved in immigration and asylum procedures is
essential. The interpretation and application of legislation and rules must be confined to
trained and accountable government officials. In consequence, the 1987 Act (paragraph 41)
which requires airlines and shipping companies to verify entry documents, on penalty of a
fine, is unjust. Verification of entry documents for the purposes of immigration, whether in the
place of exit or entrance, should be the responsibility of government officials or a company
contracted to government for that purpose.
48
Some elements in the adjudication processes for asylum and immigration requests are
already contracted out to private companies, eg management of detention centres. The
contract should specify minimum standards of performance in line with comparable civil
service procedures; clear lines of accountability to government; and firm, independent
supervision.
49
The confusion between asylum legislation and features of criminality (paragraph 44)
runs the danger of planting in the public imagination the notion that asylum-seekers are to be
thought of as being like criminals. This is an intolerable slur on people who come from
situations of persecution in search of a human right. In spite of assurances given by
government that children would not be routinely finger-printed, some have been.
50
The Church recognises how easily stereotypes build up in the minds of people who
spend a lot of their time dealing with specific groups of people with specialised needs. In
difficult working environments immigration officers have to make speedy and complicated
decisions. It is inevitable that the attention merited by each individual case cannot be given.
In no time at all members of
particular nationalities, language groups, religious persuasions or races are treated more or
less the same. It is a straightforward way of coping with stressful circumstances. In many
areas of public life this phenomenon is a challenge to those who manage public officials:
to develop training
opportunities for staff (so that their routine work is enhanced by greater sensitivity) and to
plead for better use of scarce resources.
51
As legislation becomes ever more restrictive the temptation increases among people
who wish to migrate (for whatever reasons) to invent reasons for entry which they judge may
give them some possibility of access to work. Here surely is one explanation of the significant
increase in what are popularly labelled 'bogus' asylum applications. It is no part of the
Church's mission to collude with untruthful applications. It is part of our task, however, to point
out how people behave (badly) when their aspirations are consistently and unnecessarily
thwarted. The Church also has the right to challenge the assumptions on which refusal for
employment purposes has become normative, both here and throughout the EU. Evidence
from this country and elsewhere (notably the USA and Germany) is that 'economic migrants'
have contributed to economic development, beyond their numbers. If the Immigration
Rules were relaxed, the numbers of people entering the UK for long-term purposes would
probably increase significantly - though this would not necessarily be detrimental to the quality
of life or economic development here.
52
No system of law or regulation can apply to all possible human circumstances. Law
and rules should be as comprehensive as possible, but there will always be unforeseen
situations and exceptions. Public officials dealing with immigration and asylum must, in
exceptional circumstances, exercise discretion. In the Christian view, discretion should
always be exercised with compassion and mercy.
53
Laws and rules are often least effective when an applicant's situation changes. For
example, X comes to the UK from aboard to study; during the period of study X falls in love
and wishes to marry a British citizen Y. How can the state test the authenticity of ‘X's alleged
new motives for staying in the UK? If X chooses to 'over-stay' after the study period is
complete and marry Y; and if X and Y have children who are brought up here, how can the
total situation be assessed when X is eventually 'found out' and threatened with deportation?
Who is competent to weigh the breach of immigration law over and against the demands of
family policy and the needs of the children? What the law permits it also encourages: so what
sort of decisions could be made in the case of X, Y and their children which did not encourage
immigrants to marry and have children simply to ensure residence in the UK?
54
There are many reasons why people 'over-stay', ie remain in the UK illegally beyond
the period and purpose of the permission granted to them. Doubtless motives are mixed.
Whatever the circumstances and motivation, over-stayers know they have broken the law. If
they are caught, they must pay the due penalty. The Church has no interest in colluding with
illegal activity.
However, the Church is able to make a critical commentary on the overall situation.
 The widespread anxiety among over-stayers springs from other sources as well as fear of
being detected by the authorities. Many are bemused by the complexity of the rules,
uncertain of their rights and unclear about who will be able to help them better to
understand their situation. In the black and Asian communities, some fear that they will be
treated badly by the UK authorities if and when they are caught. Others have a deepseated fear of being treated harshly in their home country if they are forced to return.
Others again fear the loss of face among family and friends if the original purpose of their
migration to the UK (eg to study in order to be able to earn sufficient income to enhance
the economic well-being of themselves and their family) is seen to have failed.
 The Home Office has stated that if people remain in the UK for over fourteen years,
whether legally or illegally, they will normally be granted Indefinite Leave to Remain
(provided they have no criminal record). This 'amnesty' has to be set in the context of
other periods of legal residence which can lead to a permanent right to stay. For a person
with a work permit, refugee status or other status leading to settlement, four years must
elapse before application can be made for permanent residence. For a person with ELR,
the period is seven years. For someone who has been legally resident for ten years, the
Home Office will normally grant a right of abode. These are long periods in a person's life:
circumstances, especially family circumstances, can change dramatically in such time
spans. The minimum time for amnesty (fourteen years) merits urgent review.
When over-stayers are detected, their total situation must be reviewed (paragraph 48). Not
all over-stayers are deported, but many are. In response to the anxiety caused by deportation
or the threat of it, the Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland (CCBI) in 1993 supported a
call to the Government for a limited 'amnesty'. The amnesty was to apply to an over-stayer
who had lived in the UK for at least five years, and either had a child of at least two years of
age who had been born and brought up here or was self-sufficient in terms of income and
housing. Another sort of approach to over-stayers is to acknowledge that they have broken
the law, but to insist that the penalty must fit the crime and any extenuating circumstances. In
many cases deportation would be judged to be much too harsh. A fine or a period of
community service may be more appropriate, after which application may be made for
permission to stay.
55
Laws and rules must be flexible enough to cope with emergencies and with short-term
needs. From a Christian point of view, family occasions merit such flexibility - so that families
can come together in the UK from many parts of the world to celebrate the birth of a child or a
marriage, or to share family grieving at a funeral. It is crucial that British society and
immigration law recognise the significance attached to such events in other cultures. The
family funeral, in particular, is deemed to be an act of duty and obligation, which has to be
arranged at short notice. The UK needs an immigration
service which not only permits but welcomes people here for such events without the
imposition of restrictive rules or the transmission of negative messages of suspicion about
motives.
56
Because all human decisions are potentially flawed, an independent appeals
procedure to review negative decisions is essential. Since 1969 an extremely complicated
appeals procedure for immigration requests has evolved. The Lord Chancellor's Department
(independently of the Home Office) appoints people to be an 'Adjudicator' (who sits alone to
hear a first appeal) and members of an 'Immigration Appeals Tribunal' (three people who may
grant leave to appeal on a point of law against an adjudicator's decision). The 1993 Asylum
and Immigration Appeals Act, however, removed the right of appeal against refusals to those
who wished to come to the UK as visitors, as students coming for courses lasting less than
six months and as prospective students. Prior to the 1993 Act about 18 per cent of appeals
against the refusal of Entry Clearances were successful. There is in this change, therefore,
an obvious suspicion of injustice. (The Law Lords estimated that more than a thousand cases
of injustice would result each year.) A major area of concern is the impact of visitors for
family occasions and emergencies (see paragraph 55).More generally, all of us may now be
denied the opportunity of receiving friends and guests of our choice, especially from lowincome countries.
57
One advantage of the 1993 Act is that it established a separate system of appeals
against refusal of asylum. The system applies to all asylum-seekers. Normally ten days are
allowed for appeals (a shorter period than is typical in British court cases). However, for
some cases deemed to be 'without
foundation' there are only two days to make an appeal. The opportunity for obtaining legal
advice is extremely limited and there is no legal aid for representing the case (though there
may be for preparing the case).
58
Because the rules relating to immigration and asylum are so complicated, those
who apply and those who appeal frequently need expert legal advice. Resources for this are
extremely scarce, in some cases, legal advice is ill informed or action by legal advisors is
slow and incompetent. In a few case; lawyers exploit those who seek immigration or asylum.
59
The use of detention for approximately 800 people at any one time who are seeking
residence in the UK, and the conditions within detention centres and in prison establishments
where people are held, cause deep concern. No clear justification is given for holding some
who present themselves for immigration and asylum but not others. The system for the legal
review of detention difficult and expensive: detainees have to make an application to an
immigration adjudicator for bail and applications can be made in the High Courts for writs of
Habeas Corpus or Mandamus. There are no limits to the length of time for detention. No
information is available to individual detainees about when their period of incarceration will
end, or what they must do to bring it to a conclusion. The British legal system treats no other
category of persons in this way. It is intolerable that such unaccountable powers (detention
should exist, causing untold misery to its victims, the vast majority
of whom are black and Asian people. The use of some prison establishment aggravates the
unjustified linkage between immigrants/asylum-seekers and criminals (paragraph 44). In
Scotland, all detentions relating to asylum and immigration take place in prisons. All the
evidence from chaplains and visitors to detention centres and prison establishments is that
the staff are ill equipped for this specialised task and the service is hopelessly under
resourced. Detention centres have no say in who is allocated to then
regardless of whether facilities are appropriate or whether an interpreter available. The
following extracts are taken from reports by some members (the working party of a visit to a
prison establishment being used for immigration/asylum purposes.
 “On arrival we were shown into one of the wings where the detainees were being held.
This is a category B prison and security was very obvious. The wing could hold almost 110
men with 5 or so places for emergencies. The detainees were all black and Asian people:
indeed the only white faces were those of the prison officers and the chaplain”.
(Language problems caused great difficulties in communication. People were there from
Nigeria, the Punjab, French-speaking Africa, China, Japan an maybe Hong Kong.)
 “A man in a turban made his way to me and sat next to me. I was surrounded by 12-15
Indian men, mostly in their early 20's. One was aged about 40. The man in the turban
about 45”.
 “They told me they were from Punjab. "You know how dangerous Punjab is now", said one
man. Most of this group have been in this centre separated from families, for 7-9 months.
"Why are we here?" I was asked at least a dozen times in as many minutes. "We have
barely one hour a day to be out in the fresh air, for what crime? Being in here is affecting
our physical and mental health. Some of us are experiencing sight problems”
 "'Why are you here?'' I asked one of the men. “I am an over-stayer. I know I have to return
to India, I want to go back. Please get me out of here. I am even willing to pay my own
fare."
 “I was being called by the Chaplain. It was time for us to leave. "Who are you?" one of
them asked, I stated my name and said I was a Church minister. The group around me
now appealed to me even more. "Thank you for coming to see us. Please do something to
get US out of here, and
don't forget us.”
 “The Chaplain wondered if I would want to speak to one of the officers and was shown into
the tiny office where the officer was trying to do what appears to be an almost impossible
job. The 'phone rang non-stop, other officers came wanting something or other, detainees
came asking various questions regarding their money or visits from the agencies who
were helping in handling their cases. The officer had to take the 'phone off the hook in
order to be able to speak to me. The new detainee who had just been brought from
Gatwick North Terminal was also in the office - a French-speaking African. He stood
waiting to be attended to, but trembled like a frightened puppy. His belongings in a clear
plastic bag. I was sitting close enough to the desk to see the file of this new detainee and
hence was able to read his name and who his next of kin is in this country. The officer
tried to explain the procedure and routine to him in English but at this stage I doubt if the
detainee could comprehend what was being said to him. He was too dazed and frightened

by what was happening to him to be able to understand what it meant to be locked up,
when he had committed no crime”.
”If other detainees feel as frightened as that new man I saw in the office, then one has no
alternative but to conclude that the strategy adopted is to wear these men out and to
destroy their self-confidence and sense of well-being. This surely is not in line with the
teaching of Jesus to help each
other and to show compassion to one another.'
Changes and Proposals in 1996
60
While this report was being prepared, the Government brought before Parliament new
proposals for immigration and asylum. They continue the trends noted earlier, and aggravate
the sense of injustice and inhumanity which many people feel in relation to Britain's attitude
to those who request residence in the UK.
On January 11, 1996, the Government laid regulations before Parliament to remove benefits,
including child benefit, from those who appeal against a refusal of refugee status and from
those who defer a request for asylum beyond the moment of entry to the UK. The
regulations came into effect on February 5.
The Asylum and Immigration Bill being debated in Parliament includes the following
proposals:
 A sanction against employers who offer jobs to people who are illegally resident in the UK;
 A list of designated countries (sometimes called the 'white list') from which requests for
asylum will not normally be considered, because it is believed that in general they display
no serious risk of persecution. (Applications may be considered from such countries under
a shortened procedure which is usually applicable to cases which are 'manifestly without
foundation'.)
 The concept of 'safe' countries through which asylum-seekers have passed and to which
they can almost immediately be returned;
 The removal of access to housing from those who appeal against a refusal of refugee
status and from those who defer a request for asylum beyond the moment of entry to the
UK.
 A penalty on those who obtain entry by deception and those who facilitate such entry for
their personal reward.
Taken together, these changes and proposals add a further example of non- government
personnel (employers) being required to do the work of government officials; create a fresh
prospect of racist attitudes (in employment practice); confuse a political judgement about
another country with the attention required by the 1951 UN Convention to the plight of an
individual from that country who may be persecuted or in fear of persecution; and introduce
into local government a possible refusal of basic human care and protection which flies in the
face of all that might reasonably be associated with a humane society.
The Government's justification for such draconian measures lies in the need to discourage
'bogus' applications for asylum. While the majority of applications for asylum will fail to meet
the international criteria (paragraph 6), even so, a sense of proportion is necessary
(paragraphs 12-19). The issues are:


How do we first deal justly and generously with authentic requests for asylum, and in the
confidence that these matters have been sensitively handled, deal firmly with other
requests?
How do we recover a sense of compassionate discretion for those who may not be
'refugees' in the formal sense (paragraph 5) but who merit ELR?


How do we create in British society an expectation that we shall be enriched (economically
and culturally) by people coming here to live and to work?
How do we create in British society the concept of a nation in which people of different
national and cultural origins belong?
Pastoral Responses of the Church
61
People from other countries live and work in a large number of towns and cities in
Britain. While there are significant concentrations of ethnic minorities in certain large cities, it
would be misleading to suppose that issues of immigration and asylum are confined to a
small number of conurbations. Most sizeable communities in Britain have the opportunity of
offering a welcome to people of other nations, races and cultures, of learning from them, of
celebrating the diversification of social life brought by them and of working with them for the
common good. Or of doing the opposite of all these things. Within each local community,
churches can contribute to a positive, well-informed and caring climate. Particular clarity of
thought and sensitivity are required of churches when it is discovered that people they get to
know are living in the UK as 'over-stayers'.
62
We recommend the following pastoral guidelines, for action at local, circuit, district or
connexional level, as appropriate.
1. Drawing on its participation in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ, and
appealing in particular to the enrichment which comes from its partnership in the world
family of Methodist Churches, the British Methodist Church should everywhere promote a
vision of what a truly human society consists of. Societies are enhanced which encourage
developments towards international, multi-racial and multi- cultural communities. Drawing
in particular on the experience of the world-wide Christian mission in the twentieth century,
churches should declare their conviction that human well-being requires political structures
which enable people of many faiths to live together in tolerable peace and harmony, which
safeguard human rights for all (including minority groups) and which promote mutual
respect and tolerance.
2. Methodist churches should take initiatives to meet communities of other faiths and cultural
minorities in their locality, develop a greater sensitivity to the values and customs in other
cultures, and support educational efforts which strengthen mutual understanding. In
particular, Christians should inform themselves of the significance of family ties and family
events (eg marriages and funerals) in other cultures.
3. Methodist churches should support and encourage people who are seeking immigration
or asylum into the UK always to operate within the law when they present their case or
challenge negative decisions from the authorities.
4. Methodist churches should counsel those who seek immigration or asylum to seek
competent legal advice, and point them towards reliable sources of legal advice, without
necessarily taking sides in any dispute or conflict.
5. Methodist churches can encourage members to visit detention centres and prison
establishments where detainees are held, under the guidance of the local chaplain. In
association with local visitors' groups, members of congregations can link up with
individuals in detention, through correspondence. Churches should support and affirm
chaplains and Christians serving in the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND).
Church members should be encouraged to see service in the IND as a demanding and
important vocation in the modem world.
6. In special cases, a Methodist congregation may wish to contribute to or provide bail for
someone pursuing a case through the courts (though bail requires a named individual to
stand surety).
7. Congregations may provide practical support for individuals and families who have
newly arrived in the UK with permission to study or work, or who are seeking such
permission. As the Government has now withdrawn benefits from asylum seekers in
certain circumstances and intends to withdraw access to housing (paragraph 60),
churches may be called on to assist with emergency protection and shelter for those
affected. In some instances, churches may be called on to offer pastoral and practical
support for people facing deportation, and their relatives.
8. Methodist churches are encouraged to consider the issue of Sanctuary. A discussion
paper, 'The Churches, Immigration Law and Sanctuary' has been published by CCBI to
assist this. In addition, in 1989, on the
instruction of the Conference, the DSR published 'Guidelines on "Sanctuary"'. This leaflet
advises ministers and lay leaders how to respond to requests for sanctuary in church
premises from over-stayers and asylum-seekers threatened with deportation. It stresses
that the request and offer of 'sanctuary' is a last resort. Sanctuary may in certain cases
secure a delay in which a person's case can be reconsidered; but the Conference
stated its belief that it is not advisable, nor will it serve the interest of over-stayers and
others, for local churches to give support to evasion of the immigration law of the UK. The
leaflet is still available from DSR. It should be consulted by local churches if they are
considering a particular request for sanctuary.
9. In 1995 the 'Sanctuary Declaration' was drawn up by a small number of local churches
from various traditions who have already offered sanctuary; it was endorsed by certain
Christian groups. A local church which signs the 'Sanctuary Declaration' expresses its
willingness, in advance of individual requests for sanctuary, to offer itself as a Sanctuary
Church. Such an offer is understood to be a last resort when a church believes that a
person's deportation involves a serious threat to family life, a well-founded fear of
imprisonment, torture or persecution,
or a basic denial of justice and compassion. In practice, most congregations will find it
difficult to make such a general commitment to offer themselves as a Sanctuary Church,
or even to consider the issue in abstract. Sanctuary tends to come on the agenda when a
church is involved with someone they know, or is set in a neighbourhood where asylum
and immigrations issues are widely debated. Even so, many Methodist churches will want
to consider signing the Declaration: we recommend that they should at the same time
consult the 1989 Conference 'Guidelines on "Sanctuary"'.
63
The pastoral stances of the Church on immigration and asylum issues are always
enhanced when church leaders in particular enable Christian communities to understand
better the background to the movement of peoples and to the perception of Britain in many
former colonial territories. The
continuing exploration of international affairs and of the economic, political and environmental
deprivation which afflict many nations of the world (paragraph 18) is essential. Britain has a
special place in the imagination of many former colonies. Not long ago it was common in
many newly
independent nations to fantasize about Britain as a land flowing with milk and honey. It is
clearly in everyone's interest for British Methodists to enable clear messages about the reality
of our social and economic situation to be communicated back to individuals and families in
third world countries. That
general insight applies also to the European Union. Nothing, however, should be said or done
which absolves Britain from working creatively with the issues posed in the modern world by
its colonial past; or which minimises the need to reduce the gap in living standards between
Britain (and Europe) and the low income countries of the world.
Policy Issues to be Adopted by the Methodist Conference
64
The Methodist Conference has a concern that public policies on immigration and
asylum should be as generous and flexible as possible, while recognising the Government's
duty to protect society from criminal infiltration and political subversion from abroad.
Churches know as well as every other
human group how difficult it is to guard boundaries of buildings and communities without
appearing exclusive and rejecting, or provoking excessive defensiveness among those who
feel they are being taken over by strangers from outside. In the case of government, an overrigid immigration and asylum law runs the further risk of aggravating negative feelings within
the UK against settled minority ethnic groups, or of damaging attempts to build good working
relationships between different racial, religious and national communities.
65
The DSR therefore commends that the following policy issues be endorsed by the
Conference and pressed upon Her Majesty's Government:
1. The right to family reunion for all those who have British citizenship, or are permanently
settled here.
2. The restoration of the right to British citizenship for a child born in the UK of parents with
leave to enter for more than six months (ie, excluding only a child born here whose
parents are short-term visitors or holiday makers). (See paragraph 43.)
3. The simplification of the categories of citizenship (paragraphs 9 and 43), so that there is a
single British citizenship for those born of British nationals and for those granted
citizenship which carries with it the Right of Abode in the UK.
4. A review of the length of stay before which a person may apply for the right of abode and
for citizenship (paragraph 54): a simple rule whereby after seven years as a maximum
those living in the UK, legally or illegally, shall normally be granted the right of abode
would simplify the situation in a humane and responsible way. (This rule would exist
alongside the current rule whereby after four years a person with a work permit or refugee
status may apply for the right of settlement.)
5. Those who over-stay and are caught before they have lived in the UK for seven years
should be dealt with in the light of their total circumstances. They should appear before a
Tribunal who have the power to recommend some form of penalty (eg a fine, followed by
consideration of ELR) or deportation in cases that warrant such an extreme response.
6. When an over-stayer has married and has children born and brought up in the UK, prime
consideration must be given to the needs of the children, in accordance with the
provisions of the Children Act. Deportation of a parent (which means either the break up of
a family or, in effect, a forced transfer of the children to a strange culture) should not be
the penalty imposed. Their case should be dealt with in the spirit of paragraph 65.5 above
and the CCBI call for amnesty (paragraph 54).
7. Government policy on immigration and asylum should not have to be implemented by
commercial organisations (paragraphs 41 and 60). Therefore the 1987 Immigration
(Carriers' Liability) Act should be repealed; and legislation to require employers in the UK
to enquire into the immigration/asylum status of prospective employees should be
resisted.
8. The rights of appeal for visitors and students (removed under the 1993 Asylum and
Immigration Appeals Act) should be restored, as should the element of compassion in
appeals, removed under the 1988 Immigration Act. Legal aid should be restored to assist
appeal processes.
9. The 'primary purpose' rule, intended to prevent marriages of convenience as a means of
entry or residence in the UK (paragraph 34), should be rescinded or significantly modified.
A husband or wife,' lawfully married, who is waiting for permission for their partner living
abroad to enter the UK should be allowed to unite as a married couple at the earliest
possible moment.
10. Detention of asylum-seekers and those requesting immigration should not normally take
place, except on clear written grounds relating to national security or previous absconding
by the individual concerned. All detention should be reviewed by a court with a frequency
which is no less generous than that which is available to prisoners on remand. When a
detainee makes a written request for repatriation, this should be facilitated within 7 days.
11. The 'white list' approach to asylum requests should be resisted, so that all requests for
immigration and asylum are considered on a case by case basis, with due facility for
appeal against negative decisions.
12. While welcoming the transfer of £37 million from the Department of Social Security to the
Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to accelerate the processing of claims
for asylum, we believe that the resources allocated to the Immigration and Nationality
Department must be kept under review. Resources should be available to enable claims
for asylum to be dealt with speedily and by fully trained staff; and to provide support for
staff working in stressful circumstances.
13. A review should be instituted of the basis of UK asylum policy (paragraph 7), with
consideration being given to a revised definition of a refugee: someone in need of
protection because they have lost the protection of their own state.
14. The Government should remove the reservation entered into their ratification of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child relating to immigration and family reunion
(paragraph 46).
66
Appendix
Memorial 68 (1995) called for UK nationality and immigration law to be consistent with the
principles of racial justice. Memorials 70-71 (1995) expressed concern at the treatment of
refugees and asylum-seekers who come to the UK: they highlighted the plight of those held in
detention (particularly in
prisons) and of those deported to so-called 'safe countries'.
The 1995 Conference referred Memorial 69 to the DSR, in consultation with the Racial Justice
Committee. The Memorial called for:
a) A single British nationality for all who are our responsibility in international law.
b) The restoration of the 'lus Soli' - the principle of acquisition of nationality by birth for all
those who are born in the UK.
c) To grant an amnesty for all those who have lived in the UK for five years and all children
born here, giving them the right to permanent settlement.
d) The repeal of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act, 1993.
e) The repeal of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act, 1987.
NM 20 (1995) was largely adopted by the Conference, but two clauses were referred to the
DSR for detailed consideration:


Conference supports the call for amnesty for families living here for more than five years,
with children of at least two born and brought up here, agreed by the Church
Representatives Meeting of CCBI (November 1993), and urges Her Majesty's Government
to reconsider its initially negative response;
Conference requests Methodist churches to consider signing the Sanctuary Declaration
put forward by some of the churches where - as a last resort - sanctuaries have taken
place.
The DSR established a Working Party to review the whole range of issues connected with
nationality, asylum and immigration. The members of the Working Party were:
Rachel Stephens (Chair), Rev Inderjit Bhogal, Rev Hazel Forecast, Rev David Haslam, Rev
Vicky Merriman-Johnson, Mr Naboth Muchopa, Rev Matthew Olanrewaju, Mr Stan Platt, Rev
David G Deeks (Convener).