Lessons of UK £3,000 bond immigration restriction KAYODE KETEFE Nigeria has traditionally had a relatively less tumultuous diplomatic relations with United Kingdom as altercations have been few and far between. The reason for this being attributable to over one hundred and half historical relationship between the two countries. The few notable exceptions that came to mind was the furore generated over the nationalisation of British assets (such as BP and Barclays Bank) by Obasanjo government in the late 70s and the cantankerous issue of Umaru Dikko, featuring the alleged Buhari/ Idiagbon government's botched attempt to spirit away the controversial politician from the UK soil. Now the recent immigration policy announced by UK which clamps conditional entry to visitors of six countries, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Ghana and Nigeria, has ignited another fresh row between Abuja and London. According to the policy visitors from Nigeria (and the other five countries) would now have to advance the sum of £3,000 before being granted entry to UK. The fee shall be forfeited if the visitors stay beyond the approved period. The policy, scheduled to start in November, is aimed at deterring people from the so-called "high risk" countries staying in the UK beyond the short-term allowance on their visas. Expectedly, the policy has attracted unstinted condemnations in Nigeria. The Chairperson of the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mrs. Nnenna Elendu-Ukeje, said "They should realise that it (the policy) is not in the best interests of the UK. We as a country, are going to look at it vis-a vis our citizens and come up with a decision. "We believe it is for political reasons ahead of a general election." The policy is truly an execution of Conservative Party's agenda which has set a target for reducing net migration to UK to less than 100,000 by 2015. Speaking in defence of the policy, the UK Home Secretary, Theresa May, said, '"In the long run we're interested in a system of bonds that deters overstaying and recovers costs if a foreign national has used our public services" Now, it would appear that this policy is not only conceptually negative, but it also brings with it adverse consequences of economic, social and cultural dimensions for the affected countries. To start with, I reckon it is conceptually negative because it is an admission of weakness to impose punishments on everybody hoping to recompense the good ones later. Why can't the UK, with all her scientific and technological wizardry, just fashion out efficient and foolproof method of detecting overstaying visitors and get them deported instead of making everybody to suffer. By analogy, will Nigeria be right to mandate all foreign oil firms to deposit $1 billion as a bond that they would not flare gas upon the condition that the money would be returned in every two years that the pact is not breached? Would it not be more just to go after those that infringe the stipulation instead of the blanket provision? Looking at it from the economic perspective, UK will be reaping enormous profits where it had not shown all in the name of the discouraging illegal immigrants. This is because nothing is said about paying interests to those depositors who merit refund. Imagine, tens of thousands legitimate migrants from Nigeria alone each of whom is deprived of his or her £3,000, not to talk other five countries. Methink interest rate should have been factored in at the rate London Inter Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) Socially, the plan is not only discriminatory, it is also denigrating. Could UK have imposed that policy on citizens of United States or even Japan? Why should I be pre-judged a violator of immigration regulations and ideals by paying a fine ahead (which may be refunded) simply because I want to visit a country? Will France impose such bond to restrict the immigration of citizens of her former colonies? Is the policy not also harsh on honest migrants with legitimate business in UK who cannot afford to pay the bond fee? Those who proposed the policy have thought lightly of the all-round implications it has for affected nations. Culturally, it constitutes a breach of cultural bond between countries that are parts of the Commonwealth of Nations. Why should, say a Chinese, have more auspicious entry terms to UK than a Nigerian or an Indian? Are Nigeria and Indian, Pakistan, Bangladesh who, incidentally are the four biggest countries in the commonwealth, gaining anything from their membership of the Commonwealth? In the final analysis, sentiments apart, a sovereign country cannot be queried about her immigration policies, as she has the right to determine who is to be allowed into her territories. Therefore the real blame redounds to the Nigerian leaders who have run this into her present shameful state. If the Nigerian economy is in good condition and the infrastructure are on the grounds with the ample opportunities for the citizenry to earn decent leaving, and to pursue prosperity and happiness, there will be less centrifugal pressure to rush abroad in search of survival. There is no denying the fact millions of our youths are desperate to get out of this country to escape the broadside of grinding poverty. What makes the matter more painful is that with our enormous natural and human resources, we have no business being in our tragic state of underdevelopment. So, in a nutshell, the imminent UK policy is an indictment of our leaders. |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
No comments:
Post a Comment