The aliens act 1905 and the immigration dilemma

Journal of Law and Society

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 302-323

  Wray, Helena ^a  

^a MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646730551     PISSN: 0263323X     EISSN: 14676478     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6478.2006.00359.x     Document Type: Article

References (173)

1. The account here of the Aliens Act has been drawn from the following contemporary and historical texts: A. Dummett and A. Nicol, Subjects, Citizens, Aliens and Others (1990);
2. B. Gainer, The Alien Invasion (1972);
3. J.A. Garrard, The English and Immigration: A comparative study of the Jewish influx 1880-1910 (1971);
4. L.P. Gartner. The Jewish Immigrant in England 1870-1914 (1960);
5. M.J. Landa, The Alien Problem and its Remedy (1911);
6. T.W.E. Roche, The Key in the Lock: A History of Immigration Control in England from 1066 to the Present Day (1969);
7. P. Shah, Refugees, Race and the Concept of Asylum (2000);
8. D. Stevens, United Kingdom Asylum Law and Policy (2004);
9. and R. Winder, Bloody Foreigners (2004). I have also used, as stated, contemporaneous accounts of the implementation of the Act in the Jewish Chronicle.
10. See Stevens, id., pp. 19-32 for discussion of earlier forms of anti-alien legislation. These provided general powers of exclusion and expulsion but did not seek to establish an administrative structure of entry control.
11. S. Juss, Immigration, Nationality and Citizenship (1993) 32;
12. Dummett and Nicol, Immigration, Nationality and Citizenship op. cit., n. 1, p. 104.
13. In 1909, a high point in the operation of the Act, 1,465 (out of 20,471) applicants were rejected at first instance and 1,347 on appeal to the Immigration Boards (Garrard, Immigration, Nationality and Citizenship op. cit., n. 1. at p. 107).
14. These include the retention of discretionary powers by the Home Secretary, the appeals structure, and the liabilities upon ships' masters, all discussed later in this article.
15. See, for example, M. Dummett, On Immigration and Refugees (2001):
16. N. Harris Thinking the Unthinkable: The Immigration Myth Exposed (2002);
17. T. Hayter Open Borders: The Case Against Immigration Controls (2004);
18. S. Juss, 'Free Movement and the World Order' (2004) 16 International J. of Refugee Law 289-335.
19. Winder, International J. of Refugee Law op. cit., n. 1, p. 198.
20. Juss, International J. of Refugee Law op. cit., n. 3, p. 3.
21. Juss, International J. of Refugee Law op. cit., n. 6.
22. id., at p. 290.
23. See, for example, Articles 13(1), 13(2), 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
24. Juss, International J. of Refugee Law op. cit., n. 6, at pp. 321-7.
25. See, also, H. Overbeek, 'Globalisation, sovereignty and transnational regulation: reshaping the governance of international migration' in Managing Migration: Time for a New International Regime, ed. B. Ghosh (2000).
26. M. Gibney, The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees (2004) ch. 1.
27. For a discussion of these, see id.
28. See, for example, D. Goodhart, 'The Discomfort of Strangers' Guardian, 24 February 2004
29. or G. Freeman, 'Migration and the Political Economy of the Welfare State" (1986) 485 Annals of the American Academy of Social and Political Sciences 51-63,
30. quoted by Overbeek, Annals of the American Academy of Social and Political Sciences op. cit., n. 12, at p. 67.
31. See, for example, Goodhart, id. and R. Rubio-Martin, Immigration as a Democratic Challenge: Citizenship and Inclusion in Germany and the United States (2000).
32. See, for example, W. Menski, 'Immigration and multicultural ism in Britain: new issues in research and policy', available at 〈http://www. casas.org.uk〉.
33. See, for example, B. Parekh, 'British commitments' Prospect, September 2005.
34. See, for example, Dummett, Prospect op. cit., n. 6
35. or Gibney, Prospect op. cit., n. 13.
36. Juss, Prospect op. cit., n. 6, at p. 293.
37. A striking example is the public sympathy which followed the suffocation of 58 Chinese immigrants in the back of a lorry in 2000 or the drowning of Chinese cockle pickers at Morecambe Bay in 2004. While many may be, in abstract, hostile to asylum seekers, the proposed removal of particular individuals frequently results in fierce local campaigning in their defence. A recent example is the Kapecha family from Malawi who received strong support from the community in Dorset where they had been living. The ambivalence that many feel about their obligations towards outsiders is discussed in terms of political theory and, in particular, the challenge to the foundations of liberal theory in id., pp. 316-19.
38. An obvious example is the Liberal Party's 'We will decide' election campaign in Australia in 2001. In the United Kingdom, the period of operation of the primary purpose rule is another example of extreme restriction.
39. For example, Michael Howard, leader of the Conservative opposition, said in a speech on 10 April 2005 which promised harsh immigration controls were he to win the 2005 general election: 'For centuries we've welcomed people from around the world with open arms. We have a proud tradition of giving refuge to those fleeing persecution.'
40. See the discussion in Stevens, op. cit., n. 1. chs. 1 and 2.
41. See UNHCR, The State of the World's Refugees (2000) ch. 7.
42. Harris, The State of the World's Refugees op. cit., n. 6, ch. 4;
43. H. Chang, 'The economic analysis of immigration law' in Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines, eds. C. Brettell and J. Hollifield (2000).
44. See, also, Juss, Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines op. cit., n. 6, p. 315.
45. Winder, Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines op. cit., n. 1, p. 189.
46. The World Bank has found that remittances now exceed both foreign investment and aid as a source of external finance for developing countries (see 'Migrants' cash outstrips aid flow' Guardian, 17 November 2005).
47. See Juss, Guardian op. cit., n. 6, pp. 309-10.
48. C. Joppke, 'Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration' (1998) 50 World Politics 266, at 293.
49. See, also, J. Hollifield, 'Migration and the "New" International Order: The Missing Regime" in Ghosh (ed.), World Politics op. cit., n. 12, at p. 96.
50. Jagdish Baghwati, quoted in Juss, World Politics op. cit., n. 6, at p. 311.
51. See G. Sciortino 'Immigration into Europe and public policy: do stops really work?' (1991) 18 New Community 89-99.
52. See, also, Juss, id., at pp. 311-12.
53. G. Sciortino, 'Towards a political sociology of entry policies: conceptual problems and theoretical proposals' (2000) 26 J. of Ethnic and Migration Studies 213-28, at 223.
54. id., pp. 213-18.
55. The Aliens Act 1905 did not survive the outbreak of the First World War. The current framework for the treatment of refugees has proved more durable, although the 'war on terror' has had a marked impact upon the treatment of foreign nationals and has contributed to the more hostile attitudes towards immigrants evident during the 2005 general election campaign.
56. Dummett and Nicol, J. of Ethnic and Migration Studies op. cit., n. 1, pp. 94-100.
57. Winder, J. of Ethnic and Migration Studies op. cit., n.1, p. 176.
58. id., p. 178.
59. id., p. 195.
60. id., pp. 174-95;
61. Gainer, J. of Ethnic and Migration Studies op. cit., n. 1, ch. 5.
62. See, also, D. Herman, 'An Unfortunate Coincidence: Jews and Jewishness in Twentieth-century English Judicial Discourse' in this issue, pp. 277-301, for a discussion of judicial attitudes towards Jews.
63. Shah, An Unfortunate Coincidence: Jews and Jewishness in Twentieth-century English Judicial Discourse op. cit. n. 1, pp. 31-4.
64. Gainer, An Unfortunate Coincidence: Jews and Jewishness in Twentieth-century English Judicial Discourse op. cit., n. 1, ch. 5;
65. Garrard, An Unfortunate Coincidence: Jews and Jewishness in Twentieth-century English Judicial Discourse op. cit., n. 1, ch. 1; Shah, id.
66. The relationship between the introduction of immigration controls in the United States and in the United Kingdom is beyond the scope of this article. Consideration of the vast literature on United States immigration might begin with R. Daniels and O. Graham, Debating American Immigration: 1882 - Present (2001).
67. Garrard, Debating American Immigration: 1882 - Present op. cit., n. 1, chs. IV and V.
68. id.
69. id., p. 63;
70. Dummett and Nicol, Debating American Immigration: 1882 - Present op. cit., n. 1, p. 100.
71. Juss refers to Nafziger's argument that only during the nineteenth century did the idea that nations had the power to exclude aliens gain pre-eminence in common-law countries and it was not necessarily widely accepted elsewhere during that period (Juss, Debating American Immigration: 1882 - Present op. cit., n. 6, pp. 298-9).
72. Garrard, Debating American Immigration: 1882 - Present op. cit., n. 1, pp. 90-1.
73. id., chs. VI and X.
74. id., ch. IX;
75. Dummett and Nicol, Debating American Immigration: 1882 - Present op. cit., n. 1, p. 102.
76. Dummett and Nicol, id., p. 102.
77. Garrard, Debating American Immigration: 1882 - Present op. cit., n. 1, pp. 41-7.
78. id., p. 34.
79. id., pp. 41-3.
80. id., pp. 44-7.
81. Aliens' Act 1905, s. 1.
82. s. 1(1).
83. s. 2.
84. s. 6(1).
85. The first version of the rules made under the Act were by H.J. Gladstone on 19 December 1905.
86. s. 3.
87. s. 8(4).
88. Instruction to Immigration Officers dated 9 March 1906.
89. ss. 1(5), 3(2), 4(3), 5(2), 7(4)).
90. s. 8 (3). This figure was later temporarily reduced to twelve.
91. s. 8(1).
92. s. 1(3).
93. s. 1(3).
94. N.W. Sibley and A. Elias, The Aliens Act and Right of Asylum (1906) 130,
95. quoted in Shah, The Aliens Act and Right of Asylum op. cit., n. 1, p. 36.
96. Stevens, The Aliens Act and Right of Asylum op. cit., n. 1, p. 40.
97. Landa, The Aliens Act and Right of Asylum op. cit., n. 1, pp. 315-17. This instruction may have been unlawful in that it appears to reverse the burden of proof under the Act which is stated in s. 7(5) to be upon the alien.
98. Shah, The Aliens Act and Right of Asylum op. cit., n. 1, p. 39.
99. Jewish Chronicle (JC), 21 August 1914.
100. Shah, Jewish Chronicle (JC) op. cit., n. 1, p. 39.
101. JC, 29 November 1911.
102. Shah, JC op. cit., n. 1, p. 39.
103. JC, 10 June 1910.
104. See, for example, JC, 1 March 1907, 24 April 1908, 8 May 1908, 2 October 1908, and 21 January 1910.
105. Landa, JC op. cit., n. 1, pp. 222-3.
106. For example, see the description of the search for the anarchist Peter the Painter in Dummett and Nicol, JC op. cit., n. 1, pp. 105-6 with its strong resonance for current fears about terrorism.
107. Roche, JC op. cit. n. 1, p. 78;
108. JC, 31 December 1910 and 10 February, 3 March, 31 March, and 5 May 1911.
109. JC, 3 March 1910.
110. Garrard, JC op. cit., n. 1, p. 107.
111. Roche, JC op. cit., n. 1, p. 75.
112. id., p. 78.
113. Shah, JC op. cit., n. 1, pp. 41-2.
114. There is a further modern resonance here. The difficulties of scrutiny, the absence of adequate information, and the implications for the quality of decision-making have been a long-standing problem for critics of immigration control. See, for example, S. Juss, Discretion and Deviation in the Administration of Immigration Control (1997);
115. E. Stewart, 'Deficiencies in United Kingdom asylum data: practical and theoretical challenges' (2004) 17 J. of Refugee Studies 29-49;
116. and Amnesty International United Kingdom, Get it Right: How Home Office decision making fails refugees (2004). The marginal status of the alien and the difficulties in ensuring effective scrutiny of the decisions which affect them are mutually reinforcing.
117. For a description of the operation such a culture in the entry clearance system, see, for example, Juss, id.
118. JC, 25 October 1907, 12 November 1909, 27 January 1911 or 30 August 1912.
119. JC, 27 January 1911.
120. JC, 8 August 1913.
121. JC, 24 March 1911.
122. JC, 5 September 1913.
123. JC, 17 July 1914.
124. JC, 10 June 1910, 7 September 1906.
125. s. 1(3)(b).
126. See, for example, JC, 19 September 1913 and 23 November 1906.
127. Landa, JC op. cit., n. 1, p. 228.
128. JC, 14 February 1913.
129. See JC, 23 February 1906 and 7 April 1911. The deaf-mute child was eventually permitted to return following a rare public outcry having been cared for in the interim by Jews living in Germany.
130. JC, 1 November 1907, 8 September 1911.
131. Stevens, JC op. cit., n. 1, p. 41.
132. JC, 19 January 1906.
133. Landa, JC op. cit., n. 1, p. 203.
134. id., pp. 199, 204.
135. id., pp. 209-11;
136. JC, 18 October 1907.
137. JC, 18 October 1907.
138. JC, 7 June 1907, 18 September 1908
139. JC, 7 January 1907.
140. Landa, JC op. cit., n. 1, p. 206.
141. Shah, JC op. cit., n. 1, p. 38.
142. See the discussion in Landa, JC op. cit., n. 1, pp. 206-20.
143. See n. 70 above.
144. See, for example, Landa. JC op. cit., n. 1, p. 235
145. Roche, JC op. cit., n. 1, pp. 68-9.
146. Landa, id., Part I.
147. See A. Allott, The Limits of Law (1980)
148. and D. Galligan, 'Authoritarianism in Government and Administration: The Promise of Administrative Justice" (2001) 54 Current Legal Problems 79
149. Empirical studies include K. Hawkins, Environment and Enforcement: Regulation and the Social Definition of Pollution (1984);
150. I. Loveland, 'Irrelevant Considerations? The Role of Administrative Law in Determining the Local Connection of Homeless Persons' in Administrative Law and Government Action, eds. G. Richardson and H. Genn (1994);
151. S. Halliday, 'The Influence of Judicial Review on Bureaucratic Decision-Making' (2000) Public Law 97.
152. Shah, Public Law op. cit., n. 1, p. 40;
153. Gainer, Public Law op. cit., n. 1, p. 201;
154. Gartner, Public Law op. cit., n. 1, p. 279;
155. Garrard, Public Law op. cit., n. 1, p. 132.
156. Shah, id., p. 40.
157. Garrad, Public Law op. cit., n. 1, p. 133.
158. Landa, Public Law op. cit., n. 1, pp. 234-5.
159. JC, 5 May 1911
160. See, for example, Galligan, JC op. cit., n. 116,
161. and K. Hawkins, Law as Last Resort (2002) 47-8.
162. Michael Howard, leader of the Conservative opposition, proposed withdrawal during the 2005 general election campaign but in circumstances in which his election was unlikely.
163. Proposals for reform have included temporary protection programmes (see 'Home Office set to rewrite Geneva refugee agreement' Guardian, 5 October 2002) or the so-called 'British proposal' for 'regional protection zones'. Even Michael Howard did not suggest abandoning all commitments towards refugees.
164. See L. Hassan, 'Deterrence measures and the preservation of asylum in the United Kingdom and United States' (2000) 13 J. of Refugee Studies 184-204,
165. and S. Chakrabarti, 'Rights and Rhetoric: The Politics of Asylum and Human Rights Culture in the United Kingdom' (2005) 32 J. of Law and Society 131-47.
166. Amnesty International, op. cit., n. 87, chs. 3, 4, and 5.
167. R (on the application of European Roma Rights Centre & ors) v. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport & anor [2004] UKHL 55.
168. Lord Bingham of Cornwall, id., para. 3.
169. H. O'Nions, 'Bonafide or Bogus? Roma Asylum Seekers from the Czech Republic' (1999) Web J. of Current Legal Issues at 〈http://webjcli.ncl.ac. uk/1999/issue3/onions3.html〉.
170. A similar point may be made about other highly restrictive measures. For example, the primary purpose rule was only ever proposed as a means of preventing abuse despite its highly discriminatory application.
171. See Home Office, Controlling our Borders: making migration work for Britain -Five year strategy for asylum and immigration (2005; Cm. 6472) 18, and s. 4 of the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Act 2006. For the views of universities,
172. see 'Universities defiant over student visas' Guardian Education, 6 July 2005. For a critique of the administrative approach,
173. see F. Lindsley, Report by the Independent Monitor (Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) (2005) and earlier reports.