Recent weeks have seen the possibility of the Government acquiescing to former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s dreams of introducing digital ID, while the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has recommended against further increases to the family visa income threshold.
Digital ID cards
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper appeared to come round to the idea as a response to undocumented migrants, which is the angle Labour-Right pressure group Labour Together have taken of late.
The Home Affairs Committee has announced an inquiry into the use of a digital ID, also looking into forms of digital identity that already exist, such as eVisas and biometric identification using fingerprints or facial recognition. The Committee will seek to balance the Government’s reported aims of reducing crime and increasing control over the immigration system with drawbacks including the impact on people’s privacy and the cost of introducing such a system. Computer Weekly has also reported on serious data protection and information security failings for One Login, the existing digital identity system for accessing public services.
This move follows other steps towards digitisation, including the eVisa, with its multitude of issues and the incoming Gov.uk ‘wallet’ being developed by the Government, which will use a digital driving licence to help prove age and identity. Proposals for a digital ID card appear to essentially combine the two.
We are concerned that, should these proposals be implemented, migrants would be even more disadvantaged by surveillance and exclusion from society, where a lack of immigration status and/or lack of consideration for those who are digitally excluded, such as disabled and older people, would particularly suffer. We see the same issues with eVisas and oppose existing data-sharing agreements, which digital ID would undoubtedly expand.
Crucially, we reject the foundational “issue” that digital ID seeks to “resolve”, in the form of undocumented immigration and working without the required documentation. A key supposed benefit that has been put forward is making it easier for Immigration and Compliance Enforcement (ICE) to identify and deport people. Legislation already exists under the ‘Hostile Environment’ policies (2014 and 2016 Immigration Acts), which penalise undocumented migrants and prevent them from the right to rent and right to work. We oppose the development of such technologies in order to make the lives of migrants harder.
You can find more of our work on the Digital Hostile Environment here.
Income threshold
The Government commissioned the MAC to review the rise in income thresholds for family visas that the previous Conservative Government had put in place through gradual rises. Initially, the income level requirement was £18,000, and is currently at £29,000, on course to rise to £38,700, to match the required level for skilled workers.
In its report, the MAC recommends against further rises and instead supports a cut in the required income level to between £23,000 and £25,000. It suggests that the current level and projected rises could breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in accordance with Article 8, the right to family and private life. The MAC criticised the initial policy introduced by the former Conservative Government, stating that it “did not understand the rationale” for wanting to raise the family visa income requirement to £38,700, particularly as family visas and work visas are very different, with distinct objectives.
The MAC also criticised the Home Office for not being able to provide them with sufficient data. They’re not the only ones with difficulty getting requested information from the Home Office…
From expanding existing, punitive digitisation of the hostile immigration system in the UK to implementing arbitrary income requirements that prevent families from living together in the UK, the Government is causing further harm to migrants in the name of reducing net migration figures and deporting more people, without concern for people’s lives.
You can find more of our work here on our Hostile Office campaign.