Population Control in Jersey and other games....

Every few years the States - now known as "government of Jersey" in some quarters dusts off the "population control" game aka "the obstacles to immigrants" challenge.

There is an urgency to this game now because that other seasonal game - the "10 Years Island Plan" - has also to be designed and sold to the ever gullible public PDQ. Some call it the "Decimation Game".

For those interested in Jersey's post Occupation political history I have scanned a couple of images and post them below.
These are from previous attempts - 1979 and 1995/6 - to devise "population and immigration" policies for Jersey and of course they failed miserably.

What I find especially interesting is that I made submissions in both 1979 and 1995 and I am still wasting my time and energies in trying to influence the decision making process - or even  ( I must be deluded) to influence the outcomes.

What is also interesting is to note how few others have stayed the course but a few very significant names are still evident in 2019!

I note that John Young (now President of the Environment aka Planning Department) was in 1996 the COE of that organisation (although it has changed its name and address since then) and John has been knocking Alderney into a different shape too.
Also I note that Mark Boleat chaired the 1995/6  Working Party and he has been Knighted ( I do not know what for)  and as Sir Mark Boleat has just been appointed to head up Andium Homes.
It may or may not be relevant that he was one of Charlie's Chums at Westminster.

Who else might have survived the ravages of time I know not but it is the old ideas legacy  that concern me mostly.
Of course my political aims and objectives remain remarkably similar to those I gained from my mother's breast ( it was acceptable in those enlightened Socialist days) - whereas I fear that those now entrusted with producing the latest population and immigration policies are also still entrenched in their old discrimination based solutions.

Alas, I include the latest crop of "planners" too because they have a traditional reliance upon creating zones for anything that does not move and a belief that all land must have some sort of "farming" use priority even when there are no farmers to work it or realistic crops to produce. Thus "call it green" is their mantra and there is no more to be said or done....

So to cut a long diatribe short - we are inevitably going to come up with similarly flawed policies and plans - if they can be agreed at all.
If you can try to look at the 1979 and 1996 Reports - they are almost as funny as the Beano Yearbook - so ideal Xmas reading.

The Empire Windrush legacy and Jersey population control aspiration in the 2018 General Election

 HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT and TARGETS - the Jersey dimension.

“Hostile Environment” and “Targets” are words that have brought down the UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd. She has resigned.

Britain has suddenly woken up to the reality of the obscene policies that lie behind such words and has conveniently labelled this as the “Windrush” problem after the ship that brought in about 600 Jamaican ( and some Polish) immigrants to London in 1948.

Unfortunately the penny has not yet dropped in Jersey (or Guernsey) where the policy of creating a “Hostile Environment” for “immigrants” has been accepted for decades and is being enforced now with greater enthusiasm than ever.

During the current Jersey General Election there is hardly a candidate who does not propose the application of even harsher “immigration controls”.

Coupled to this is the demand for “targets” of the number allowed in each year and for a maximum population “target” to be achieved.

Making life unbearable so that “immigrants” leave the territory should be so obviously unacceptable to any decent person but where election votes are concerned such values can be trampled on with impunity.

Of course in the UK the pretence that it is “illegal immigrants” that are the “target” has now been exposed as wholly false because the use and mis-use of deportation powers and other punishments have been widely inflicted on almost anybody whose face did not fit the “British” profile.

In part of course, this prejudiced application of arbitrary controls has been fuelled by the campaigning of such groups as UKIP and the BREXIT referendum and its continuing aftermath.

In the UK, landlords, employers, the NHS, Charities, banks and many more have been sucked into the “policing” role of demanding ID cards and police checks to help create an underclass of “foreign”, mainly ethnic origin workers and their families, vulnerable to exploitation with limited access to the social and welfare safety nets.

Those persons in abusive relationships with partners, employers or landlords are often so intimidated that they do not seek help from the Police or other agencies.

UK Immigration laws do apply in the Channel Islands but how they are actually administered is vague.

Deportations from the Islands are usually made known only when a person enters the territory illegally and is arrested at the Ports – usually from St Malo.

However, the next stage of UK controls that demand English language tests, for example, will be in force here and will be added to the disgracefully discriminatory housing and work restrictions that are already in force in the Islands. Those “immigrant” persons who fail the language test – we are told - may be deported from the UK and presumably the Channel Islands too.

Furthermore, Senator Routier’s extraordinary Jersey “population control” measures based upon 10 months or 4 years work permits will be added to the controlling mix. These will apply to ALL so called immigrants into Jersey whether they are British from the UK or “foreign” from EU or any other “non EU” but “foreign” place around the globe.

The status of persons from the BOTs (British Overseas Territories) arriving in the CIs for work or play is not clear.

How the UK government will be induced to approve of such legislation which adds to the existing 5 years (work) and 10 years (housing) qualifications is anybody’s guess.

The Guernsey government already has had to relax recently introduced and restrictive regulations based upon short-term “work permits” because they caused so many workers to leave the Island. Some of these workers – rather like “Windrush” immigrants - were long term residents of Guernsey.

It was the loss of workers and complaints from business that stimulated the panic changes.

Not any sudden discovery of a lost morality.

But evidently, The Channel Islands have been operating policies specifically designed to create a “hostile environment” for decades and the deliberate intention has been to make life so difficult that many (so called) immigrants leave after a few years.

In other words they do not become established in order to claim the benefits of the Social Security and Income Tax or other impositions that they have paid and gain no status in the job market or to obtain proper housing accommodation.

They are second class residents by design.

The Jersey system already requires that all new arrival must obtain a “registration card” for a fee from the Social Security Department and this must be shown before taking employment.

Jobs for new arrivals (except special “key workers”) are generally restricted to those officially described as “low skilled” and not in demand by “locals” – such as catering, cleaning, tourism or agriculture.

After 5 years in such employment a person can enter the general employment market and claim Social Security benefits but there is no unemployment benefit payable in Jersey.

New arrivals are also restricted to lodgings type accommodation for 10 years continuous residence. All resident are supposed to notify changes of employer or home address to the Social Security Department and registration cards must be shown to employers and landlords.

Under the new Routier plan, “immigrant” workers will be required either to leave after about 10 months (seasonal workers) whilst longer term employed must leave after 4 years.

Thus neither category will progress to the 5 year (work and benefits) or 10 years (housing) qualifications sector.

The poor standards of housing accommodation currently available to the 13,000 resident “non quals” workers and their children have not gone entirely unnoticed.

The recent death of a farm worker in his accommodation has highlighted the dilemma and the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry Report (into child abuse since 1945) drew particular attention to the social problems created by such discriminatory policies.

It has featured in several past election campaigns and politicians have promised to deal with the problem and the allied lack of security, low pay and substandard working conditions.

So far there is little actual improvement to be seen although some legislation is now in place regarding the standards of properties to let.

Yet, the “hostile environment”  is  not a critical feature of the current Jersey election but rather - as already referred to - there is almost a competition among many  candidates to put forward the most repressive policies that purport to limit population growth and  preserve jobs and housing accommodation for “locals.”

What might happen as a result of BREXIT is also uncertain.

Whether there will be “free movement” across European borders is still being discussed in London but where those borders might be, whether visas will be required and if the “Common Travel Area” might survive are all uncertain.

What future relationships might exist for the Crown Dependencies with the UK, the EU and the rest of the world is not determined.

The status quo will not prevail.

So far it has been suggested that all those “EU” nationals resident in the UK and the Islands must apply for “settled status” and will thus have a “right to remain” but how this will relate to their dependents in other places, future children, marriages across nationalities or gender or changed circumstances and many other factors, is not at all clear.

Because of the difficulties already found in recruiting workers, the Islands are suggesting that (having virtually exhausted the supply from the UK and the EU) recruits might be found from such as Kenya or the Ukraine who are willing to accept the low pay and poor working conditions instead.

This seems very unlikely – even if the new post BREXIT arrangements with the UK and the EU allow it.

There are about 2 million Filipinos in the Middle East. Many are exploited and abused.

The Philippines government has responded to the death of 7 workers in Kuwait by banning nationals from taking up “low skilled” jobs in that country. The ban may be extended to other countries even though there is a great shortage of employment in the Philippines.

The artificial creation of a “hostile environment” for so called immigrants in Jersey is totally unacceptable and any population control policies based upon “targets” needs to be examined very carefully with Human Rights standards, rather than profit from growth, being uppermost in the minds of those who promote them.

 

 

The "Empire Windrush" made just one voyage in 1948 carrying Jamaicans and some Polish refugees to London.
She caught fire and sank in 1954. Four crew members died.
We should burn the "Hostile Environment" policy for Jersey in her memory.

 

Madalina looking at the wider world from Jersey....some views from a new British migrant...

We are promised a Jersey Population debate soon that will examine issues of Immigration and Emigration.
Similar issues are likely to dominate the May UK  General Election and the result there will have implications for Jersey.

Below is a two-part interview with Madalina who arrived in Jersey 7 years ago as a Romanian but departs this week as a Jersey/ British citizen.

Madalina raises issues that need to be discussed in the Jersey Population debates - but who might raise them? Who speaks for Madalina and ALL the others who are most affected by Jersey's "Population" controls....

Part One video;

Part Two;

Thanks and keep in touch Madalina

Andreea from Romania, Sean from Ireland, Richard from St Helier...all living in Jersey with or without harmony.

Interview above with Andreea

We published here on 26 November 2012 an interview with Mr David Warr of the Chamber of Commerce just after he appeared before the Population, Housing and Control of Work Scrutiny Sub-Panel.

That meeting was very worrying because there was an undercurrent of xenophobia from the States' Members during the discussions.  Several wanted even more extreme restrictions against "immigrants" and there were calls for Photos on ID cards, more spot checks at places of work and at the docks to apprehend "white van man" etc.

Bearing in mind that Jersey is supposed. at long last, to be grappling with the notion of anti-discrimination

 laws, such views were all the more strtartling. It was the sort of loose talk that might be heard in some public bars - but hardly those to be expected from our paid politicians in 2013 - or nearly 70 years after Jersey's liberation from war-time occupation.

On 24 December - Christmas Eve in the Christian diary - we publishd here an interview with Adriana - who was about to return to Romania after a few, not very satisfactory months, working in Jersey.

 Her seasonal tale would no doubt have satisfied the scrutiny sub-panel because she would be vacating accommodation and freeing up the job market to "locals".

Now the Scrutiny Sub-Panel, led by Irish-man Deputy Sean Power has published its report  "Population and Migration Review Part 2" which  is even more dreadfully discriminatory and prejudiced than might have been anticipated.

Today we have interviewed another young Romanian woman - Andreea - who has been working in Jersey for nearly 4 years and her views as expressed are remarkably generous. She offers no strong criticisms of Jersey or the policies that have impacted on her life here. On the contrary, she anticipates her future with enthusiasm, whether it might be here or in India or elsewhere....

HAPPY BIRTHDAY PRIVY COUNCIL....

Really it is my birthday too in a double sense because 30 July was also the date of my Petition to the Privy Council last year objecting to aspects of the absurd Jersey government proposals on Population, Jobs and Housing controls...

Of course nobody reveals what is happening in the corridors of power betwixt St Helier and Westminster but CM Gorst did let slip this week that the delay in implementation is related to the petition...

so cause for celebration on several counts and so I publish the petition here again approaching its first anniversary...don't send me a card or buy expensive presents please, just read and enjoy xxx

The Clerk of the Council                                                                               

Privy Council Office

2 Carlton Gardens

London SW1Y 5AA                                                                             30 July 2011 Jersey

Dear Madam,

PETITION

The States of Jersey Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law and the Names and Address Register (Jersey) Law

I the undersigned resident of the Island of Jersey hereby petitions the Committee of the Privy Council for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey not to recommend to Her Majesty in Council that Royal Assent be granted to the Laws entitled the States of Jersey Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 201- and the Names and Address Register (Jersey) Law 201-, without due consideration of the reasons stated in this petition.

The Reasons for this Petition.

The Assembly of the States of Jersey has recently voted to replace existing legislation including the Housing (Jersey) Law 1949 and the Regulations of Undertaking and Development (Jersey) Law 1973 with the above named Laws.

It has been argued in the States that the new Laws will provide less complicated control over access to housing and  employment besides providing access to better information with regard to making decisions relating to migration and populations policy in Jersey.

However, the petitioner considers that the proposed Laws are intended to perpetuate existing policies that are already discriminatory and divisive and to impose yet further unreasonable limitations on the rights and freedoms of many residents or potential residents, in Jersey.

Furthermore, that the powers sought under these new laws are neither necessary nor desirable in a modern, affluent and democratic society but are rather designed to be oppressive, to create disharmony within this community and infringe universally  and internationally agreed and accepted standards.

Furthermore, since it was repeatedly argued by the proposers of these laws in the States, that they were only the beginning, and that further measures might follow, your petitioner believes very strongly that these should have been fully declared and discussed at the outset.

Also, that this legislation should, in fact, be considered to be a disguised immigration and population controlling device because such measures cannot be enacted openly within constitutional constraints existing between the peoples of the  Island and  those of the United Kingdom and other territories.

Your petitioner has been a campaigner on “human rights” issues in Jersey over many decades and notes with concern that there is still no anti-discrimination legislation in place in this Island (although it has been frequently promised locally and at Westminster) and, furthermore, there are many important international conventions and such-like that have not even been ratified for this Island.

Whilst the proposers of these Laws were required to give a statement of compatibility so far as the European Convention of Human Rights is concerned, the details of the legal advice supporting this statement were not made available (either to States Members or the public). Virtually no other discussion took place of the human rights implications of these Laws among Jersey’s tiny legal profession (which is mostly otherwise engaged in finance industry matters). As a result, neither States Members nor the electorate were enabled to discover or understand what the human rights implications of these proposals might have been.

As has been demonstrated in recent UK court cases regarding (for example), the Chagos Islanders and those of Sark, the liability for the upholding of human rights standards in such places as Jersey is not just a matter for the Islands own governments and administrations. That liability now clearly runs through UK institutions such as the Privy Council Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey and possibly beyond.

Such liabilities can therefore be raised and challenged in UK courts.

Not only does this, by itself, raise profound constitutional issues so far as the residents of Jersey and other places are concerned but it must also be considered that the UK government has ratified many international conventions and treaties which have not been ratified for Jersey. Thus the implications for those seeking redress against a grievance arising under the proposed Laws are much wider than just those protected under the European Convention of Human Rights.

There may also be specific implications so far as the European Union is concerned - since the discriminatory measures enacted under these Laws apply to citizens of the Union who might otherwise have full rights of settlement and abode in British territories elsewhere. EU citizens, in this context might be from the UK, as well as any of the other nations within this organisation and there are different – possibly discriminatory – standards that apply to citizens of other Crown Dependencies, Overseas British Territories or from foreign countries.

The complexities that might arise from the application of these Laws have not been adequately discussed in Jersey and are too numerous to describe in this submission. However, it is evident that many existing residents of Jersey might be subject to retrospective decision making and that existing and future residents might be liable to have important licences or permits revoked or changed. Such decisions might also be taken in accordance with policies that are not clearly defined under these Laws but rely on some vague “aspiration” to control population numbers or immigration.

In this context it must be emphasised that Jersey’s government has operated since 1945 with a central policy based upon economic and population growth. Thus, although existing laws such at the Housing (J) Law 1949 and the Regulations and Undertakings  (J) Laws have included powers to restrict the ownership and occupation of housing accommodation or employment opportunities – the population has been deliberately increased from about 50,000 to the current 92,000 (winter) residents. It is currently proposed to increase the population to 100,000 residents – yet the Laws proposed are deliberately designed to restrict the occupation of proper housing accommodation or to deny employment for many in equity with others.

Thus, the proposed Laws perpetuate discrimination as a deliberate part of the economic and social policies of the Island and there is no plan to ever adequately house the entire population (whether that might be 92,000 or 100,000) or to ensure that all residents enjoy equal employment rights or opportunities.

The application of Island Planning (building) policies, Taxation and Social Security benefits policies need also to be considered in this context because they are also designed to favour certain groups over others on the basis of age, periods of residence, employment or wealth (for example) and add-to, rather than inhibit discriminatory behaviour towards many residents of Jersey, both by government bodies and private organisations or individuals. They are inevitably to be applied in conjunction with other discriminatory laws and policies and with those now currently proposed.

Underlying the whole package of new laws and policies is the centralised data collection and identity card system that will be applied to all residents of Jersey. This raises particular concerns about privacy, confidentiality and use since the information may be freely collected and viewed between different departments, including the Police initially and perhaps all government departments, eventually. It may also be transmitted out of the Island.

Since the Jersey Identity card was only originally agreed in conjunction with the UK card system that has now been abandoned on cost and human rights grounds, the reasons in favour in this Island have not been adequately promoted or examined. This is all the more of concern since the smallness of the Jersey population and the overlapping of so many institutions will ensure that abuse through access to the central  data banks is inevitable.

Your petitioner believes that these proposed laws have not been adequately considered by the States of Jersey or the public of the Island and that their application will be harmful to the interests of the people of Jersey as well of British people and others generally.

Yours faithfully

MICHAEL DUN