Yes! – Sean Ford
My support for the government in this instance is not based on ideology or any reason pertaining to Heather Mayer, the student involved, but on the fact that facing a difficult problem, the government made a decision and has stuck by it.
This individual case represents a much larger and more topical issue – that of immigration and population debates. Population in the UK is set to reach the 70 million mark by 2027 according to the latest from the Office for National Statistics. It was with this in mind that the government made its pledge to tighten the number of people immigrating to the UK, in particular those from outside the European Union.
Theresa May’s plans to limit immigration to ‘tens of thousands’ by 2015 as opposed to the ‘hundreds of thousands’ during Labour’s tenure seems to be a necessary step. There is no denying that policies such as these will cost the UK in terms of wasted opportunities and talent as we are forced to turn some immigrants away, but I think it is fair to say that the situation prior to these initiatives was not sustainable.
Now the question is why has an Oxford student, who was deemed democratically as the best candidate for an important role within one of the country’s most historic universities, been blocked a visa back to the country. It may seem harsh, unfair and perhaps foolish on behalf of the Border Agency to deny a visa to Heather Mayer but, as we have seen, the second place candidate has been able to fill the position and so there is no lasting damage.
The criticism of these types of policies is that they pander to extremism and are more populist than practical. Yet they are not draconian or bigoted in their intentions, rather they are reflective of a real problem in this country. The government has done right to stick by its decision.
No! – Joe Miles
The refusal of a work visa to the President-elect of the Hilary Sports Council is a reminder to be wary of the nonsensical policies that often originate from Whitehall. If you need a chairperson for your society, you now have to pore over Hansard to ensure that their presence here is legal. You could always criticise Mayer for not being aware of the border policy of the country that she migrated to, but that would miss the point.
If we take a cynical reading of the new immigration policy, it seeks to reassure an ill-informed contingent of the population that people aren’t swarming over here to take billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and then just sit around watching telly. Never mind the fact that migrants from the expanded Eastern bloc aren’t allowed to claim any benefits for five years after moving here. Let’s assume that’s what people think. On that reading, this move still makes no sense.
To put into context how ridiculous this decision was, Australia has a highly stringent system which only grants visas to migrants who have a job offer. Mayer was seeking work and was still refused a visa here. This simply sends the message to highly qualified foreign applicants that even if they can find employment here we still don’t want them around.
Certain “universities” are effectively degree mills that aim to circumvent the UK immigration system. However, it is not asking too much for the immigration department to make a distinction between those institutions and trusted universities that contribute to the economic wellbeing of this country. This is costly and requires greater funding of the UKBA than we have now. Given our parlous economic situation and the need for skilled workers, it’s not a distinction we can afford not to make.
