If you've been following my work lately, you'll know I've been looking at what can be done at the local authority level to affect remigration. I've covered HMOs extensively but there are more flanking policies we should look at. I'm of the view that immigration enforcement should be an integral part of local authority activity.
There have been some recent experiments with this. In 2022, the Home Office placed immigration officers in child social services and dozens of other local authority departments. The only recent details I can find are in a Guardian report:
The officers are part of an “enhanced checking service” that includes providing information about people’s right to work and their eligibility for council services. The embedded official can also pass the details of undocumented people to immigration enforcement officers.
These immigration officers have been placed in 25 local authorities, according to records obtained under freedom of information (FoI). They work across services dealing with vulnerable people including children, as well as homelessness, social care and mental health provision. Others using the arrangement since 2016 also include Transport for London and HS2.
Several of the “customers” for this service are specifically child social care teams, but documents state that officers are expected to work across a range of local authority services.
The on-site immigration officer service was reported by the Observer in early 2019. The revelation that the Home Office was “hiring out” immigration officials to enforce the government’s hostile environment policy was met with outrage from critics, leading many local authorities to eject the officers, and the Home Office to remove information about the service from government websites.
The then shadow minister for immigration, Stephen Kinnock, said: “Keeping children safe is an absolute priority and there should be no action that puts that at risk. The Home Office must explain what exactly these officers are doing and how they can guarantee that their work does not deny vulnerable children the support or protection they need.”
Mary Atkinson, campaigns officer at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said: “It’s chilling to hear that government have been entrenching hostility into the services that families rely on for help and protection. Just like the hostile environment in healthcare, we know this practice spreads fear in our communities, and prevents people from seeking support.
“It’s time government ended this dangerous and discriminatory approach – every resident should be able to put their trust in local councils at times of need.”
Colin Yeo, an immigration law barrister at Garden Court Chambers, said: “Councils are not legally obliged to collaborate with the immigration authorities in this way and it is disappointing to see them voluntarily creating a hostile environment for vulnerable migrants. Enforced removals and voluntary returns are very rare now so all this does is force people underground who need help and support to get on their feet.”
Much has been written about the NGOcracy and the blob in Whitehall, but the problem also extends to local authorities, many of which are captured by the so-called lanyard class. One of the key pillars of remigration is to come down hard on vagrancy. Homeless support charities once did refer cases to the Home Office until NGOs stuck their oar in and lobbied to boycott the Home Office.
At the end of 2021, the 12 local authorities that still had immigration officers working with them on behalf of the Home Office were: Barking & Dagenham, Barnet, Bexley, Enfield, Essex, Greenwich, Hertfordshire, Hillingdon, Slough, Sutton, Thurrock, and Newham.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “Local authorities can request dedicated support on immigration related matters, with advice on specific cases where appropriate, but this is voluntary and aims to help vulnerable migrants, particularly single mothers and families with small children, to resolve their status. It is usually used to help those who are destitute access appropriate support.
This sums up the problem. We see illegal immigrants. They see "vulnerable people". Therein lies the divide. The mindset is that local government is in itself a support charity for all comers regardless of their status as citizens.
This is perhaps where councillors on the right could focus their activities. Reform Chairman Zia Yusuf has today rightly expressed his desire to come down on HMO landlords intent on accepting a golden Serco contract to house illegal migrants. In typical fashion, Reform has only half understood the point about HMOs and their role in the grey economy that sustains illegal immigrants.
But as we see from the above, a broader culture change is needed in local government to put our own people first, and to ensure those who have no right to be here are referred to the Home Office, regardless of their sob story. As much as we need to clear out the state-funded NGOs in Whitehall, local charities must also be chased out of town, especially if they've declared their intent to boycott referrals to the Home Office.
Since councils can avail themselves of Home Office support in immigration matters, Reform's new intake of councillors would do well to to press for a restoration of local immigration officers, along with an increased tempo of trading standards and environmental health inspections to deal with rogue HMO landlords and money laundering fronts.
All of us can dream up fantasy wishlists of what we would like to see from a future right wing government. There's certainly a lot more we could do if we left the ECHR and repealed the HRA etc, but I still believe it is a useful thought exercise to look at all the measures we can take within the existing legal framework. A lot can be done with only minor adjustments to law provided there is proper enforcement. I'm not saying we should scale down our policy ambitions, but it pays to promote pragmatic solutions that even Labour could adopt. At the very least, it buys the country time.
Stephen Kinnock, said: “Keeping children safe is an absolute priority and there should be no action that puts that at risk. The Home Office must explain what exactly these officers are doing and how they can guarantee that their work does not deny vulnerable children the support or protection they need.”
But when it comes muslim child rape gangs it is a much lower priority according to Labour. After all, they don't want to offend their electorate, do they? We are a two-tier society and white British people (especially children) are not in the top tier so are clearly underserving of such protection..