Immigration Zeal: Lance Corporal Baleiwai told to leave

As many people are aware, the debate surrounding immigration in the UK can be fractious, with a very slanted view of the aims and motives of prospective migrants to this country being presented in a way that incentivises tough rhetoric and actions by the powers that be in order to prevent new migration.

In other cases, those who seek a new life and do their outmost to show how much they provide for their new homeland are still forced out of the country as government races to meet the demands of the anti-immigration lobby. This has pernicious effects on those who have done more than most to show their commitment to the country they wish to live, especially those who have fought for Crown and Country.

Take the case of Fiji-born Lance Corporal Isimeli Baleiwai. Known as 'Bale' to his friends, L/Cpl Baleiwai served with the British Army for 13 years, conducting tours in Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and Iraq. He has made a life for himself in this country, marrying a UK national and fathering two children. Despite this, his application for citizenship was turned down earlier this month before being told by the UK Border Agency (UKBA) to leave the country by 9th August.

The application was turned down due to Baleiwai's criminal record, which was gained after undergoing disciplinary proceedings within the army after getting into a small fight with a colleague shortly after his return from Afghanistan in 2010. Thanks to changes in the laws surrounding criminal rehabilitation, this minor incident now has the capacity to tear a man away from his family and the country which he has served with noted distinction, gaining respect from senior officers in the process.

Many people, regardless of their views on immigration, would naturally find such a decision to be callous and illogical. Indeed, many publications noted for its criticism of perceived weaknesses within the Immigration and Asylum system have slammed the decision, yet still within the context of other cases of successful applications being less worthy of remaining in the UK, highlighting the rare cases of terror suspects being given leave to remain in the country under the auspices of the Human Rights Act.

The nature of some of the criticism of the UKBA's decision highlights the flaws of the immigration debate and government's responses to it. No room for nuance is allowed, with migration being viewed almost entirely as a problem to be dealt with, with the positive influences migration can bring being lost in a noise of rhetoric where the words 'scrounger', 'soft touch', 'criminal' and 'influx' are used routinely to describe people of whom a clear majority are seeking a better life in a new land. Against this backdrop, government crafts policy with the knowledge that being seen to be tough on immigration is desirable, leading to decisions being made that cause offence to all and are seen to defy any forms of common sense.

The military tends to be the focal point for such tension between decisions designed to meet demands for low immigration and expectations of who can be granted leave to stay. Many people still remember the huge controversy surrounding the rights of Ghurkhas who served before 1997 to stay in the UK, which sparked a successful campaign spearheaded by Joanna Lumley to grant them the right to stay indefinitely.

The children of these elderly veterans still do not have these rights, with a test case earlier this summer ruling that adult children of Ghurkhas do not the same rights to indefinite leave as their parents. Such poor treatment of British servicemen and their families is the result of government deliberately making the route to citizenship tough for prospective migrants in response to the fractious debate over immigration.

If we want to avoid future cases like the ones involving the Ghurkhas and Lance Corporal Baleiwai, much more needs to be done temper the manner in which the debate around immigration takes place in this country.

There are legitimate questions to answer and discussions to be had surrounding how best we can accommodate new immigrants and whether the country can be able to adapt quickly to demographic change, but until there is a much more explicit recognition of the positive role that immigrants to this country such as Lance Corporal Baleiwai play, government will always play to the lowest common denominator with regards to policy that effects thousands of people every year, denying people who have shown selfless bravery and tearing families apart in the process.

Robert Austin