Byline: Rashmee Roshan Lall

LONDON: An estimated 30,000 Indians who left the mother country to work in Britain on the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) have begun the fraught task of taking the UK government to court for its allegedly racist new immigration policies.

The

Britain's new, strict HSMP rules, which officially came into force on December 5, will force Indians and other South Asians to leave the country because they no longer fit the highly-skilled migrant category. The new rules disenfranchise potential non-European migrants over 28 years old and earning UK salaries less than ? 35,000, say the affected Indians, British immigration lawyers and immigration campaigners.

Amit Kapadia of the newly-formed HSMP Forum that represents those affected by the changed rules told TOI on Tuesday "most Indians will no longer be eligible to stay on in Britain under the HSMP because the government is clearly trying to remove migrants like us. They unfairly say you will only qualify if you are younger and better paid even though the average Indian highly-skilled migrant can reasonably be expected to be over 28 years old".

He added, more in sorrow than in anger, "What is the difference between these people (the British authorities) and Idi Amin, who threw Indians out of Uganda one morning?"

Rhian Benyon of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), an independent voluntary organisation campaigning for justice and combating racism in immigration and asylum law, told TOI, "Britain's reform of its system of economic migration creates a definite, if indirect racial disadvantage for Indians and others from non-European Economic Area countries".

The JCWI is just days away from launching a massive political and public information campaign against the new rules.

The changed HSMP rules are the third in a series of stringent changes to immigration policy, making Indians unwelcome in the UK. In April, Britain suddenly announced migrants would need to have lived here five years instead of four to qualify for permanent residence. A few months later, it barred Indian and other non-European doctors from arriving to study and work here. By year-end, it changed HSMP rules. The first two changes to immigration rules are already mired in legal challenges.

The new rules may come under judicial review once the Indians' case is filed at the High Court in London. But when and if that happens, a verdict is not expected for several months. Chris Randall, chair of the Immigration Law Practitioner's Association (ILPA) representing 1,200 barristers, solicitors and advocates across Britain, told TOI, the case might be a challenging one.

At least 49,000 migrants are expected to be affected by the new rules, of which at least 60 per cent are Indian and the majority of the rest Pakistani and Bangladeshi.

In a sign of the seriousness of the situation for Indians, officials of the Indian High Commission have met those affected by the new rules. The High Commission is understood to be keen to lobby the British Home Office and Foreign Office for a fairer immigration policy that does not disenfranchise Indians and other Commonwealth nationals.

The new rules have already drawn fierce criticism from ILPA, which asked - and was peremptorily refused - a request to meet immigration minister Liam Byrne last month, warned that the new rules with the deeply unfair points system could prevent even high-profile entrepreneurs such as Steve Jobs, co-founder and chief executive of Apple Computer, from qualifying for the right to work here.

The new rules would stop talented individuals from entering the country while migrants already here "will not now qualify to extend their leave to remain (in a move that was) unfair and unreasonable".

But the minister insisted the government had no reason to consult widely with affected stakeholders. He said "We have made these changes in order to make sure that the people who succeed under the programme are those who will make the greatest contribution to the UK economy, to make the requirements clearer and more objective and to make sure that the programme is robust against abuse."

The JCWI said Britain's hardline new immigration policy with respect to non-EEA nationals was part of a larger plan that factors in "an expanded European Union (of 27 countries) and the belief that Europe should now be the reservoir of all labour market requirements".

It added that Britain's new immigration rules for "all non-EEA nationals, including those from the developing world, wishing to immigrate for work and study, is in danger of replicating the racial injustice which is a feature of our socially unjust planet with its huge gaps in international wealth and development."

It said Britain was being hypocritical in insisting it would make all its laws non-discriminatory but leaving immigration law outside the purview of this.