Plans to combat forced marriages finalised
The government has finalised a number of proposals relating to marriage between British and non-EU citizens, which are due to take effect on the 27th of this month. The key points are:
-Both the British and non-EU partner must be at least 21 years old before a marriage visa is issued.
-A Briton who gets married abroad must register this intention before leaving the UK.
-Some applicants will have English tests, with the rest needing to demonstrate how they plan to learn English once in Britain.
For once, this doesn’t appear to be a knee-jerk government response to a situation, but rather a relatively calm and considered bill. The promise to work with the Forced Marriage Unit (FMU), detailed in this pdf, is especially gratifying, as they are the only specialist government body with experience in this field.
However, I still have some concerns about this. The requirement to learn English could turn out to be a double-edged sword, as women from abroad are ay risk of deportation if they do not learn it fast enough, which would give the husband’s family more power over them. In addition, as no public funding is being provided for training, they would control the purse strings too. Yes, the FMU will be there to help the Home Office, but with very limited resources they will only be able to do so much.
One also wonders whether or not raising the marriage age to 21 and making it a requirement to register your intention with the authorities will actually reduce the number of forced marriages. A victim of forced marriage (according to the FMU) is more likely to be in the 17-20 age bracket than any other. But if the marriage age was raised to 21, then it is entirely possible that families would simply wait until their children were 21, then force them to marry. In the four years that the FMU has been recording data, they have dealt with 268 victims aged 17-20, but also 171 victims aged 21-24. Alternatively, British females (and occasionally males), could be sent abroad, especially to Pakistan, for safe-keeping until they turn 21.
What would be nice would be for ministers to promise to repeal the ‘no recourse to public funds’ rule (pdf), which stops many non-British victims in this country from leaving abusive households, because they have no way of supporting themselves, unless through private charity, or the sacrifice of a refuge’s scarce resources.
There are also the questions about the freedom to for adults to marry whoever they want, without registering their intentions with the state. Leaving this aside though, some of the government’s planned legislation is good, but I am pessimistic about how it will work in practice.
Rumbold - I think it is a sensible, measured article. I think you are right in the great bulk of what you say. Saying that, I do have a few niggles. For the record, I married a non-EU national and perhaps my personal experience colours my thinking.
The fudamental difficulty to my mind with immigration as a whole and marriage in particular is that this is as close to legislating for motive as it gets. This is generally a unwise route to legislate and I sympathise with the authorites in this as they face a very, very difficult task with, often, no right answer.
My main niggle is that this rather seems to rest on an unspoken assupmtion that marriage immigration policies should be informed primarily by marriage traditions from specific parts of the world - you mention Pakistan. It shouldn’t. For example the intention for registering intent looks like an attempt to prevent short-lived, ephemeral marriages rather than forced marriage per se. That’s no bad thing.
Similarly, whilst I see your point about English language, I think that the policy is right. This has to be about integrating legitimate immigrants (my wife had no objection at all to having her language tested), not setting hurdles for all with a specific type of forced marriage in mind.
The same applies to NRPF. Even if lifting that would fly politically (not in a million) I suspect that there are better ways to handle the issues you detail outside of the immigration system. NRPF is, very much on balance, the right thing.
I imagine that the age limit was not raised beyond 21 to avoid penalising entirely legitimate marriages nothing to do with force.
Your concerns Rumbold are entirely legitimate. However I think that what I am getting at is that the liberty to marry and the legal restrictions on it should not be informed by forced marriage concerns in certain communities.
There are an awful lot of grey areas here and one case is very different from another - even where there are extensive similarities on the face of it. The FMU and government deserve some praise here, as do you for a thoughtful article.
Rumbold, individuals who enter the UK as spouses whose relationship subsequently breaks down within the two year ‘qualifying’ period can apply to remain in the UK as victims of domestic violence (Immigration Rules 289A-289C)if this is appropriate.
289A (iv) states: ‘is able to produce such evidence as may be required by the Secretary of State to establish that the relationship was caused to permanently break down before the end of that period as a result of domestic violence’.
The relevant caselaw states that SoS cannot restrict such evidence, for example to corroborative reports from certain recognised specialist women’s shelters. Usually a corroborative police report stating that a complaint has been made against the abusive spouse and indicating police action is enough on the balance of probabilities standard.
As an aside, I think that 21 as opposed to 18. 19 or 20 is not likely to make a huge difference in equipping an individual with the life skills necessary to ward off proposals amounting to forced marriage. I’d have placed it at 23, by which time (especially for females) parents would agree to marriage to a Brit Cit, which will be more in accord with the desires of most younger South Asians. It would also give girls breathing space to obtain a University degree and empowerment. But MM is correct to state that this would impinge on the vast majority of unions involving non-EU partners which are genuine. It’s a very delicate balance. As it is the 21 age limit may be challenged under HR laws in the courts.
21 is infinitely better than 16 though when it comes to being equipped to stand up for yourself.
I welcome the Government’s revised stance wholeheartedly. They will without doubt help at least some young people to avoid forced marriages, which is the only criteria necessary in my view. Everyone else will work around it- they will be fine.
This legislation represents the ’stick’, the state’s move to enforce standards. There will not be much more legislation in this area now unless the Conservatives make good their promise to criminalise forced marriage (fingers crossed).
What we need to go with this legislation is the ‘carrot’, the soft encouragement that must come from the community at large and the voluntary sector to help empower young people to make their own choices. This is where the Asian media needs to step up to the plate, and have the courage to ruffle a few feathers…
Cautious optimism is definitely the order of the day here.
I don’t really see this:
‘The requirement to learn English could turn out to be a double-edged sword, as women from abroad are at risk of deportation if they do not learn it fast enough, which would give the husband’s family more power over them.’
Surely in a way it means more power for the women, since they will be able to gain the ability to communicate for themselves? Surely if the husband’s family is already threatening the girl, then this extra thing is not going to make that much more difference in the power they have over her? I may just be failing utterly to understand what you’re saying. Although, I must ask, what level of English are they supposed to be attaining?
‘Alternatively, British females (and occasionally males), could be sent abroad, especially to Pakistan, for safe-keeping until they turn 21.’
If only there was a way for visa applications to be vetted for intent to marry forcibly…!
Your article does raise the question of: how are the govt going to deal with the effects (the victims of this) rather than just aiming for prevention?
And just to warn you, you’ve written ‘aboard’ instead of ‘abroad’ (repeatedly), ‘then’ instead of ‘than’, ‘then’ instead of ‘them’, and that should be ‘at risk’, not ‘a risk’.
(I only do it because I care, remember that. Only because I care… for the falling spelling standards of today! ;-D).
Ashik (2) - Yes, I do think that this is getting too far into the ‘South Asian’ angle. Equally I fully agree that there are some real sensitivities here and the stark reality here is that as we are essentially legislating for motive there probably is no one right answer that will suit everyone.
An age of 23 may let women go to university to get some empowerment, it could equally mean they spend five years at home doing the sum total of naff all. It may leave perfectly good couples disadvantaged for seven years. MixTogether (3) - yes couples will work around the rules, what I don’t see is why they should be put in the position of having to.
Part of the problem is that motives may well change. My wife never had any motive to marry when she first came but her motives to stay in the UK changed. Indeed Amrit (4), even if visas could be vetted as you suggest the terms may change. It is an absolute minefield. The government and FMU are to be praised here for striking a difficult balance. Especially praiseworthy is that there is no suggestion that we are going back to the la-la land that was the primary purpose rule and its requirement that couples demonstrate a negative.
My issue remains though that I more and more sense that immigration through marriage is being distorted by concerns (legitimate or otherwise) about one particular category community.
I have no idea what could be done about that - anyone got any ideas?
I’m a bit concerned at the age limit. You can vote at 18 but you can’t choose to marry someone from a non eu country till you’re 21? did i get that right?
As for language..i can understand the concern around keeping women especially in the house so they can’t go out and therefore use this as a way of control, but also see Ashiks point of view too…
There is not doubt that there needs to be legislation in place but alongside law, there needs to be action on the ground from the wider communities not just from local cash strapped organisations.
In terms of English classes, i’ve seen some of the things being taught in these classes in west london and a lot of the ‘factual’ stuff is hilarious. Theparticular class I am talking about was given a paper which said that november is a month of remembering the dead..in general..not just those who have died in the war…excuse me??? I was never taught that.
Also, apparently, Indian people first came here as servants…complete crap…the explanation of British history is dire. As for the whole language issue, although it is important, it is again placing the onus of intergration on a minority of people.
i meant to say Amrit’s points…
“This is where the Asian media needs to step up to the plate, and have the courage to ruffle a few feathers..” true, but I really don’t see them doing that..they’re too busy reviewing shitty bollywood movies and ’stars’
MaidMarian:
Thanks for that. And for your other kind words.
But should short-lived marriages be a concern for the state? Or rather, should the state have the right to legislate in order to achieve an ‘optimum’ marriage time? I understand what you are saying, but I still think that particular clause could be a step too far.
But once again, leaving aside forced marriages, is this any of the state’s business? Yes, English is very useful, but should everyone have to have a minimum standard? Isn’t just obeying the law of the land enough? What about the natives (and I am being serious)?
I agree that politically it is unviable, and that repealing it has lots of potential pitfalls. It would be nice though if the legislation allowed for the funding of immigrant women (and some men), who flee to domestic violence shelters. After all, how many of them are there going to be?
Ashik:
Really interesting. And thank you for noting the specific clauses. I had heard something about this previously, but was not sure of the details.
Amrit:
What I was arguing (though Ashik has pointed out there are safeguards), was that if a woman had to learn English on pain of deportation, and it was the husband’s family paying for it, that would simply be another way to control and threaten her.
I appreciate the spelling corrections, though I am not sure I would use ‘repeatedly’ to describe something that happened twice.
Sofia:
They first arrived as lascars, or workers on ships, and had little freedom, so ’servant’ is not too inaccurate. Unlike with the Persians (who send an ambassador in 1626), there is not really any desire to dispatch high-ranking Indians to this country in the 17th century.
so the first indian to come to this country was a servant?
my point being that the history that these people are being taught is out of context and derogatory in many places.
lascars were not exactly servants!
Rumbold:
‘What I was arguing (though Ashik has pointed out there are safeguards), was that if a woman had to learn English on pain of deportation, and it was the husband’s family paying for it, that would simply be another way to control and threaten her.’
OK… Thanks for clearing that up, I think that fatigue is rendering me incapable of understanding even the most basic of things *weeps*.
‘I appreciate the spelling corrections, though I am not sure I would use ‘repeatedly’ to describe something that happened twice.’
Sorry about that, blame the fatigue again. I think I saw ‘aboard’ twice and my brain just went ‘All aboard the Knackered-Out Express!‘ and packed in. I must point out that you have written ‘ay’ instead of ‘at’ though, and in the 17-20 age-bracket sentence, you still need to correct yourself to ‘than’…
‘Yes, English is very useful, but should everyone have to have a minimum standard? Isn’t just obeying the law of the land enough? What about the natives (and I am being serious)?’
*clears throat*
*snickers*
OK, OK, I’m gone.
Rumbold (9) - Agree with the bulk of that. In terms of why is it the state’s business, it’s stark reality time.
The financial cost of failed marriages of any type tends to end up being borne by the state, or that’s the perception. The public that fund the state demand steps be taken to mitigate the risk.
On balance I think that this really is not the state’s business but were in the position where I was accountable for decisions on this, I would probably be thinking in similar terms. It’s nothing to be proud of, I know.
Still saying that this thread has revealed a surprising amount of agreement on a minefiled of an issue. A good thing.
Sofia:
They were servants in the sense that they had very little control over their conditions/pay/general treatment. Yes, they were manual workers, but it is not wrong to say that the first Indians in this country (though not necessarily the ones that settled), were near the bottom of the pile. The Mughal Vizier at the time considered sending an embassay to England during the 1610s, but then, for reasons never explained, did not.
Amrit:
Hosted by my own petard. Ah well.
MaidMarian:
Good point, though couldn’t that be more to do with any children of that union as well?
It is a minefield, but as you say, it is nice to see agreement in some areas, or at least an awareness of the issues. Ashik should be thanked once again for the information that he provided.
I agree totally that forced marriage needs to be forced and indeed the perpetrators jailed.
But setting the marital age to 21 for non-EU people is absurd and discriminatory. What is special about an EU person that makes them capable of deciding for marriage at 16 while a nonEU person must be at least 21 ?
If anything in general men and women outside the EU are more mature at 16 than their EU countrparts having to have shoulder much more responsibility ; not having a state to look after them
And does anyone think that people who want to wont get round this by simply bribing an official to make a birth certificate that the spouse is 21?
Its just cosmetic