To what extent do British Border Agencies have the sovereignty to effectively police Britains borders, in Britains interests?

The very concept of Britains interests when it comes to immigration is a complex issue due to the multi-cultural nature of Britain itself. Britain geographically is composed of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island. Cultural unrest at the dominance imposed in governance by England can be evidenced by heightened Scottish nationalism leading up to and eventually appeased by the creation of the Scottish Parliament in the Scotland Act 1998. Culturally, Britain has been multicultural for generations, since it acted as a refugee hub during the first and the Second World War. Presently in 2012, it is part of the European Union which encourages open borders and consequently has one of the most diverse cultural demographics in Europe. Sovereignty means supreme and independent power, in the UK the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is generally followed. It is also the ability to give up sovereignty in certain cases in order to create pooled sovereignty or to delegate power to other bodies. This is specifically important for immigration as the principle of subsidiarity applies, the principle of governance at the appropriate level. The principle is that as parliament has a mandate to rule as they are elected by the people they have absolute power to make decisions. The decisions that they make become law, and in turn the various police forces enforce that law. In the case of immigration, laws are made that govern who is allowed into the country and who isnt. UK Border Agencies (UKBA) are tasked with ensuring that there are not people in the country who shouldnt be. However, they are undermined by arguable attacks on their sovereignty. There is some dispute as to what rights sovereignty actually gives a state. It has been disputed whether being a sovereign state justifies the right to exclude without justification. The difficulty is, that the very term sovereign state is difficult to legally define, because in immigration cases the migrant in question isnt disputing the sovereign states right to make the decision or indeed their sovereignty. Usually, in a dispute of sovereignty it is over two powers which are contesting each others right to rule. An example would then be the European Court of Human Rights contesting the sovereignty of the UK to choose who is eligible to vote in regards to prisoners. However, in immigration cases the relevant case studies are unable to be applied. In the text On the Right of Exclusion, Bas Schotel argues the various arguments that are commonly used in this dispute. The two major arguments are territorial integrity and jus excludendi alias. The third was property theory which stated that a state could rule a migrant as trespassing on their property, however this was disproven as a country does not count as property in law. The Territorial Integrity theory states that a state needs to protect its territory as after sustained immigration its cultural integrity will be diminished and accordingly it will no longer remain part of the state. However, this theory is proved wrong by the absence of a right of migrants to challenge the territorial integrity of a state as individuals cannot make jurisdictional claims only public entities of international law can do this. However, ultimately as can be shown by the UK government overruling ultimatums given by Brussels power remains in the sovereign state. Therefore, if a country has a claim to be sovereign they can ultimately exclude without justification regardless of if they have a ability in law or not. The greatest threat to UKBAs independence in enforcing immigration law is membership of the European Union. Under the Maastricht Treaty signed in 1992 any European Union Citizen has the right to move freely across borders and work in any capacity in member countries. This was later clarified by the treaty of the functioning of the European Union to mean any citizen of a European

Union member country may move freely across any member borders and may reside and work there if they wish. This directly countermands the concept of parliamentary sovereignty being enforced by the UKBA, but also means that the UKBA dont have the ability to prevent members of EU member states access to the UK. This can be argued to not be a conflictual detriment to state sovereignty as the UK gave up that right by signing the Maastricht Treaty 1992. However, conversely it is still a reduction of state power regardless of voluntary or not. What can be argued to be more significant is membership of the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 which subjects us to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights which can override the British Supreme Court at will. While the membership of the Maastricht Treaty 1992 was a voluntary delegation of sovereign power in regards to immigration as per article 48. However, the European Convention of Human Rights was created to combat human rights violations in response to the holocaust during the Second World War. However, when signed it was not intended to be applicable in regards to immigration. Accordingly, it can be argued to be an erosion of Sovereignty as opposed to voluntary delegation. Therefore the European Convention of Human Rights actually removes the Sovereignty of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It is even more controversial when applied to cases like Ab Qatda who was ruled to be eligible for extradition by the British Supreme Court but was overulled by the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that evidence that had been gained via torture could be used against him. This can be seen as controversial as Ab Qatda has Jordanian citizenship which is not a member of the European Court of Human Rights. One of the most threatening dangers to the UKBAs ability to uphold British interests is a reduction of funds available under the 2010 spending review. It was decided by UK government to reduce the UKBAs budget from 2.2 billion to 1.76 billion. This will have the effect of 5200 jobs to be cut by 2015 this is of a total 25,000 staff. Therefore, the workforce has been reduced by twenty per cent, for an organisation that was struggling to meet targets in the first place. Since 2011 the UKBA has been subject to critical evaluation in regards to performance. In November 2011 head of the UKBA resigned in regards to controversies earlier that year. It became apparent that due to extensive queues border agency officials ceased biometric passport validation checks. It is also believed that many of the checks to determine enemies of the state were suspended in Heathrow and Calais. This was decided as to prevent irritance in the travelling public. It can be speculated that if a full budgeted UKBA was struggling to maintain a basic performance an understaffed and under resources UKBA will be unable to meet basic targets. Ominously in the forthcoming Olympic games and Queen Elisabeths Diamond Jubilee the UK will be subject to an all-time high of visitors over a short period of time. The performance of the UKBA can be evidenced by a report from the Parliamentary Ombudsman Ann Abraham entitled fast and fair. The agency had consistently generated a large number of complaints, in the first nine months of 2009-2010 478 complaints were made and over 33 investigations 97% of the 478 complaints were upheld. The performance of the UKBA was summarised by the independent Chief Inspector John Vines as Good at making cash, crap at making decisions. However, it can be shown than the UK is capable of protecting its borders as they opted out of the Shengan agreement 1985. This is significant as it allowed our border agency to prevent entry of the near majority of immigrants based in the Calais camp nicknamed The Jungle in 2009. If we had been part of Shengan the estimated 1000 people confirmed to be at the camp would have gained entry, arguably if that many tried when it was illegal many more times that would have tried if it was legal.

Despite heavy criticism in performance from the UKBA, it should be remembered that it is only recently that the open doors approach to Labour immigration policies which resulted in the doubling of the immigrants living in the UK between 1997 and 2007 have been reversed. The formation of the UKBA can be seen by many as the first attempt to shut the door on immigration. While it has not been as successful as may be desired, it has a huge target to contend against. Arguably, since the dawn of the 21st century globalisation has come into effect, meaning that everything that exists happens in international scale. While historically an agency that was designed to protect borders had to police one dock or expanse of road, now one organisation has to police entire countries. In the case of the UK geographically, it is an island. What is to stop a larger ship that would be noticed dropping off people in dinghies and pleasure boats that then land on an inconspicuous beach somewhere instant access to the UK? What is required is to police the sea as well as the borders and this is just not practical. However, it becomes a lot more practical when the UKBA works in conjunction with other agencies such as the coast guard who are likely to spot if a boat appears that they didnt see sail out. The UKBA is a modern organisation set up by uniting the previous organisations which were struggling. One of the advantages of this is that it has routinely been scrutinised to ensure that it is fit for purpose. While it has not always been evaluated as well as might be desired it can be seen that it has improved from its evaluations. As immigration is such a hot political topic it is constantly having impact from political decisions which tweak the job that they are doing. Arguably, it makes it harder to do the job as they are constantly changing. However, it does ensure that they are constantly working towards Britains interests. This is because they are following almost directly an accountable electoral mandate. While it has been discussed previously whether entrance into the European Community was beneficial, what can be concluded is that yes it was a voluntary loss of sovereignty, however it serves to ensure that the European Union serves Britains interests. If the European Union was detrimental to Britains interests then we would have left and sealed our borders along with it. This supports the principle advocated by Tony Blair when he was making decisions on the European Union of pooled sovereignty which suggests that we as a state have more sovereignty, power and influence as a fraction of Europe than we ever would as a whole of Britain. This argument fits well with the Idealist school of political thought when used for Globalisation. Unlike the Realists who advocate that hard power, such as war is the only way to protect yourself. Idealists believe that soft power such as negotiations and treaties are far more powerful if used properly. In the case of immigration there is a strong argument towards soft power as Europe has always had a problem protecting its borders. Post Shengan 1985 its not been a problem. As the prohibition showed, illegalising something is often the quickest way to make it a problem. Conversely Realists turn to the example of Australia which independently and militantly enforces its borders and as a consequence has one of the strongest borders in the world. While, the same model could not be applied to the UK due to the lack of sovereignty to make the decision to deport someone before they had the right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. It is a testament that it can work. However, economically London has more business visitors than any Australian city, and the UK is a much more important economic capital, if more militant and stringent borders were imposed this may have the effect of deterring much needed trade. The best case of a compromise between well enforced borders but ensuring strong economic growth from foreign investments would be the United

States. The New York Stock Exchange is still an economic hub rivalling the City and other major investment hubs in the world. However, American airports are still protected vigorously. It is apparent that the UK realises that this model is one to work towards as the UKBA works well with American border agencies to the extent that the UKBA have branches in America crewed by Americans. It is clear that while Realist theories cannot apply logistically in the UK, they serve as a counter point to consider. What would seem to be best is an idealist approach to open negotiations with a realist sense of prioritising the protection of self-interests. It can be seen that the UKBA do have the sovereignty to do their job. However, their job is changed according to outside pressure. This is primarily legislation coming from Brussels but also as simple as whether Labour or the Conservatives are in power at the time. However, when they have the requirements for what they need to be doing they do a valiant job at it considering the enormity of the task. However, it is only in conjunction with other agencies such as the coast guard, revenue and customs that they become truly effective as they can police proactively inside the country instead of just responsively on the borders. The next step is going to be working in conjunction with international organisations in the same way they work with national ones to learn, become more efficient and stay proactive in working with international groups but staying tasked with protecting Britains interests not the interests of a whole. While the line was not crossed with joining Europe, it arguably was crossed in joining the European Court of Human Rights as this created losses of sovereignty that was not anticipated or to the purpose of which it was created. While the future will be difficult; especially when spending review cuts come into effect, the UKBA is constantly changing subject to pressure from the many agencies and political groups that have influence with it. Idealists which have won the battle for international theory at least in the West, proven by the dominance of NATO, the United Nations, the EU and the International Criminal court which according to Realists should never exist, look forwards to even better joint enterprises in all significant wakes of international interest including and especially immigration.