I support this amendment. It is not hard to understand why those who wish to reside here permanently should have to show that they are committed to the United Kingdom, but that is surely demonstrated by a wholehearted commitment to its values and culture. The travel restrictions in Clause 37 could conflict with this. A lot of charitable and relief organisations employ migrants seeking indefinite leave to remain. Those migrants often have the linguistic or specialist skills needed by agencies engaged in international development or relief. Church Communities UK gave a good example in its briefing of a Korean member who speaks Thai and was sent to Thailand for nine months to assist in a school that had been destroyed by the tsunami. She did this while seeking indefinite leave to remain. Her commitment to the culture and values of this country seems self-evident and is embraced by the self-giving action that she undertook as a result of the work of that agency. A law of unintended consequences seems to be at work here, which is why this amendment is so valuable.
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Bishop of Norwich
(Bishops (affiliation))
in the House of Lords on Monday, 2 March 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c512-3 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:53:49 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_532975
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_532975
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_532975