The Immigration Act 2014 is intended to create a hostile environment for undocumented migrants. It succeeds, but at the cost of creating a hostile environment for us all.

A new Director of Labour Market Enforcement will be appointed who will oversee the relevant enforcement agencies to provide a coherent enforcement strategy for non-compliance in the labour market, including serious exploitation of workers. The Director will set the strategic direction and budgets for the three current enforcement bodies, a team in HMRC which enforces the National Minimum Wage; the Gangmasters Licensing Authority; and the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate. The Director will also publish an annual report

A civil penalty regime with fines of up to £3,000 for landlords who rent to a person without the right kind of immigration status unless they have carried out the kind of immigration status check of which Immigration Minister Mark Harper fell foul in 2014. This has been piloted in the West Midlands from December 2014. An independent report found considerable evidence of difficulties and discrimination. Nevertheless the scheme will be rolled out nationally.

Banks and building societies also have to check immigration status, as does the driving licence DVLA.

These are principally directed to landlords and their agents who knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the person does not have a right to rent.

It also imparts new powers to landlords to evict tenants who have no right to rent and gives a power to the Secretary of State to give notice to a landlord requiring that landlord to evict a tenant who is thought to have no right to rent.

There is also to be a new offence of driving while not being lawfully resident.

Even the Home Office gets it wrong about a person's immigration status. The effect on landlords is that they are reluctant to take the chance of renting to a person they are worried might be foreign.

See this JCWI report:

http://www.jcwi.org.uk/blog/2015/09/03/right-rent-checks-result-discriminat...

This all comes from the party whose leader said at the recent conference:

"Yes us, the party of the fair chance; the party of the equal shot…

…the party that doesn’t care where you come from, but only where you’re going…

…us, the Conservatives, I want us to end discrimination and finish the fight for real equality in our country today."

Use of ‘reasonable force’ is enabled for all powers exercisable under all Immigration Acts. New power for searches of property belonging to third parties on ‘reasonable grounds’.

Immigration officials become a quasi police force, but without the experience, expertise, system of regulation or complaints procedures that protect the public from police powers.

"In almost two thirds of the cases I examined I disagreed with the decision made by an Assistant Director to authorise use of this power. In particular, I was very concerned to find six cases where the power appeared to have been used unlawfully.
Many of the issues I identified could have been detected through effective management oversight, but this had been completely lacking. It was also apparent that a significant number of staff and managers were either ignorant of the guidance or were choosing to ignore it."
- John Vine, Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration

A new generalised removal power for those who require leave to enter or remain but do not have it is introduced, making removals more straightforward for the Home Office and removing procedural safeguards.

The power also extends to family members of those with leave, even if the family member has leave themselves.

There is no automatic right of appeal.

Sections 82, 83, 83A and 84 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 totally rewritten to provide only for appeals where a refugee or human rights decision is made. No right of appeal for ordinary immigration decisions and no ground of appeal of 'not in accordance with the immigration rules'.

Sharp fall in number of appeals is predicted by the Home Office - a drop of around 70%. Presumably applications for judicial review will rise.

This prediction was made at the time of the Immigration Act 2014. Further reductions can be expected under the new Bill.

As we see later, the success rate for appeals is around 40% overall so many people who are currently winning appeals will lose their right of appeal.

An administrative review process by the Home Office of its own decisions replaces independent appeal rights to the judiciary. Only certain decisions can be reviewed and only on limited grounds. Despite shortcomings, this will in future be the only means by which leave might be automatically extended for those already lawfully present seeking to challenge a Home Office decision.

A set of statutory considerations are introduced for mandatory consideration by judges deciding human rights cases - this by the Home Secretary who falsely claimed that one man had won a human rights appeal on the basis of his pet cat.

New "deport first, appeal later" powers were introduced under the Immigration Act 2014 for appeals by foreign national criminals. This power allows a person to appeal an immigration decision only after the person has been removed from the UK.

Under the Immigration Bill these powers are extended to all appeals except asylum cases.

Current listing times for immigration cases are around 18 months.

The real effect of only permitting appeals after removal is likely to be a further significant reduction in appeals that are pursued (litigants in person in particular will simply be unable to exercise their theoretical right of appeal) and a reduction in success rate because the appeals that are brought will be much harder to win for appellants.

Government statistics show that the success rate for immigration appeals is high, at around 40%.

On decisions that are appealed, this is not far off a Home Office decision maker simply randomly placing decisions into two piles then deciding one of the piles is the refused one.

Bail no longer possible if removal scheduled within 14 days. No repeat bail applications within 28 days unless change of circumstances can be proven.

Investigative detention powers expanded to include establishing whether a person is to be detained or is liable to be detained.

Support will only be available to those seeking asylum or, in limited circumstances, to those whose claims have failed.

Only failed asylum seekers for whom there is a "genuine obstacle to removal" will be eligible for support and there will be no duty to provide it.

The destitute will in future have to turn to local authorities instead.

All marriages in which one of the happy couple is a non EEA national must now undergo additional checks and the Anglican church is no longer able to conduct its own marriage notification process for such couples, who must instead go through the civil preliminaries process.

The Home Office anticipates that the new investigation regime will result in 30,000 reports of potential sham marriages by registrars, of which around 6,000 will be investigated, triggering a 70 day notice period in such cases.

It is impossible to understand how the Home Office thinks it can possible undertake all of this work. Immigration lawyers already come across false sham marriage allegations by the Home Office.

Introduced by a Code of Practice for public sector employers, such as the NHS, the police and state-funded schools, a press release by Cabinet Office Minister Matt Hancock on 2 August 2015 suggested the level would be equivalent to a grade C at GCSE.

The pass rate at GCSE grade C in 2015 was 65.4%, meaning that around a third of the population (irrespective of nationality) would be excluded from public facing public sector jobs on this approach.

New simplified powers to charge fees in an immigration context are introduced, likely leading to more charges for more immigration 'services', higher fees and more frequent changes to fees.

The NHS surcharge is £200 per year per person - a huge amount for a family of 4 applying for a 5 year visa: £4000. Plus the immigration application fees, plus legal fees because of the increasing complexity of the law.

A new "immigration skills charge" is now also to be introduced.

We all suffer from the additional intrusion of immigration 'papers please' checks in our daily lives. Migrants and ethnic minorities will suffer more than most.

See www.freemovement.org.uk for more information.