Over the years Europe has prospered by letting people move and trade freely Essay Example

non-EU migrant worker to the UK must obtain a sponsor license from the UK Border Agency. The work permit is substituted with online sponsorship management access, allowing employers who qualify to issue a certificate of sponsorship to each immigrant worker for application of entry clearance.

Sponsors are required to demonstrate that the job position has undergone the Resident Labour Market Test, proving that no EEA national could fill the position. In order to comply with the new system, sponsors must fulfill the exhaustive reporting, document retention, and recordkeeping requirements. They are also expected to assume an enhanced responsibility to monitor all migrant workers who have gained entry to the UK under threat of civil and criminal liabilities if they violate any of these new requirements. Details of all sponsored migrant workers must be recorded, including copies of their passport or UK visa status that authorizes them to work in the UK. Furthermore, they must maintain up-to-date contact details of their origin country and in the UK. Sponsors have an obligation to report any unsatisfactory behavior observed by them to the UKBA which includes scenarios like migrant workers not attending for their initial day of work or not attending work for more than ten working days.

Employers will need to report all relevant information within ten working days and make it available upon the UKBA's request. It's crucial for them to have a robust Human Resource department to meet their new obligations and stay compliant with immigration procedures. Sponsors will be rated A or B based on their efficient record keeping and administrative duties. While most sponsors will receive an A rating, a B rating may be assigned

if the UKBA suspects non-compliance with UK immigration regulations.

The UKBA monitors sponsors' compliance with their duties through both planned and unplanned visits. These visits are conducted by UKBA officials who ensure that the employers are enforcing their obligations under the PBS appropriately. If a sponsor is found to be violating any of the regulations, the UKBA may downgrade their rating to a B grade or revoke their license altogether. The UKBA can also impose civil or criminal penalties. Sponsors must be diligent in ensuring that every migrant they employ is working legally in the UK and not violating any immigration laws. To prevent employers from abusing this requirement, the UKBA can impose civil penalties. Additionally, the government has implemented new measures to prevent illegal working by introducing a system of civil penalties.

According to the Immigration, Asylum & Nationality Act 2006, specifically ss15-25 (which took the place of s8 Asylum and Immigration Act 1996), and the Civil Penalties for Employers Code of Practice from February 2008 (issued under section 19 of the 2006 Act), employers who negligently hire workers aged 16 or older and who are illegally working could be fined an amount up to i?? 0,000 per person. Employers who knowingly hire illegal workers could face unlimited fines and even imprisonment. The UKBA has a code of practice which sets out guidelines for reducing these penalties, taking into account the steps an employer has taken to conduct procedures for checking workers' eligibility to work, reporting any suspicions of illegal workers, and any prior offences. Assessing the penalty on a case by case basis lies with a UKBA official, who thereby has discretion and

this could magnify the possibility of corruption.This would most severely affect small businesses.

Employers can use section 15 of the Civil Penalties for Employers Code of Practice February 2008 to establish a defence by checking and copying a migrant's specified documents, and keeping a record of them. The penalty system intends to be proportionate and serve as a deterrent to non-compliant employers who do not want to risk their profits and reputation with insufficient employment practices.

However, the administrative burden and severe penalties for sponsor non-compliance mean that even comprehensive Human Resource departments struggle with complying with mounting duties. Sponsors can easily fall into pitfalls without proper guidance or test cases to guide them. UKBA guidance notes can be up to 80 pages long, which for profit-driven employers, adds to the administrative nightmare they face under the PBS.

In addition, the guidance does not provide for every possibility and can lead to employers rejecting anyone whose immigration status is unclear just to stay on the right side of the law.

It has been estimated that the cost for employers to comply with the new system could reach 27 million, resulting in a staggering 88% of them not applying for a sponsorship license. Despite this, over half of HR departments surveyed by Pricewaterhousecoopers have expressed concerns about their internal procedures and claimed insufficient information to provide to the UKBA. The expected number of sponsorship license applications by the UKBA was 20,000, but only 3,300 have been received thus far. All these figures demonstrate that the implications imposed on employers are confusing, time-consuming, and carry severe penalties for businesses seeking to make a profit. As a result, rather than promoting fair

migration management, the government's new rules are discouraging employers from hiring individuals outside the EEA.

The Government unintentionally increased the risk of discrimination based on race, colour and nationality by placing more responsibility on employers. Many employers are avoiding risk by discriminating against certain segments of their workforce, which goes against the Race Relations Act 1976. This issue was brought to attention in the recent EAT case of Osborne Clarke Services v Purohit3. The Employment Tribunal's ruling was upheld that failing to consider applications from non-EEA nationals as they require a work permit (now called sponsorship) is a form of indirect discrimination based on nationality as per section 11(1) (b) of the Race Relations Act. Osborne Clarke argued based on UKBA guidance section 49, stating that employers must pass the resident labour market test and provide reasons why an EEA national cannot perform the job even with additional training.

Osborne Clarke argued that if they were to apply for a work permit on behalf of a non-EEA national, the application would likely be rejected due to certain requirements. This could lead to false expectations, additional costs and loss of time. However, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) ruled that it is not for the defendants to make assumptions and such decisions should be left to the UKBA. This case highlights the uncertainty faced by employers in knowing where their responsibilities end and those of UKBA begin. While guidance exists, the process is exhaustive and inadequate. Therefore, it can be argued that the Government is placing too much burden on employers for managed migration.

Employers will prioritize their business interests, and the Government's new PBS has had an adverse

effect on managed migration as the predicted sponsorship applications remain unmet. Employers fear the potential consequences of unremitting liability. The issue of sponsorship raises concerns about discrimination and practicality, and it is crucial that certificates of sponsorship are effectively managed to avoid employers losing their sponsorship license. The sponsorship system is managed online, part of the Home Office's effort to create a simple streamlined system. Nevertheless, without a manual backup in the event of an IT failure, IT providers are subjected to substantial fines. This reflects how the Government is transferring responsibility and accountability to third parties instead of developing a contingency plan.

The timing of decisions is crucial and can have damaging effects on some employers if problems occur. The UKBA acknowledges that the online system is not up to necessary standards and plans to implement a more advanced system later in 2009. By allowing sponsorship under the PBS, the Government shifts responsibility onto employers, who must comply with employment and immigration laws or face civil and criminal penalties. This raises the question of how much migration the Government is actually managing. Increased accountability has led to sponsorship applications falling short of expected targets, as many employers choose to hire EU nationals to avoid the administrative burden of hiring non-EEA nationals, resulting in direct and indirect discrimination.

The Home Office has a responsibility to promote harmonious relationships between different racial groups. The Government's strategy for managing migration involves giving employers more responsibility, as they strive to minimize costs and maximize profits. However, the sponsorship management system is flawed and was not properly revised or implemented when tier 2 came into effect. This reflects the Government's hasty

and inadequate approach to managing migration, according to Jenny Stevens, a solicitor at Laura Devine Solicitors. She argues that the sponsorship system is indicative of the entire PBS project, which was poorly planned and rushed to meet unrealistic deadlines. Despite the aim of simplifying and improving migration management, there have been significant difficulties related to sponsorship, which is essential to the system. The success and efficiency of the PBS in the long-term is dependent on proper implementation across all tiers, the establishment of more precedent, and the ability of employers to rise to the challenges presented by the system.

The introduction of new requirements by the Government may be viewed as an attempt to address public worries and create the impression of taking action on immigration. However, the current sponsorship system under the Government's points based scheme appears to be primarily focused on bureaucracy rather than effective migration policy management.