What factors led to the introduction of the 1905 Aliens Act in Britain and the Impact of the control of immigration in the years leading up to the end of the Second World War?
The first question is selected for this assessment plan. It is about factors that led to the introduction of the 1905 act in British and the importance of the act for the control of movement in the following years until the start of the second world war. Regulation of Alien Immigration has two sections the immigration board and rules and power to prevent the landing of undesirable immigrants (Glover, 2012). The regulations under the act limit immigrants to owning possession in a foreign land. However, the act did not discriminate against immigrants from protectorates that were under British power. In fact, British Empire was granted free movement. the act also limited foreign sea merchants to trade along the Asian shores, and after the first world war, other traders were limited formally by the Marchant shipping act (Tilles, 2012).
Reason for the formation of the act. It was formed to benefit the United Kingdom and prevent criminals from entering the country, and the act also set up a mechanism for those who slipped through. Another objective of the act is to prevent Jewish immigration from the eastern part of Europe (Rosenberg & Bragg, 2015). The number of immigrations in 1880 had significantly increased, and this served as a reason for the creation of the act. Impact of the immigration regulations in the act. After the act was made and came to effect in 1906, it led to many occurrences. For instance, it made Britain invade more Asian countries and make alliances. And from the act, other acts were formed. For instance, before the beginning of world war I, the Alien act of 1914 was formed, among others (Trubowitz, 2012).
“May laws” enacted in 1882 by Russian Emperor Alexander III were designed to limit Jewish social and economic participation, behavior, and migration. Tens of thousands of individuals fled to the United States via British ports from European ports in the 1880s and 1890s because of petty squabbles. It is estimated that between 1881 and 1914, between 120,000 and 150,000 European Jews immigrated to the UK (Rosenberg & Bragg, 2015).
The lack of clarity in the figures is exactly to the point as it stands now. Even if an act in 1836 was handled so poorly that it was almost forgotten by the time it came to an end, there was no systematic system of regulation or restriction in Britain (Rosenberg, 2011). By a unanimous decision of the Privy Council in 1891, it was established that the Crown had the power to prohibit the entry of foreigners into British soil. Although emergency quarantine restrictions became less common as the century progressed, Britain did not have a long-standing practice of denying or detaining people upon arrival (Smith, 2017). The Aliens Act has led to this outcome. It went into effect on January 1st, 1906, as soon as King George V signed it into law in August of that year (Browne, Serle & Thomson, 2017).
Undesirable immigrants were defined using various criteria and exclusions. The Act specified how they were deported, turned back at ports of entry, and appealed deportation judgments as outlined by the Act (Brodie, 2004). People who couldn’t support themselves and their families “decently,” who were “lunatics or idiots,” or who had been sentenced to extradition, offense that is non-political in nature in a country with which the United Kingdom had a treaty of extradition; or those who were deemed a “public burden.” If an immigrant is “seeking admission merely because they fear persecution on religious or political grounds,” an exception to extradition law was made (in fact, the inverse of extradition as a defense against removal) (Rosenberg, 2015). “Persecution, involving danger of imprisonment or risk to life or limb on religious conviction” was granted an exception for immigrants who requested entry to the United States (McLaughlan, 2013).
The Aliens Act passage was a political minefield compared due to the ease with which immigrants can enter the country through the legislation in other countries during this time period. Three Conservative Aliens Bills, introduced in 1897 January, 1898 February, and 1904 April, were narrowly defeated by the Liberals (Margulies, 2014). These factors and London’s East End’s labor politics and anti-Semitism all played a role in the first bills. People opposed to immigration argued that newcomers from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union would exacerbate the already-politicized labor practices brought on by the Labor movement’s rise. Foreigners could not enter the country because of labor regulations, as in other countries where immigration rules were imposed (García, 2015). Compared to other countries, the United Kingdom has a long history of liberal politics that opposes all forms of regulation, including labor conditions and immigration. As a result, the Liberals have consistently resisted attempts to use immigration restrictions and Aliens Bills to implement “backdoor” labor laws and even anti-sweating measures. A new gulf has opened up between protectionist policies and free trade, thanks to new restrictions on immigration. For these reasons, a young Winston Churchill, then a member of the Liberal Party, was a staunch opponent of immigration restrictions. The free movement was inextricably linked to both people and things, and he was a vocal opponent of labor market protection (Cox & Rodríguez, 2020).
From the late 1890s to the early 1900s, anti-Semitism was rife in London’s East End. As much as people argued about it at the time, the evidence was clear in both Parliament and Whitehall. Many were willing to expose anti-Semitism in this setting due to the Aliens Bill and anti-immigration agitation (Hing, Chacon & Johnson, 2021). When anti-Semitic legislation was introduced and passed in the UK, it was also rejected as anti-Semitic legislation. In its coverage of the 1904 Aliens Bill debates, the New York Times made it clear that the measure’s opponents viewed it as anti-Semitic (Hing, Chacón & Johnson, 2018). According to some speakers, the bill’s origins were linked to anti-Semitism. Jews constituted a sizable portion of the population in the East End constituency. They were well-represented in Parliament by members such as Stuart Samuel of the Liberal Party from Whitechapel. During the public debates on the bills, Jewish MPs such as Samuel and Lord Rothschild served as go-betweens for the Whitehall civil officers, Jewish community, and political colleagues across party lines. They organized lobbying against the bills and monitored their implementation after they were approved (Hing, Chacón & Johnson, 2018).
The Aliens Bills and the resulting Aliens Act were intended to apply to Eastern European Jews because they made up the majority of “immigrants” at the time. There were no statutes, acts, or returns to be completed at the border that specifically addressed Jewish people (Girvan, 2018). Laws based on nationality, race, or religion were viewed with disdain by British governments and civil servants for a very long period. In the case of self-governing territories under the British Empire requesting to include Indians, Chinese, or Japanese in their immigration rules, the Colonial Office in London typically moderated such proposals (Bashford & Gilchrist, 2012). Colonial Secretaries in London, for example, resisted the use of “Asiatic” as a category for exclusion. Because of this, the legislation’s royal assent was sometimes delayed. In many cases, immigration laws of this era did not explicitly exclude immigrants based on their nationality, race, or religion’ (or realized). Immigration laws that distinguished between “steerage” and “cabin” were aimed at immigrants in North America and Australasia who were employed or homeless (Bashford & Gilchrist, 2012).
The Aliens Act did not allow for any exceptions. According to the Secretary of State’s interpretation, “steerage passenger” refers to any passenger who is not a “cabin passenger,” and “immigrant” refers to “an alien steerage passenger.” Immigrants who arrived on ships with at least twenty people on board were exempt from this rule (Baker, 2012). Passengers in steerage must show that they cannot support themselves financially to be denied boarding. As a result, most immigration rules at the time were similar; they were derived from American and colonial legislation aimed at keeping people who would become “public charges” out of the country. As a result of the Aliens Act, only criminal aliens, those who were unable to support themselves, and those in imminent danger of falling into the hands of criminals would be expelled from the United Kingdom (Bashford & McAdam, 2014). These people were dubbed “undesirable immigrants” because of their status.
Though opposed to any immigration control measures, the newly elected Liberal administration was forced to enforce the Aliens Act in early 1906. Even while they didn’t get rid of the contentious legislation, they tried their best to lessen its impact, particularly on the asylum clause. With a note to immigration officials and appeals boards sent by Herbert Gladstone in March 1906, he urged them to follow a set of guidelines when deciding whether or not an individual should be allowed to enter the country illegally. Reinforcing the parliamentary purpose that only undesirable aliens should be expelled, he upheld accusations that the boards were deciding outside of the law (Colson, 2010). Unless “refusal of leave to land would require considerable human difficulty or suffering in the case of women and children,” he directed, the clause was never meant to be enforced. The same is true for someone who is otherwise healthy but whose health is in jeopardy because he has been denied permission to enter the country. Even if a man claims to be a political or religious refugee, his claims may be incomplete or misleading (Gabrielatos & Baker, 2008). If he is forced to return, he may face considerable risks from political causes.” In the preceding year, Russia’s situation had deteriorated to a severe level. When Gladstone was aware of the “current troubled condition in certain areas of the continent,” he advised that immigrants who claim they are fleeing religious or political persecution “may be given the benefit of the doubt” (Gabrielatos & Baker, 2008).
Vigneswaran, (2020) argue that historians often point to the Aliens Act’s exclusionary powers as a precursor to the discriminatory aspects of subsequent Commonwealth immigration regulations. However, the provision for asylum distinguishes the early Act from the rest of the legislation. Perhaps more important than the immigration legislation itself is the British resistance and the Liberal government’s attempt to limit its exclusionary powers in practice. Nothing like this was heard in comparable jurisdictions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. An asylum clause that might otherwise look nonsensical can be understood by recognizing this British disinclination to limit the inflow of aliens (Vigneswaran, 2020).
Constricting freedom of movement was an issue for the liberals. This has a direct bearing on their support for free trade. Moreover, there was a fundamental right of freedom of movement required protection (Glover, 2013). Therefore, the passage of the Aliens Act was a very controversial decision for many British lawmakers in reaction to a world of rising global migration (and regulation of that movement) (Tatalovich, 2014). Even those who proposed the various measures called it “drastic” and “revolutionary.” People in the United Kingdom believed that the freedom to move about and, thus, the tradition of not having any admission rules was an important component of British practice and even of British “liberty.” During a parliamentary debate, Labour MP John Burns betrayed the nationalism at stake by declaring that he was “glad to be a Briton” because “this was the only civilized nation that did not contain this kind of legislation” (Tatalovich, 2014).
It had long been assumed that “liberty” was defined as a “liberty” in opposition to the continental practice. Immigration regulations in several British self-governing colonies and especially in the United States had transformed the defining comparative context. “New World” nations were now linked to limiting or retaining freedom of movement and designating undesirable immigrants (Young, 2017). In other jurisdictions, such as all the Australian colonies, the United States, New Zealand, Canada, the Cape Colony, Natal, and Newfoundland, the right to “free movement” was less of a concern than in other countries that enacted restrictions on the movement of Chinese people (Bashford & McAdam, 2014). Instead of “neo-Britons” from around the world advocating for freedom of movement in Westminster, Chinese citizens probably made a case for this quality of the United Kingdom (Dubow, 2009). Many members of Parliament believed that restricting and regulating would-be immigrants fleeing persecution undermined the traditional British self-story that their land was and should remain a haven for those fleeing oppression and persecution (Bourke, 2010).
For centuries, Britain has had a unique practice of offering shelter to persons fleeing persecution in the form of political and religious harm. For the first time, British law applied the same standard to everyone. For the first time in Europe’s history, Britain offered asylum to anybody, regardless of their nationality or political ideas, and proudly trumpeted its distinction (Jackson, 2017). When the Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour spoke of Britain’s “precious heritage,” he was rehearsing a theme of British national identity that dated centuries to the Protestant/Catholic split in the United Kingdom, but that was repeatedly raised during the turbulent nineteenth century’s politics (Lloyd-Jones & Scull, 2018). Even though Britain had a long history of granting asylum on religious grounds, particularly to Protestants from Europe, the Huguenots were the most well-known example.
Significance of 1905 Aliens act
In the immediate aftermath of the Aliens Act, fewer Jews from Eastern Europe came to the United States to settle. But a 1906 general election resulted in a shift in power from the Conservatives to the Liberals, whose interpretation of the law tended to benefit the doubt newly arrived immigrants. By 1914, when the First World War broke out, and the U.S. passed an even more onerous Immigration and Naturalization Act, the annual influx of Russian and Polish immigrants had returned to its pre-1905 level of 5,000 people (Bashford & McAdam, 2014).
The Alien act of 1905 also limited protectorates from undesirable invasions to other countries, and those nations that conducted undesirable immigration would be denied entry to Britain (Tilles, 2012). Most of the authors describe the act as a vague reason being, and it was levied mostly on East European immigrants and Jewish. For instance, the act did not limit the British and Japanese, and they even formed alliances. The alliance between British and Japanese was prompted by British suspicion about Japanese interest in south Asia (Everest-Phillips, 2007). Before the alliance, Japanese nationalists supported Indian Nationalism, but after the act, the Japanese supported the British invasion of India. Japanese were in turn supported by the British to invade Korea, and at the end of that year, Korea was under Japanese rule. From the instance mentioned, it is clear that the act was biased (Robinson, 2014).
There was already a provision in extradition law for the “political offense exception” to apply in certain circumstances. On the other hand, the political crime exception gave rise to protections against deportation to a country where one faces persecution. Although it subsequently became a part of the domestic immigration rules, it was still a part of the refugee law (Buckland, 2006). One of the Act’s early innovations necessitates explaining this division (after including the asylum clause). In ancient times, asylums were established as a haven for fugitives who had reached a select region free from invasion and pursuit. When nation-states developed, they became safe harbors for persons breaching the laws of other countries because of their long history of hostility and protection (Peters & Besley, 2020). As a result, traditionally, the asylum was viewed as a right of fugitives to be protected from the entity they had escaped. Because of states’ rights to repatriate criminals within their borders, the concept of full hospitality fell away (Mountz, 2010).
When states attempted to remove convicts from their soil, one exception arose: individuals wanted only for political offenses. When extradition laws allowed persons who had committed “political offenses” to be immune from deportation, the term “asylum” was used to characterize them. When it comes to protecting religious minorities from persecution, the humanitarian term “asylum” has a long history dating back to 1905 (Fry, 2002). Given the recent establishment of legislation governing foreigner entrance, a refusal to release political detainees is not unusual. According to Price’s explanation, other persecuted individuals were admitted as migrants in a world with open borders. Before World War I, it was not necessary to consider the safety of persons entering the country. Asylum became an issue under international law when a country demanded that a person be repatriated (Bigo & Guild, 2017).
States began to tighten border controls even at entry, turning away people they judged unwelcomely. Asylum now encompasses more than only protection from deportation for those fleeing war or persecution as defined by immigration regulations. International criminal law now encompasses those evading deportation as well. An exception to the exclusionary rule for political offences was introduced in the 1882 Immigration Act for the first time in the US. British Aliens Act of 1905 significantly increased this level of protection (Tananbaum, 2013). However, the new law now includes people who face religious persecution. The Extradition Act of 1870 had restricted the removal of persons who faced political prosecutions. Thus, it was a pivotal occasion in the history of international refugee law. It was decided to create a new category of immigration different from the typical “political offenses” exception to the extradition law. However, this was an anomaly compared to the late twentieth century when this became the norm (Hawkins, 2020).
As part of the Aliens Act, “persecution” is a fundamental criterion for determining immigration status. The term “refugee” did not appear in the IRO’s constitution for another 40 years. In addition, the Act was an early precursor to international refugee legislation. Nominations were used to identify those in need of protection (based on political opinion and religion). No other act in the United States specifically specifies religious persecution as an eligibility consideration for introducing English-language legislation, to the best of our knowledge. of knowledge. In internal law, no such word existed before the Edict of Potsdam in 1685 (Ramos, 2011).
The term “religious persecution” was first used in the United States Immigration Act of 1917, just over a decade after the Aliens Act of 1905. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act resulted in creating a list of foreign nationals who are prohibited from entering the United States (just as the British statute did). There was only one group that was excluded from the discussion. Literacy tests were administered to everyone older than sixteen who was capable of reading on their own (in a language selected by the prospective immigrant) (Ngai, 2017). An individual may be eligible for refugee status if they can demonstrate that they were fleeing “religious persecution” in their previous home country, regardless of whether the persecution was manifested in overt acts or through immigration laws and regulations that specifically target immigrants based on their race or religious affiliation (Heindl, 2017). The literacy requirement can be waived in this circumstance. Those guilty of “teaching, acknowledging, or encouraging the commission of a purely political crime” were also exempt from punishment. Religious refugees and “political criminals” were referred to in the Act’s sidebar notes.
Since the 1917 Act was stricter than the 1905 Act, it was evaluated for its asylum carve-out. Before 1905, the United States did not follow the United Kingdom’s lead in allowing free movement of people. Asylum in the United States is divided into two categories: refugees and people who have been deported (Bird, 2015). The UK’s generous asylum policy was only in place for a limited time. The individual’s right to asylum was codified and formally implemented during this time period. The British were able to retreat quickly despite the extreme conditions of war. Political security emphasized the 1914 and 1919 Alien Statutes, which did not include an allegiance requirement to focus on “enemy foreigners,” as in the 1793 Alien Acts (Hayes, 2014). As a result of a 1914 Act that stated refugees would not be protected, some experts argue that the Ottoman-era Armenians and Belgian refugees were provided shelter during World War I. In R v Secretary of State for ex parte Chateau-Thierry, Home Affairs, the Attorney-General stated that he had “no intention of applying the provisions of 1914 against such refugees” throughout the trial. According to the court, a “marked discrepancy” was found between the language of Act 1905 and Act 1914 (Gutman, 2015).
After World War I, the 1905 Aliens Act began to erode. Sir William Joynson Hicks, Britain’s home secretary, declared in 1925 that only political exiles who were “undesirable in other respects” were barred from entering the country. “No alien has the right of seeking entry if it would be harmful to the country’s interests” was Home Secretary John Clynes’s stance on Leon Trotsky’s deportation in 1929 (Fisher, 2012). In the late 19th century, Vattel and his “enemy” evoked the exclusion of anarchists from protection. Only the UK voted against the initial non-refoulement clause in article 3(2), which said that each signatory party “undertakes not to refuse entry to refugees at the frontiers of their countries of origin.” the Refugee Convention of 1933. UN Refugee Agency representative: The government of the United Kingdom must have the power to prohibit entry to any foreigner, regardless of whether or not he is a stateless refugee (Karel, 2006).
As a result, successive British administrations attempted to distance themselves from the idea that anyone could seek asylum abroad and be granted it. We intend to spend a long period of time here. Despite this, the origins of the international refugee definition may generally be traced back to the League of Nations and subsequent international organizations’ initial international refugee instruments. The conventional opinion holds that the interwar years saw substantial advancements in refugee law (Nicholson & Kumin, 2017). In refugee law, James Hathaway’s periodization proposal has had a significant impact. Even while his analysis accepts the long history of asylum in state practice and limits it to “the growth of refugee status in international law: 1920–1950,” his typology for evaluating this time period says that “persecution” didn’t develop until 1938. In the 1938 resolution creating the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees, the emphasis was placed on “political ideas, religious convictions or ethnic background” rather than a general lack of protection (Hathaway, 2013). He referred to it as “innovative” (as in the earlier League instruments). A refugee applicant’s characteristics and beliefs and the political system of her home country are at odds with one other, he claimed. To paraphrase him, “the shift to a more targeted focus on aiding people whose basic human rights were jeopardized” was an indication that refugee legislation had moved away from an overarching humanitarian aim to provide en masse protection. In this scenario, international law and treaties define a refugee. Because of the 1905 Aliens Act, it is thought that domestic law should be included in this history because it drew on and developed international law principles. Rather than a movement in protection policy, the 1930s saw a return to the measures at the beginning of the century. An analysis of the Alien Act reveals this. Contrary to Hathaway’s belief, worldwide events can be seen as a decline in security (Nicholson & Kumin, 2017).
The League of Nations refugee agreements written between 1922 and 1939 did neither include a broad right to asylum nor a comprehensive definition of “refugee.” Instead, the League designated specific groups of people, such as those needing identification cards or financial assistance, to receive League assistance. ‘ As opposed to “broader, political meaning,” these were merely “technical categories used for legal and administrative purposes.” They were also considered time-bound rather than being relevant to everyone simultaneously. They were more restricted than the asylum provisions of the 1905 Aliens Act (White, 2017).
People seeking asylum from “persecution” are defined as refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention (Kuosmanen, 2012). A refugee defined by nationality is typically seen as different from the League’s definition of refugee, which is defined by nationality. As a result, the term “persecution” dates back to the mid-20th century (De Andrade, 2008). “It grew” out of the 1938 Convention on the Status of German Refugees before being revised in the 1946 International Red Cross Constitution and the 1951 Refugee Convention. Persecution first arose in the 1930s and 1940s, when international institutions for the protection of “refugees” were formed. This all matured to the 1951 Convention the accepted explanation stands up (Chatty & Marfleet, 2013). Another way of looking at these decades is as a period of retraction. Rather than being revolutionary, this reemergence of “persecution” in the 1940s as a throwback to a bygone era was more evolutionary.
British policymakers saw this period as a time to weaken rather than reinforce the idea that everyone has the right to seek safety in a haven. This country’s asylum and immigration laws and its international activities were modeled after the Aliens Act (Bashford & McAdam, 2014). Aliens Act had a negative impact on the UK’s assessment of the situation. It was common practice for British ambassadors to refer back to the simpler days of state-provided refuge even in the midst of World War II when addressing the issue of asylum. For example, the 1938 wave of anti-Semitic domestic laws in continental Europe prompted the Evian Conference to monitor the international response (Laffer, 2011). Lord Winterton’s reference to the British heritage of refuge was expected, but the British commitment to asylum that had been so forcefully supported in the discussion around the 1905 Act no longer had the same weight. Many persons fleeing their countries because of political or religious persecution cannot get refuge in the UK because of “economic and societal issues,” Lord Winterton says. Sibley and Elias noted Vattel’s limit on asylum early in the century and applied it to the post-Depression era, which he reclaimed (Reeve, 2016).
In conclusion Convention on the Rights of Children (UDHR) and the usual course of the Aliens Act have nothing in common. Before this British immigration law, the 1962 “cruel and vicious anti-color legislation” of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was more commonly remembered in Britain in 2012. A person’s right to asylum has been codified in domestic law for the first time. However, British officials have since distanced themselves from this idea. The irony of refugee law became clear when international and domestic law were combined in the first half of the twentieth century. The Aliens Act protected an individual’s right to refugee status regardless of its reputation as race-based immigration law. Contrary to popular belief, the UDHR actively sought to curtail this individual right.
Racially and ethnically discriminatory immigration policies were prompted by the growing global trend of anti-immigration sentiment. However, the truth is that there was much more to it. Because of the asylum clause, we get the best of both worlds regarding the rule of law. One of these factors is the ability of a state to expel an enemy alien that poses a threat to its political security. Furthermore, the history of immigration and international refugee law is integrated into this clause. There was no single approach that addressed the issue of modern state inclusion and exclusion in its entirety.
References
Baker, P. (2012). Acceptable bias? Using corpus linguistics methods with critical discourse analysis. Critical discourse studies, 9(3), 247-256.
Bashford, A., & Gilchrist, C. (2012). The colonial history of the 1905 Aliens Act. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 40(3), 409-437.
Bashford, A., & McAdam, J. (2014). The right to asylum: Britain’s 1905 Aliens Act and the evolution of refugee law. Law and History Review, 32(2), 309-350.
Bigo, D., & Guild, E. (2017). Policing at a distance: Schengen visa policies. In Controlling Frontiers (pp. 233-263). Routledge.
Bird, J. C. (2015). Control of Enemy Alien Civilians in Great Britain, 1914-1918 (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.
Bourke, R. (2010). Pocock and the presuppositions of the new British history. The Historical Journal, 53(3), 747-770.
Brodie, M. W. (2004). Sir William Eden Evans-Gordon:(1857–1913). In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (pp. 1-1). Oxford University Press.
Browne, G., Serle, G., & Thomson, K. (2017). A biographical register of the Victorian Parliament.
Buckland, A. J. (2006). Offending Officials: Former Government Actors and the Political Offense Exception to Extradition. Calif. L. Rev., 94, 423.
Chatty, D., & Marfleet, P. (2013). Conceptual problems in forced migration. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 32(2), 1-13.
Colson, J. (2010). Alien communities and alien fraternities in later medieval London. The London Journal, 35(2), 111-143.
Cox, A. B., & Rodríguez, C. M. (2020). The president and immigration law. Oxford University Press.
De Andrade, J. H. F. (2008). On the development of the concept of ‘persecution’in international refugee law. Brazilian Yearbook of International Law, 3(2), 114-136.
Dubow, S. (2009). How British Was the British World? The Case of South Africa. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 37(1), 1-27.
Everest-Phillips, M. (2007). The pre-war fear of Japanese espionage: Its impact and legacy. Journal of Contemporary History, 42(2), 243-265.
Fisher, L. R. (2012). Writing immigrant aid: The settlement house and the problem of representation. MELUS, 37(2), 83-107.
Fry, J. D. (2002). Terrorism as a Crime Against Humanity and Genocide: The Backdoor to Universal Jurisdiction. UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, 169-199.
Gabrielatos, C., & Baker, P. (2008). Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press, 1996-2005. Journal of English linguistics, 36(1), 5-38.
García, A. S. (2015). Illegal lives: How local immigration law shapes everyday life for undocumented immigrants (Doctoral dissertation, UC San Diego).
Girvan, A. (2018). The history of British immigration policy (1905–2016)—Timeline resource, June 2018. Refugee History.
Glover, D. (2012). Literature, Immigration, and Diaspora in fin-de-siecle England: a cultural history of the 1905 Aliens Act. Cambridge University Press.
Glover, D. (2013). Still Closing the Gates: The legacy of the 1905 Aliens Act. Jewish Quarterly, 60(1), 18-27.
Gutman, D. (2015). Ottoman historiography and the end of the genocide taboo: writing the Armenian genocide into late Ottoman history.
Hathaway, J. C. (2013). Sixth Colloquium on Challenges in International Refugee Law: Introduction. Michigan Journal of International Law, 35(1), 1-2.
Hawkins, S. J. (2020). The Alien Jew in the British imagination, 1881-1905: space, mobility and territoriality: by Hannah Ewence, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, 232 pp.,£ 59.99 (hardcover), ISBN 9783030259754.
Hayes, D. (2014). From aliens to asylum seekers: A history of immigration controls and welfare in Britain. In From immigration controls to welfare controls (pp. 30-46). Routledge.
Heindl, B. S. (2017). Muslim immigration and religious human rights. International Politics, 54(1), 26-42.
Hing, B. O., Chacón, J. M., & Johnson, K. R. (2018). Immigration Law and Social Justice. Immigration Law and Social Justice, 5th edition, Aspen Casebook Series.
Hing, B. O., Chacon, J. M., & Johnson, K. R. (2021). Immigration Law and Social Justice. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Jackson, S. J. (2017). British history is their history: Britain and the British Empire in the history curriculum of Ontario, Canada and Victoria, Australia 1930-1975. Espacio, Tiempo y Educación, 4(2), 165-186.
Karel, V. (2006). The international dimensions of human rights.
Kuosmanen, J. (2012). Global protection of the right to asylum and partial compliance. Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric, 5.
Laffer, D. R. (2011). The Jewish Trail of Tears The Evian Conference of 1938. University of South Florida.
Lloyd-Jones, N., & Scull, M. M. (2018). A new plea for an old subject? Four nations history for the modern period. In Four Nations Approaches to Modern’British’History (pp. 3-31). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Margulies, P. (2014). The Boundaries of Executive Discretion: Deferred Action, Unlawful Presence, and Immigration Law. Am. UL Rev., 64, 1183.
McLaughlan, L. (2013). A history of the electrical trades union in Western Australia and its place in the labour movement from 1905 to 1979 (Doctoral dissertation, Murdoch University).
Mountz, A. (2010). Seeking asylum: Human smuggling and bureaucracy at the border. U of Minnesota Press.
Ngai, M. M. (2017). The architecture of race in American immigration law: A reexamination of the Immigration Act of 1924. In Race, Law and Society (pp. 351-376). Routledge.
Nicholson, F., & Kumin, J. (2017). A guide to international refugee protection and building state asylum systems. Inter-Parliamentary Union: Geneva, Switzerland.
Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2020). The refugee crisis and the right to political asylum. In The Far-Right, Education and Violence (pp. 70-78). Routledge.
Ramos, L. M. (2011). A New Standard for Evaluating Claims of Economic Persecution Under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Vand. J. Transnat’l L., 44, 499.
Reeve, J. (2016). Liberalism, Race and Humanitarianism: British Colonial Policy and Jewish Refugees 1938-1943 (Doctoral dissertation, University of East Anglia).
Robinson, M. E. (2014). Cultural nationalism in colonial Korea, 1920-1925. University of Washington Press.
Rosenberg, D. (2011). Battle for the East End: Jewish responses to fascism in the 1930s. London, UK: Five Leaves.
Rosenberg, D. (2015). UKIP is nothing new: the British Brothers’ League was exploiting immigration fears in 1901,„. The Guardian”, www. theguardian. com/uk-news/2015/mar/04/ukipnigel-farage-immigrants-british-brothers-league [data dostępu: sierpień 2017].
Rosenberg, D., & Bragg, B. (2015). Rebel Footprints: A Guide to Uncovering London’s Radical History. Pluto Press.
Smith, C. W. (2017). London Jewry and the First World War: Patriotisms, Identity and the Politics of Integration (Doctoral dissertation, King’s College London).
Tananbaum, S. L. (2013). David Glover. Literature, Immigration, and Diaspora in Fin-de-Siècle England: A Cultural History of the 1905 Aliens Act. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Pp. 237. $99.00 (cloth). Journal of British Studies, 52(4), 1095-1097.
Tatalovich, R. (2014). Nativism reborn?: the official English language movement and the American states. University Press of Kentucky.
Tilles, D. (2012). Battle for the East End: Jewish Responses to Fascism in the 1930s.
Trubowitz, L. (2012). Civil antisemitism, modernism, and British culture, 1902–1939. Springer.
Vigneswaran, D. (2020). Europe Has Never Been Modern: Recasting Historical Narratives of Migration Control. International Political Sociology, 14(1), 2-21.
White, E. (2017). The legal status of Russian refugees, 1921–1936. Comparativ, 27(1), 18-38.
Young, J. G. (2017). Making America 1920 again? Nativism and US immigration, past and present. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 5(1), 217-235.
write