在这里，必须记住另一个重要的区别;1951年公约中定义的移民和“难民”之间的关系。在战争结束到该法案颁布的这段时间里，绝大多数英国移民都没有被归类为难民。他们来自英联邦和前帝国国家。因此，他们可以相对容易地进入英国，例如，西非人的涌入就有充分的记录。据估计，在不到10年的时间里，有30多万移民来到美国。[8]与此同时，对这些社区的暴力行为也在增加(当然，移民倾向于在地理位置上聚集在一起)。移民本身也不是完全没有责任，移民自己策划的暴力和犯罪报道比比皆是。然而，最成问题的是英国国内民众的反应。政府的回应是一项新的工作许可计划，正如温德所指出的，该计划是经过精心设计的，目的是“在不太明显歧视有色人种工人的情况下，将他们排除在外”。[9] 1962年的联邦移民法案就是政府屈服于公众压力采取行动的一个例子，正如Rab Butler评论的那样，这是“可悲的必要”。正是在《难民公约》通过后的这段时期，《公约》所界定的难民和简单的寻求庇护者之间的区别变得十分明显。前者被要求证明，他们有充分的理由害怕在国内受到迫害。从技术上讲，政治庇护适用于那些因其政治信仰而在另一个国家逃避逮捕的人，他们无法在该国得到公正的审判。后来，这种区别将变得模糊和有问题，但在这一时期，它仍然是一种重大的区别，这主要是由于《难民公约》和《联邦移民法》的规定。1962年的法案要求所有在联合王国寻求就业的英联邦公民都有资格领取就业券。那些没有英国护照的人还需要持有工作许可证，这并不容易获得。1968年的法案进一步加强了有关移民的措施。根据这项法案，潜在的移民必须证明他们或他们的父母或祖父母出生在英国。其效果是显而易见的;对许多人，实际上是大多数人来说，这是一项不可能的要求，而这些行为反映了对大规模移民日益增长的反感，同时也在宣传英国是一个照顾和欢迎难民和其他移民的国家。
北美留学生论文代写:移民和“难民”
It is here that another important distinction must be remembered; that between immigrants and ‘refugees’ as defined in the 1951 Convention. During the period from the end of the War till the Act, the overwhelming majority of immigrants to the UK were not classed as refugees. They came, rather, from Commonwealth and former Empire countries. As such, they enjoyed relatively easy access to Britain and the influx of, for example, West Africans, has been well documented. In little more than a decade, it has been estimated that more than 300,000 immigrants arrived.[8] This was accompanied by an increase amongst the population of violence towards such communities (the immigrants, of course, tending to congregate together in geographical locations). The immigrants themselves were not wholly without blame, and reports abounded of violence and crime orchestrated by the immigrants themselves. It was the response of the domestic British population, however, that was most problematic. The Government’s response was a new work-permit scheme which, as Winder points out, had been carefully devised so as to ‘exclude coloured workers without discriminating against them too explicitly.’[9] The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 was an example of the Government bowing to public pressure to take action, and as Rab Butler commented, it was a ‘sad necessity’.It was in this period after the Refugee Convention that the distinction became significant between refugee as defined in the Convention and simple asylum seekers. The former were required to demonstrate that they had a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution at home. Political asylum applied, technically, to those who were evading arrest in another country on account of their political beliefs and where they could not expect a fair trial in that country. Subsequently, the distinction would become blurred and problematic, but in this period it was still a significant distinction, largely because of the provisions of the Refugee Convention and the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts. The 1962 Act required all Commonwealth citizens seeking employment in the United Kingdom to qualify for an employment voucher. Those without a British passport were also required to hold a work permit, which were not that easy to come by. The 1968 Act further tightened measures relating to immigrants. Under this Act, potential immigrants had to prove that either they, their parents or grandparents had been born in the UK. The effect of this is obvious; for many, indeed most, this is an impossible requirement, and the Acts reflect the growing antipathy towards large scale immigration while at the same time, advertising Britain as a country that looked after and welcomed refugees and other immigrants.
