Immigration amnesty is ruled out

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5171036.stm

When will the government actually make a sensible immigration decision?

Nothing unexpected from this Liam Byrne, the barbarian. He is forgotten that he himself is descendant of Irish immigrant. He will be very sadistic in nature when he comes out with his proposals.

I do not think there should be any amnesty at all.
Regularisation - yes under the certain strict criteria. In 2003 they were planning "earned regularisation" and that makes sense. Therefore I agree with JCWI.
But the overall amnesty is a nonesense. How can this small island possibly accommodate so many people and how much higher the housing market can possibly be driven up?

One of the problems with a global amnesty is the message it gives out: "come to the UK - if you can dodge the system long enough, then you'll be fine".

It also really wouldn't be fair to those people who try to do things the right way (which seems to be most people who use this website, for example). Why should they have to wait and sometimes spend lots of money when other people simply bypass the system and are then accepted as if it all doesn't matter?

Of course, one of the causes (not the only cause) of many of the problems is the length of time that it takes the Home Office to make decisions, especially those relating to asylum claims. Having people wait four, five, sometimes six or seven years for decisions to be made is clearly ridiculous, and highly unfair to the people affected - especially if there are children involved.

Finally something sensible from Home Office!

The following argument exisit to justify the ruling out immigration amnesty:

- Most of illegal immigrant could stay and work in the UK because of document forgery such as NI number, Work permit visa, Passport forgery.

- It is unfair to the people who enter the normal procedure.

- it is unfair to the taxpayer. Because after ammesty people might qualifyfor benefit and never contribute to the system.

- It is unfair to the poor in other countries becaue othewise the money could be used to assist to the poor in the third world.

- Housing need for more than half million of people ?

- It will encourage people smuggling.



Please provide counter arguments so we could discuss it.

I understand your argument about unfairness to the system but what about genuine cases of people who are refugees, abused and battered wives, orphans etc who have escaped tyrany in their home countries and come to the UK to escape such woes. If it is possible to sift the good from the bad then I say amnesty is fine. As stated earlier in the above post, some people just can't afford to wait after many years to get a decision so go underground (which in itself is breaking the law) but try being in the shoes of a person in such a situation and you would understand.
From a humanitarian perspective, I would love the government to extend an amensty to genuine illegals and introduce proper controls (embarkment and disembarkment records). I have just returned from the US and apart from I-94's, you are finger printed and your iris photographed when leaving. With these records, they can determine exactly when you entered and departed. I believe the UK can learn from the Swiss Model, which makes it impossible for illegals to survive.

My compassionate side would route for amnesty for genuine overstayers becuase we all need mercy and forgiveness in some areas of our lives at a given point in time.

Jes

jes2jes

The exisiting argument is not for genuine refugees. Genuine Refugees is Legal NOT illegal.
The argument is even help the genuine refugees because the place could be substituted to Genuine Refugees. What do you think.

Adindas

jes2jes wrote:I understand your argument about unfairness to the system but what about genuine cases of people who are refugees, abused and battered wives, orphans etc who have escaped tyrany in their home countries and come to the UK to escape such woes. If it is possible to sift the good from the bad then I say amnesty is fine. As stated earlier in the above post, some people just can't afford to wait after many years to get a decision so go underground (which in itself is breaking the law) but try being in the shoes of a person in such a situation and you would understand.
From a humanitarian perspective, I would love the government to extend an amensty to genuine illegals and introduce proper controls (embarkment and disembarkment records). I have just returned from the US and apart from I-94's, you are finger printed and your iris photographed when leaving. With these records, they can determine exactly when you entered and departed. I believe the UK can learn from the Swiss Model, which makes it impossible for illegals to survive.

My compassionate side would route for amnesty for genuine overstayers becuase we all need mercy and forgiveness in some areas of our lives at a given point in time.

Jes

adindas wrote:jes2jes

The exisiting argument is not for refugees. Refugees is Legal NOT illegal.
The argument is even help the genuine refugees because the place could be substituted to Genuine Refugees. What do you think.

Adindas

As you suggest, an amnesty would clearly not help genuine refugees or genuine asylum seekers who are awaiting a decision, since they are not in the country illegally. It might, in theory, help asylum seekers whose claim has been rejected - often the rejection has come after many years in the UK, by which time (not surprisingly) the asylum seeker has often made a new life for himself or herself in the UK. This is what I was talking about in my earlier post.

But, on balance, it seems to me that the people that an amnesty would help are not in general the people that ought to be helped. (The people that the UK ought to be helping are, in my view, most likely to be helped by clarity of law and policy, fair implementation of fair rules, timely processing of routine and straightforward applications of all sorts, and decision-making within sensible time frames when it comes to more difficult cases.)

Most of illegal immigrant in the UK have forged their document. That is the reason why they could work by showing fake document to the employers. Otherwise they will not survive. Remember the news, it has been found that illegal immigarnt worked in the home office as a cleaner without beeing known.

Most people normally do not believe that the illegal immigrant who have forged their document to be genuine refugees. The people who could forge their document have network, family, friends, relatives that provides them information and help them to go underground.

On the contrary, the genuine refugees are normally alone, all they have is the interantional charity who will help them. This charity will never suggest the people to forge their document.

Adindas
_________

I BELIEVE IN FAIRNESS. IT IS TOO NAIVE TO BELIEVE PEOPLE WHO FORGE THEIR DOCUMENT TO BE GENUINE REFUGEES.

Christophe wrote:

adindas wrote:jes2jes

The exisiting argument is not for refugees. Refugees is Legal NOT illegal.
The argument is even help the genuine refugees because the place could be substituted to Genuine Refugees. What do you think.

Adindas

As you suggest, an amnesty would clearly not help genuine refugees or genuine asylum seekers who are awaiting a decision, since they are not in the country illegally. It might, in theory, help asylum seekers whose claim has been rejected - often the rejection has come after many years in the UK, by which time (not surprisingly) the asylum seeker has often made a new life for himself or herself in the UK. This is what I was talking about in my earlier post.

But, on balance, it seems to me that the people that an amnesty would help are not in general the people that ought to be helped. (The people that the UK ought to be helping are, in my view, most likely to be helped by clarity of law and policy, fair implementation of fair rules, timely processing of routine and straightforward applications of all sorts, and decision-making within sensible time frames when it comes to more difficult cases.)

The following argument exisit to justify the ruling out immigration amnesty: .... Please provide counter arguments so we could discuss it.

May I have first go

1. It will mean a significant increase in revenue. The government that can muster the political balls to go ahead with the regularisation of some illegal immigrants should see several billion pounds collected in reveneue and see up to 1% GDP growth. And that's just in the first year.
2. The revenue will continue to grow from the erstwhile illegal immigrants. This, in fact, is fairer to the tax payer ...provided the government can put some limitations on the rights of these regularised persons to claim benefits (and there's no reason why they can't). It can be done via the creation of a new visa type that comes with certain conditions.
3. It should result in a big drop in crime. People who were previously restricted to hawking drugs from street corners can now apply for "decent" jobs in my office. Conceded that not all would.... but ALL would have that chance.
4. jes2jes argues for compassion for "genuine overstayers". To those who'd argue there is no such thing as a "genuine overstayer", let me assure them there is. I am a case in point. I neither tried to stay here nor wanted to stay here but I got "stuck" here. I tried and tried and tried to get around diplomatic wrangling and leave the UK, but couldn't. I had to give up my very priveleged life elsewhere to live as an illegal immigrant in the UK (my story is in earlier thread if you fancy finding it). People like me want to contribute to society, not sponge off of it. I've contributed several million to the exchequer here even as an illegal immigrant. If they give me an N.I number & PAYE code they could get several million more. It is compassionate to regularise those who pose no threat to the state and who have been long settled here with family, kids, property and business interests. Compassion has a way of coming back to the giver.
5. Not regularising the majority of overstayers will accumulate large problems for the future. Civic planning (from roads, drainage and police to fire services and waste handling) are based on head counts. Some southern counties are now rebelling that they are getting funds based on legal head counts which don't bear any resemblence to actual head counts. The larger the number of invisible heads the more redundant all civic planning becomes.
6. Medical: Illegal immigrants are outside of the NHS and communicable diseases they may carry are not detected early. That they tend to live in areas where there are many other illegal immigrants is a big risk. Britian hasn't had a major outbreak for a long time. When it happens it will be the large number of people "outside the system" who spark it off.

I've got a lot more social and financial reasons ... but will leave it for another time


To address the points you raised against any "amnesty"

- Forgery is not something to be encouraged. That forgery exists is not a good argument for justifying using it. If you are happy for them to continue working then it shouldn't matter to you whether their documents are forged or genuine.
- People who enter via the "normal procedure" stand to gain from paying lower taxes. It's not unfair unless you're talking from a vindictive standpoint. "I had to jump through ten hoops ... so make him jump through eleven." May I ask, are you an immigrant yourself?
- It's beneficial to the taxpayer. See my point #1 above
- I don't understand why it's unfair to people in poor countries. The UK's Aid Budget is unaffected by any amnesty.
- Housing is an issue but you forget that these people are already in the UK and living somewhere. Stamping a "Special Amnesty Leave to Remain" in their passports doesn't change much.
- It won't encourage people smuggling for the simple reason that any amnesty will be for people already here ... not those planning on coming here illegally in the future.

Max, I am enlightened and touched by your reply. I wish I could send this to the Secretary of State to read whilst making policy decisions. I think with the permission of the Moderators, we should start a sticky thread with arguments for amnesty and one for against to be sent to the Home Office when it is complete.

I am not an illegal immigrant but I can appreciate what people go through to make ends meet. People pay thousands of pounds for a dream country and they would do anything to earn a living at any cost. Amazingly, people who oppose amnesty are themselves immigrants and it baffles me sometimes. If the Brit government decides to grant amnesty through an act of parliament, no amount of shouting from the opposing side will make a difference. I believe regularising people in the 'shadows' will benefit the country in the long run. No matter what arguments people will have, something needs to be done and the proper checks put in place later.

The cost of doing nothing is more expensive done taking bold steps to sort this out ones and for all.

Think of how much resources would be needed to track down over 500k illegals alone not mentioning airlifting, accomodation, food, personnel etc.

I rest my case. Lets find a place in our hearts to have compassion because very soon we will be in the position which needs someone to have mercy on us or our children or descendants. I am not condoning illegal immigration but pretending it will go away by a magic wand is just a wish which will not come to pass.

OL7MAX wrote: - It won't encourage people smuggling for the simple reason that any amnesty will be for people already here ... not those planning on coming here illegally in the future.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way - an "amnesty" just encourages more people to come and wait illegally in the UK for the next "amnesty".

You didn't mention the impact upon the welfare and NHS systems from creating new legal permanent residents at a stroke. Or the problems that would arise when those who have got residence through so-called "amnesty" then want to sponsor their relatives to immigrate to the United Kingdom.

There is no quick-fix, but a gradual campaign to locate and remove illegals year by year, plus incentives to encourage illegals to leave voluntarily, plus case-by-case concessions in certain instances (eg if there is a British citizen child involved) - that's the only real solution.

JAJ, I quite see your point and it's the same argument the HO makes for not granting what I shall now just call an "amnesty" i.e., that people not yet here will be encouraged to come and wait for the next one.

It's the HO's job to make sure illegal immigrants don't come here. They are patently incompetent at that even though this is an island nation. When illegal immigrants settle here the HO is incapable of finding them. When they do know where an illegal immigrant is they don't follow it up and "collect" him because they "don't have the staff"! When the odd illegal immigrant gets jailed with an order to be deported at the end of the jail term he is usually let out into the community.

Sure, others will be tempted to come here illegally but that's deflecting the argument from the HO's incompetence. That's the real reason people smuggle themselves in: Britain inability to protect her border. The HO is being paid billions to do a job and they need to start doing it effectively. Illegal immigrants are pouring in now not because they think there'll be an amnesty in 20 years but because they can get past the HO. They will continue to arrive, amnesty or not. The volume of the inflow is determined by the level of HO failures to protect the UK. To argue anything else is pretty ingenious of the HO.

You didn't mention the impact upon the welfare and NHS systems from creating new legal permanent residents at a stroke

Good points. The conditional nature of my Special Amnesty Leave to Remain will ensure a net gain wrt welfare. You can't limit rights of UK nationals to benefits... but you can do that for foreign visitors here on a "visa". You can also limit their ability to sponsor relatives.

About the NHS: These "visitors" are already entitled to most NHS care. The average illegal immigrant is male, young and fit. Outside emergencies - which they already get free treatment for - I don't believe the small additional demands they may place on the NHS is substantial enough to merit keeping them outside the system.

There is no quick-fix, but a gradual campaign to locate and remove illegals year by year, plus incentives to encourage illegals to leave voluntarily, plus case-by-case concessions in certain instances (eg if there is a British citizen child involved) - that's the only real solution.

Prevention is, I believe, a crucial part of any long term solution to this problem.

Anyone implying that granting an amnesty would have absolutely no or very minimal impact on the level of illegal immigration is clearly living in Utopian Kingdom. By the way, is there a heat wave too?

Just because you can’t stop someone from breaking into your car or home despite your best efforts, does not mean you that should pardon the burglar. To do so would send out the message that it is perfectly acceptable to commit the crime.

I live in a real world called United Kingdom and I, therefore, firmly believe that granting an amnesty would encourage more people to attempt to come here illegally.

The Mafia

The inability of HomeOffice to control borders does not mean that people should use it to get to the UK unlawfully. It is still illegal. Normal people abide by law even if there is no policeman in sight.

While "amnesty ILR" may restrict usage of NHS and social benefits, it would be only temporary - until citizenship. And most illegals are definitely not young, youth usually doesn't have funds to get here.

jes2jes wrote:Amazingly, people who oppose amnesty are themselves immigrants and it baffles me sometimes.

What's so amazing here? In the long run illegals throw shade on all immigrants. And while we pay taxes and social contributions, and we have to register and re-register with police (just because we are legal) and pay for extensions of our visas/permits - majority of illegals do not.

After all, illegals start their presence in their "dream country" from a crime. Not a good start, you know.

jes2jes wrote:If the Brit government decides to grant amnesty through an act of parliament, no amount of shouting from the opposing side will make a difference.

Government will never do it - such amnesty will be an extremely unpopular decision.

OL7MAX wrote:Medical: Illegal immigrants are outside of the NHS and communicable diseases they may carry are not detected early. That they tend to live in areas where there are many other illegal immigrants is a big risk. Britian hasn't had a major outbreak for a long time. When it happens it will be the large number of people "outside the system" who spark it off.

Same effect can be achieved by removing illegals from country
And it will be even more beneficial, because it will decrease total number of people in the UK (outbreaks are more likely in crowded areas).

The inability of HomeOffice to control borders does not mean that people should use it to get to the UK unlawfully

OK, I hate to use the "on this planet" argument that Mafia employed but, let's get real: you can't change people's nature. People in poorer countries will try to slip into the UK. I'm not saying that they should but that they will. And the HO should be prepared not for what people should do but for what really happens. My point about the HO and borders was not that people should come in because the borders are weak... but to show that the HO is diverting attention from the real problem: their inability to control the borders.

IIlegal Immigrants (II) don't come because of past amnesties but because of possible future amnesties. Amnesties are rare and don't happen every year. If there's one granted now that almost rules out another amnesty in the next 20-30 years. That is a disincentive for II. Sure, some people-smuggling brokers will try to use the HO argument and promote the UK as a soft touch but potential immigrants talk to others in their community. They have a strong network and know more than you think they do. They'll know that coming to the UK illegally will mean an almost zero chance of an amnesty in the near future... or ever because there was one in 2006.

most illegals are definitely not young, youth usually doesn't have funds to get here.

If they were all grannies they'd have trouble spending days in HGVs without access to a loo. They'd also have trouble hiding under the trains from France, lasting the long journeys by boat or stowing away on a plane. Look, I'm not saying that every one is a single male, 19 years old. But, they are over 90% male and have an average age several decades less than the average for the UK population.

After all, illegals start their presence in their "dream country" from a crime.

That displays the stereotypical Daily Mail attitude. My presence here wasn't started from a crime but from a bureaucratic bungle. But, I don't suppose you'd buy that. The UK is a lovely place and it is home to me now. But, as someone who came from the US and was able to live and possibly make a life in the US of A, England wasn't exactly my "dream country" back then. I just wanted to get away.

Anyone implying that granting an amnesty would have absolutely no or very minimal impact on the level of illegal immigration is clearly living in Utopian Kingdom

Like I said, an amnesty in 2006 is not going to help those who arrive in 2007. The problem with not recognising FUD from the HO is that you end up (like the UK government) barking up the wrong tree. If an amnesty is granted now without something being done about the borders, I'll tell you what will happen: In a year's time there will be loads of II here. Most of them would have arrived after the amnesty. Opposition parties will scream, "Incompence! How can you miss that many people in just a year?!" The HO will say, "We told you so. It's all the fault of that amnesty you granted", rather than admitting that amnesty or not they are just crap at their job.

Anyone implying that granting an amnesty would have absolutely no or very minimal impact on the level of illegal immigration is clearly living in Utopian Kingdom.

Actually, I said, " Sure, others will be tempted to come here illegally but ..." Why do YOU believe there will be a big impact on level of illegal immigration? Is there any data from previous amnesties? Or is it just a gut feeling?

Same effect can be achieved by removing illegals from country

Absolutely. And if the HO can give you a guarantee that they can find and remove most of them then the whole issue of amnesty wouldn't have arisen. It's because they are unable to do this that your choice is limited to living with a constantly growing population of II ... or making them legal.

How will the HO deal with the numbers of applications announced recently? 500,000+
John Reid saidthey willl be dealt with in 5 years. How?
Are they gonna charter the new airbuses to ferry deportees?

There is something they arent telling us. More next week from the HO.

OL7MAX wrote:Amnesties are rare and don't happen every year. If there's one granted now that almost rules out another amnesty in the next 20-30 years.

Look at Spain. During the first amnesty in 1990 their government claimed that there will be no other amnesties. Since then they had five or six more - each was considered to be the "final" one. And each amnesty had more illegals applying then the previous one.
After each amnesty the flow of illegals increased and despite constant improvements in immigrational system - it was unable to cope with increases. It will be exactly the same way in the UK - noone will ever believe that first amnesty will be final.

OL7MAX wrote:That displays the stereotypical Daily Mail attitude.

Stereotypical, but true for majority of cases.

OL7MAX wrote:And if the HO can give you a guarantee that they can find and remove most of them then the whole issue of amnesty wouldn't have arisen. It's because they are unable to do this that your choice is limited to living with a constantly growing population of II ... or making them legal.

This implies that HomeOffice cannot improve. But it can. There is third and better choice - improving HO without any amnesty. Eventually it will be able to cope with load.
As I wrote above, amnesty will most likely make it impossible. It's like trying to start anew on Monday - it will never improve immediately, HomeOffice will not suddenly start working good after amnesty, constant improvements are needed.

tereshchenko, Spain has had one amnesty in recent times and it's widely believed to have been a success despite the fact that they have Africa on their border (or 2 miles from their border). Blocking arrivals should be a lot easier in the UK as they come mainly via the channel tunnel and airports.

This implies that HomeOffice cannot improve. But it can.

I agree. You've given me another good point.

7. The Home Office needs to improve. At present too much of their personnel and budget is used chasing shadows and prosecuting the ones they catch, then attending the full appeals procedure etc., for each one. It's widely accepted that hunting for 600K needles in as many haystacks is a waste of billions of taxpayers' money as it generates very little results. However, if the HO concentrated their staff and efforts on preventing the problem in the first place they may actually be able to achieve something. The consequence of this would be either for the current II to continue living with even less fear of being caught.... or legalising them and making them pay their way.

OL7MAX wrote:Spain has had one amnesty in recent times...

Nope, six (see 1, 2).

OL7MAX wrote:The Home Office needs to improve.

Once again you are making completely unrealistic conclusions... if there will be an amnesty:
1. HomeOffice will have less insensitive for improvements ("illegals? what illegals?") and the whole process will restart from the beginning
2. Number of illegals will quickly return to the previous level and probably even to the larger one
It is completely utopian to think that HomeOffice will suddenly improve to face new wave of illegals - as all political forces they live only in today.[/url]

tereshchenko , that second link does claim six amnesties. That's a site belonging to an anti-immigration group that rants and raves against immigration of all sorts. I think their numbers are suspect too. They even claim that the UK had three amnesties recently! All three in the time I've been here and nobody told me!

To get back on topic - reasons for and against - do you have any other reasons against?

OL7MAX wrote:tereshchenko , that second link does claim six amnesties. That's a site belonging to an anti-immigration group that rants and raves against immigration of all sorts. I think their numbers are suspect too. They even claim that the UK had three amnesties recently! All three in the time I've been here and nobody told me!

Nice of you to ignore first link.
The UK amnesties mentioned were for failed asylum seekers - not for "genuine" illegals. And there are many more websites (most neutral) with the same information.

OL7MAX wrote:To get back on topic - reasons for and against - do you have any other reasons against?

No.