Interesting article. There have been arguments here for an against an amnesty but this article about the real plight of many illegal (AND legal) immigrants is worth reading.
For the last decade the focus, the demons, of control were asylum-seekers. In the 1970s and 1980s it was husbands from the Indian sub-continent who were accused of contracting "marriages of convenience" ..... Today it is "economic migrants" - whose labour is needed but whose presence is unwanted.
When it comes to migrant workers then, like every other construct tainted by immigration law, the very use of the term "rights" is an abuse of vocabulary. What "rights" the documented - those migrants with permission to enter and work - possess are usually impossible to enforce. The ability to bring a case for unfair dismissal requires having been in employment for a year - an impossibility for short-term, temporary labour. The "right" to a written statement of employment terms is pointless for those not literate in English.
And not all employment "rights" apply even to the documented. Parental "rights" under the Working Time Regulations - parental leave, time off in a family emergency, flexible working conditions to care for children - none of these appear to apply to the documented migrant at least where the child does not reside in the UK.
...This makes provision of housing and other poor-law support for certain refugees to be conditional on their undertaking "community services". These are refugees whose claim has been rejected by the Home Office but are unable to return home because of circumstances beyond their control - because they are stateless or ill or (paradoxically in the case of a rejected asylum application) the country of return is too dangerous. Section 10 transforms asylum-seekers into slaves. It makes their labour compulsory, as refusal to participate will result in deprivation of housing and other support.
