Illegals' right to work wins support of public in poll

[Dawie]

A campaign for an estimated 500,000 illegal workers in Britain to be given the official right to earn a living would have popular support, according to findings in an opinion poll.

The article is here on the Independent's website.

[OL7MAX]

But if you call it an "amnesty" that 66% in favour suddenly become 99.9% against.

We are not calling for a general 'amnesty' but a six-year pathway to citizenship for long-term migrants

Sensible. If talk about undocumented migrants "paying their way" picks up steam politicians of all hues will recognise the bandwagon. Thousands of politicians all performing a coordinated 180 degree turn will be an amusing sight indeed.

one-off naturalisation programmes had been introduced in Spain, Germany and the US as part of a wider strategy of border enforcement. "It may not stop illegal immigration - that is a matter for border controls - but they do bring thousands out of limbo, recognise realities, clear asylum logjams, bring huge benefits to the state and shrink the underground economy on which people-trafficking and exploitative employers thrive,"

I've long argued that border control deficiencies are what cause new illegal immigrants, not amnesties.

[Rawling]

Another excellent article from independent editorial taken from http://comment.independent.co.uk/leadin ... 483828.ece

Next month a powerful cry for justice will be heard. On 7 May, a demonstration will be held in Parliament Square in support of an amnesty for Britain's undocumented migrants. The campaign's organisers, a group called "Strangers into Citizens", argue that Britain's estimated 300,000 to 500,000 irregular migrants should be given a temporary work permit if they can show they have been here for four years or more. At the end of this period they should be entitled to apply for leave to remain.

There is a humanitarian justification for this proposal. Many of those who stand to benefit, such as failed asylum-seekers, are destitute and homeless. They are afraid to come forward for help from the state because they would run the risk of being deported. Regularising their status would help them access accommodation and healthcare.

But this would be far more than an act of charity. Historically, immigrants have always contributed greatly to the public wealth through their hard work. This scheme would enable the present generation to contribute more fully. By regularising those who work in the black economy, the Treasury's tax take would be boosted by about £5bn a year. Moreover, the plan would also open the British economy to an untapped set of skills. It is often impossible for academics or doctors who have sought asylum in Britain to work in the field in which they have been trained. While their claims are being processed, they are forced to live on state handouts. If they are turned down, they often disappear into the black economy to do menial jobs. Under this scheme, they would be free to use their training for the wider public good.

There are several reasons why an undocumented worker will not want to be deported. Some will be in fear of their lives. Others will want to stay because they have decent jobs in Britain. Many will have family ties. But virtually all will have one thing in common: they would like to work legally. It is a myth that most foreigners come to Britain to live on benefits. An amnesty would help to expose this pernicious lie.

So that is the moral and economic justification. But let us be pragmatic too. At the present rate of deportations, it would take a quarter of century to remove all the undocumented migrants in Britain. And this is assuming no one else applies for asylum or overstays their visa in that time. And even if all these undocumented migrants could be located and deported overnight, such a policy would have a devastating effect on our economy. No government would long survive the consequences.

The status quo serves the interests of no one. The Government responds to the xenophobic tub-thumping of the right-wing press by announcing "crackdowns" on illegal immigrants. Ministers step up efforts to deport people. Home Office bureaucrats go after the softest targets such as children and refugees who have made a life in small communities, which then prompts a local outcry. Immigrants' lives are made miserable, ministers are criticised for failing to get to grips with the problem, and the reactionary press becomes ever more hysterical. This plan offers a way to break a vicious circle.

There is no reason why it should not work. The United States held such an amnesty in 1986 and is considering another now. Spain, Italy and Germany have held similar regularisation schemes. And an opinion poll by "Strangers into Citizens" indicates that two-thirds of the British public support an amnesty for those migrants who are prepared to work and pay tax. An amnesty would be humane, efficient and economically justified. It would also be morally just. This is a proposal whose time has arrived.

[OL7MAX]

Brilliant post, Rawling.

[Christophe]

The campaign's organisers, a group called "Strangers into Citizens"...

Strangers into Citizens have a website: http://www.strangersintocitizens.org.uk/index.html. Their co-ordinator, Austen Ivereigh, had an interesting article in The Spectator a few weeks ago. (The Spectator is often vilified by certain types of people because it is seen as "right wing" - a weekly periodical that aims at readers of the Daily Telegraph, essentially. Of course, it's not really "right wing" as that term ought to be used, but it is certainly aimed at what one might call a conservative readership ("small c" and "big C" conservative), so it just goes to show: one oughtn't to make bland assumptions about what certain types of people will think about an issue such as this one.)

[jes2jes]

Another quote from Dawie's Link which is the point I have been making always:

The Labour deputy leadership candidate Jon Cruddas said: "We must deal with those who no one wants to talk about - the 500,000 or so who have no status. Regularisation is about providing a solution to the problem everyone knows exist but which everyone runs from."

[OL7MAX]

The strange thing is that the right of centre thinkers should be the first ones to see the economic benefits of regularising vs non-regularising.

[Rawling]

Thanks OL7MAX.

It will be great if all people who care can show their support by attending the demostration on 7 May, at Parliament Square. I will definetely be there. The issue need more positive publicity in order for the public to have rational debate. Obviously the more people attend the demostration the better.

[JAJ]

Strangers into Citizens have a website: http://www.strangersintocitizens.org.uk/index.html. Their co-ordinator, Austen Ivereigh, had an interesting article in The Spectator a few weeks ago. (The Spectator is often vilified by certain types of people because it is seen as "right wing" - a weekly periodical that aims at readers of the Daily Telegraph, essentially. Of course, it's not really "right wing" as that term ought to be used, but it is certainly aimed at what one might call a conservative readership ("small c" and "big C" conservative), so it just goes to show: one oughtn't to make bland assumptions about what certain types of people will think about an issue such as this one.)

The problem here is that the readers of the Daily Telegraph are less likely to care about the impact of low-skill immigration (legal or otherwise) on the employment prospects and wage levels of those British citizens at the lower end of the economic/skill spectrum.

And what happens when all these people given amnesty then want to sponsor relatives for migration?

Nor will they care too much about the additional pressure on state schooling and the NHS.

It is absolutely unacceptable for 500,000 illegals to be given access to United Kingdom healthcare and social security benefits. The only amnesty that ought to be countenanced is a cash incentive for them to go home. Otherwise, if it takes 25 years to find and remove all of them, then so be it.

[OL7MAX]

Otherwise, if it takes 25 years to find and remove all of them, then so be it.

That's your opinion, fair enough.

While the HO fumbles about for 25 years (and then revises its estimate to 250 years) you are accepting that each one of these people
- has full access to tens of thousands of pounds of emergency medical treatment
- has access to other emergency services like Fire and Police
- can put their kids in local schools for about £5K of free education per year per child
- access thousands of pounds of other government services
- waste about £5K of government resources (hunting them down)
- not pay any income taxes
- and possibly not actually ever get caught and sent away?

And you choose that over a right to work for some of the current undocumented migrants? Oh well....

[Dawie]

The problem here is that the readers of the Daily Telegraph are less likely to care about the impact of low-skill immigration (legal or otherwise) on the employment prospects and wage levels of those British citizens at the lower end of the economic/skill spectrum.

It is highly arguable whether low-skilled immigration (legal or otherwise) really does impact the employment prospects and wage levels of low-skilled British citizens at all. Those British citizens who are at the lower end of the economic spectrum are largely unemployable which is why they are unemployed in the first place and which is why foreign low-skilled workers are in such demand by British companies.

And what happens when all these people given amnesty then want to sponsor relatives for migration?

If they can financially support their relatives without recourse to public funds like any legal immigrant then so what?

Nor will they care too much about the additional pressure on state schooling and the NHS.

Your argument fails to take into account that for economic prosperity Britain requires increased population growth. Immigration has taken up the slack from decreasing fertility rates and an increasing aged population. Whether this necessary population growth comes from increased fertility amongst the native population or from immigration, the state schooling system and NHS would still have to bear the pressure from an increasing population.

In fact, immigration is better for the NHS and schooling system because most immigrants come to Britain as adults therefore requiring no schooling or paediatric health care and are in the prime of their lives and therefore actually place less pressure on the these institutions compared to if the population growth had come from the native population.

It is absolutely unacceptable for 500,000 illegals to be given access to United Kingdom healthcare and social security benefits. The only amnesty that ought to be countenanced is a cash incentive for them to go home. Otherwise, if it takes 25 years to find and remove all of them, then so be it.

How do you equate an amnesty with access to social security benefits? As I'm sure you are well aware the only people able to access social security benefits are people who have indefinite leave to remain, British citizens and certain genuine asylum seekers.

[JAJ]

It is highly arguable whether low-skilled immigration (legal or otherwise) really does impact the employment prospects and wage levels of low-skilled British citizens at all. Those British citizens who are at the lower end of the economic spectrum are largely unemployable which is why they are unemployed in the first place and which is why foreign low-skilled workers are in such demand by British companies.

We hear this one from big business - "immigrants take the jobs British citizens won't do." Simple answer - improve the pay and employment conditions offered to British citizens.

And what happens when all these people given amnesty then want to sponsor relatives for migration?

If they can financially support their relatives without recourse to public funds like any legal immigrant then so what?

Including NHS costs?

Your point ignores the social impact of more and more immigration.

Your argument fails to take into account that for economic prosperity Britain requires increased population growth. Immigration has taken up the slack from decreasing fertility rates and an increasing aged population. Whether this necessary population growth comes from increased fertility amongst the native population or from immigration, the state schooling system and NHS would still have to bear the pressure from an increasing population.

It's a circular argument, though. Do you intend that the population of the United Kingdom should be ever-increasing? To what limit? And leaving aside your personal view, at what point will society reach the "tipping point" at which unpleasant things start to happen because of lack of community cohesion and overcrowding?

And even if immigration does increase headline "prosperity" - which it may do, although at a cost of increasing inequality - is it worth it in terms of the impact on quality of life?

Britain is not Australia or Canada and simply does not have the space for millions of new inhabitants, no matter how productive or well-selected.

How do you equate an amnesty with access to social security benefits? As I'm sure you are well aware the only people able to access social security benefits are people who have indefinite leave to remain, British citizens and certain genuine asylum seekers.

Yes and an "amnesty" means (either immediately, or after a time lag) indefinite leave to remain plus British citizenship for at least the 500,000 mentioned, plus the flow-on chain migration.

There are already schemes in place to allow certain overstayers to be regularised. There is an argument for more generous cash incentives for illegals already in Britain to come forward for resettlement in their home countries, and a need for more stringent controls to catch those already in the country illegally (and ensure a ban on re-entry after deportation). There is also a need for a serious re-think about a radical down-scaling of existing temporary entry schemes, including student, work permit, HSMP and working holdiday visas.

The argument for a blanket "amnesty" for illegals comes, for widely differing reasons, from elements of the ideological right and left. Once amnesty is given, border control becomes pointless and the message will be clear that as soon as another 500,000 or so illegals have emerged a future government will do a similar cave-in and just grant another "amnesty". For the same quoted reasons.

[Christophe]

The problem here is that the readers of the Daily Telegraph are less likely to care about the impact of low-skill immigration (legal or otherwise) on the employment prospects and wage levels of those British citizens at the lower end of the economic/skill spectrum.

Absolutely - my only point was to try to indicate that there are a lot of anodyne assumptions being made (and not even particularly on this board) about the views that members of the general public will have about the question of an immigration amnesty - e.g. that Labour/"left wing" people will be in favour of some sort of amnesty and are somehow on the "side of the immigrant", Conservative/"right wing" people will be opposed, and so on. In reality, the whole question is much more complex than that and opinions fall outside the traditional "left-right" split that people still like to talk about so much.

[jes2jes]

Amazingly, most undocumented Migrants (UM) at one time in their immigration history were documented (aside those who came in clandestinely) before. Because of this fact, many if not most have access to the NHS already and are using it. I do not think someone who registered say in 1995 with the right documentation (what you needed those days was just a proof of address or no proof) at their local GP would be asked to show their passport or ID card to use the service these days.

What needs to be done is to come up with an agenda to provide some legal leeway for UM's to work and pay taxes and also access certain benefits (like the NHS) at a fee with no recourse to settlement no matter how long you live in the UK. This is better than saying everyone should be deported which would not happen in any of our lifetime.

If anyone saw the news item on the Lithuania workers on BBC you would really want a sort of amnesty for people to be documented properly to work so that the government can benefit from the labour force that are unaccounted for currently in loss revenue.

I rest my case.

[sakura]

I just hope we don't have another thread about amnesty...there is still one in active use!!

Well, The Independent is a quite lefty newspaper. I am thinking two things;

1. Whether the findings by the organisation "Strangers into Citizens" is argumentatively 'strong' - a survey of 1,004 people is newsworthy? I wonder what is the working class population, and how many of them, amongst other social groups, would support such a project, if the survey went nationwide. On their website, it says 31% (one third) of Brits want all illegal immigrants deported...so that is one in three - not really a general consensus, is it? Migrationwatch could well use this survey and argue that enough people (1 in 3) don't want illegals in the UK.

If you look at some of the responses;
21% would allow people to work legally, before returning home afterwards
31% want them all deported.
So over 50% want them to leave at some point, compared to 44% who would support them to stay indefinately. Although, the argument is to allow them to work legally...but did they differentiate between (falied) asylum seekers and overstayers? Two separate categories, no? There may be more support for (failed) asylum seekers than overstayers, but is that mentioned?

Why did they ask if they were concerned about unemployment in the UK, if there is no correlation whether illegal immigration has a net effect on unemployment here? (i.e. the argument that such people do not take jobs away from residents.) Was that question pointless?

2. Indy not knowing what their other hand is doing? Indy commentary;

There is no reason why it should not work. The United States held such an amnesty in 1986 and is considering another now. Spain, Italy and Germany have held similar regularisation schemes. And an opinion poll by "Strangers into Citizens" indicates that two-thirds of the British public support an amnesty for those migrants who are prepared to work and pay tax. An amnesty would be humane, efficient and economically justified. It would also be morally just. This is a proposal whose time has arrived.

Austin Ivereigh, the co-ordinator of the campaign, said: "We are not calling for a general 'amnesty' but a six-year pathway to citizenship for long-term migrants. It is certainly not issuing a 'green light for unprecedented migration'."

Ivereigh again,

He said one-off naturalisation programmes had been introduced in Spain, Germany and the US as part of a wider strategy of border enforcement. "It may not stop illegal immigration - that is a matter for border controls - but they do bring thousands out of limbo, recognise realities, clear asylum logjams, bring huge benefits to the state and shrink the underground economy on which people-trafficking and exploitative employers thrive," said Mr Ivereigh.

Sorry, Spain did not have a "one-off" naturalisation programme...if they mean an amnesty, Spain has had like 5, and each time the numbers have gone up. So one is saying it's not an amnesty, but the Indy commentator is calling it an 'amnesty'....I don't know, which is it?

Now...if many people agree that illegal immigration is actually a wrong term, because most people are 'overstayers', what can border controls do? If people come with valid visas, how would having 'secure borders' help anyone? Ok, stopping the 5000 or so from crossing the Chunnel might be one thing, but if we agree that many more overstay their tourist or student visas, then....would it not be that there is a need to work on 'texting' people to leave before they overstay! trying to make sure they leave on time is an internal, not border, issue. Spain has a border issue, the UK's is not that aggressive yet.

I do not agree in full with the argument that 'we need more immigration because of a declining birthrate'. As you get wealthier you tend to have fewer children, but if governments supported childcare services - i.e. helping families to work and providing cheap, efficient childcare - the birthrate could increase. Why is it that the UK and Germany have this problem, but France does not? Because France's fertility levels are higher due to better government services. Immigration cannot always be the solution (maybe part of it) because in the long-run, the same problem arises. It should be about focusing attention on taxation for families, childcare services, maybe increasing the retirement age (if you live longer, you should work longer?) - I don't favour that - but immigrants who arrive would retire too, their kids will have fewer kids as they get wealthier/more educated - it's a cycle that won't be stopped. Neither is the problem as bad as it is in Japan where the only immediate solution is immigration, but there, their problem is that they have never had such an immigration programme anyway, whereas the UK has.

[Christophe]

I do not think someone who registered say in 1995 with the right documentation (what you needed those days was just a proof of address or no proof) at their local GP would be asked to show their passport or ID card to use the service these days.

One of the problems is that health-care workers (particularly those in the very "front-line", so to speak - such as receptionists, triage nurses, but also others) are not willing or well-equipped to do what is - as they see it - the job that the Home Office ought to be doing. This is easy to understand: denying people access to medical services is unpleasant and likely to lead to arguments (or at least lively discussions) and it can be both irritating and heart-breaking. Moreover, given the arcane nature of some of the immigration regulations and the delays in the system, it also requires a degree of knowledge of immigration matters that such people certainly don't have. (In addition, to add to the difficulties, not all British citizens are entitled to routine treatment on the NHS - it is a service designed for people who are living in the UK: British citizens who are not are not eligible: this is not a new thing (it goes back to the start of the NHS), although sometimes it is presented as if it is.)

All of this is not, of course, a good reason for an amnesty, but it something that needs to be borne in mind when government spokespeople blithely make announcements about "cracking down" on illegal use of the health services. Some people will of course say that it is a good reason for a national identity or entitlement card: a subject for another post - although the issue of identity cards is, in some respects, entertwined with issues of immigration!

[OL7MAX]

most people are 'overstayers', what can border controls do? If people come with valid visas, how would having 'secure borders' help anyone?

It's amazing how many people actually use that line when it's nothing but government spin. Border control is deviously misinterpreted by politicians to mean control at physical borders. It's not. In other countries border control

- monitor everyone leaving the country and tally that with the visa records
- immediately pursue those who have exceeded their stay
- Check attendance records and exam results at educational institutions, monitor employment records of those on work permits. They know which routes have the holes and keep a closer eye on those.
- coordinate with other government departments (eg prisons) to ensure immigration laws are complied with.
- take enforcement action when anyone - from police to employers - notify them of an illegal immigrant.

This pathetic bunch of border control buffoons can't even deport foreign prisoners who've served their sentence. Not even the violent ones. Or record who is leaving the country (emmigration control). Or pick up an illegal immigrant the police are holding for them. Taking border control to mean only physical borders plays right into their hands and lets them off all their total, utter, complete incompetence going back years and years and years.

In other countries border control has to protect physical borders but the large majority of their work is protecting the non-physical ones. There is nobody else protecting the non-physical borders here. What makes anyone seriously think it's not an issue for border control?

[sakura]

most people are 'overstayers', what can border controls do? If people come with valid visas, how would having 'secure borders' help anyone?

It's amazing how many people actually use that line when it's nothing but government spin. Border control is deviously misinterpreted by politicians to mean control at physical borders. It's not. In other countries border control

- monitor everyone leaving the country and tally that with the visa records
- immediately pursue those who have exceeded their stay
- Check attendance records and exam results at educational institutions, monitor employment records of those on work permits. They know which routes have the holes and keep a closer eye on those.
- coordinate with other government departments (eg prisons) to ensure immigration laws are complied with.
- take enforcement action when anyone - from police to employers - notify them of an illegal immigrant.

This pathetic bunch of border control buffoons can't even deport foreign prisoners who've served their sentence. Not even the violent ones. Or record who is leaving the country (emmigration control). Or pick up an illegal immigrant the police are holding for them. Taking border control to mean only physical borders plays right into their hands and lets them off all their total, utter, complete incompetence going back years and years and years.

In other countries border control has to protect physical borders but the large majority of their work is protecting the non-physical ones. There is nobody else protecting the non-physical borders here. What makes anyone seriously think it's not an issue for border control?

I was referring to Iveriegh's own words, in which the general term 'border control' seemed to be about external issues. Not that these two are separate anyway, but the term 'border control'...is about borders firstly.

I think Japan monitors people entering/leaving the country, but they still have overstayers. Neither would any of this stop people coming on fake passports, whatever the numbers may be.

[OL7MAX]

>>fake passports

Is also a case for border control officials.

[Docterror]

Am I too late to crash this party?.. been a bit tied up lately. Some of the points put forth by JAJ and sakura where floating around somewhere in my head but I wasn't aware that I had them until I read them.

On an off-thread, just wanted to know whether Channel Five is leftwing or is it just coincidence that they run an episode of 'Shark' featuring the plight of illegal immigrants just 10 days before the march on the 7th of May? And likening the situation of illegal immigrants to slavery.. just makes one think. The rerun is on 10pm in Channel Five US incase anyone is interested.