Immigration ammnesty.

[sakura]

One only has to look at the immigration policies of the French interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy who is himself the son of Hungarian immigrants, and yet single-handedly managed to set the suburbs of Paris on fire.

So do you mean that, once an immigrant, always an immigrant, and that you cannot consider yourself to be a citizen/national of the country (France, in this case)? I don't know much about Sarkozy, but what if he was born, raised and educated in France, spoke no Hungarian, never been there, and (I read on a news webiste) even his grandparents considered themselves French?

I highly doubt that some of the most far-rightist thinking is within the immigrant community, and I don't consider being against an amnesty radical or far-rightist...even the Liberal Democrats were opposed to this.

Do we actually know what the far-rights think of immigration? It does not include allowing 'genuine' asylum seekers in, not even that. They want them all out...anyone non-white, actually anyone not Anglo-Saxon (so, that means, possibly, even the Polish, who, although white, are Slavic). So I'm sure some of them simply mean Western European (French, German, Dutch, Scandinavian, etc).

So their immigration policy is...nil (even, they would want to leave the EU to bring back a 'sovereign and autonomous' Britian...).

I would say that most people who hold more radical views are within the working classes, especially at the very bottom social stratum, which can include all types of people. But it doesn't mean to say middle/upper classes don't also think the same, but it's clear that it is generally from the working class that these far-right sentiments affect the most.

Anyway, maybe I read people's posts wrong...

[Dawie]

So do you mean that, once an immigrant, always an immigrant, and that you cannot consider yourself to be a citizen/national of the country (France, in this case)? I don't know much about Sarkozy, but what if he was born, raised and educated in France, spoke no Hungarian, never been there, and (I read on a news webiste) even his grandparents considered themselves French?

No, but I would expect someone who is descended from immigrants to be sympathetic to the plight of immigrants and not formulate policies that deport thousands of Congolese children and their parents who have lived their entire lives in France to a country that they have never been to and have no connection with whatsoever just because they are not legal French citizens.

I highly doubt that some of the most far-rightist thinking is within the immigrant community, and I don't consider being against an amnesty radical or far-rightist...even the Liberal Democrats were opposed to this.

Well, my personal view on this is that an amnesty will become inevitable one day because it is physically impossible and unrealistic to deport every single illegal immigrant in Britain. We are talking of hundreds of thousands of people (possibly over a million). Could you imagine how much it would cost to deport every single one of them? And who would clean your house and look after your children when they are all gone? An amnesty has to happen one day and better to have it happen sooner rather than later.

As far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned...I used to be a supporter of theirs until I become aware of their immigration policy which one can hardly term "liberal". I always find it strange how the issue of immigration can turn even the most liberal of people into raging dearly beloved.

Do we actually know what the far-rights think of immigration? It does not include allowing 'genuine' asylum seekers in, not even that. They want them all out...anyone non-white, actually anyone not Anglo-Saxon (so, that means, possibly, even the Polish, who, although white, are Slavic). So I'm sure some of them simply mean Western European (French, German, Dutch, Scandinavian, etc).

The far right wants zero immigration and some even want repatriation of all non-Native british including second and third generation asians, blacks and Western Europeans like French, Germans, Spanish etc. The irony of course is that all "native" British people are directly descended and related to people all over Europe. And they far right has no answers for what will happen if there is zero immigration, namely economic stagnation because of a lack of workers and negative population growth because of low fertility rates.

I would say that most people who hold more radical views are within the working classes, especially at the very bottom social stratum, which can include all types of people. But it doesn't mean to say middle/upper classes don't also think the same, but it's clear that it is generally from the working class that these far-right sentiments affect the most.

Unfortunately I think most people from all classes are ill-equipped and too mis-informed for a logical debate on immigration. They think with their hearts and not with their heads. They forget that the entire population of Britain ultimately is descended from immigrants. Ultimately fear of immigration is due to beloved and selfishness.

[sakura]

I don't disagree, Dawie, with any of your points! So true, I actually wrote in one of my earlier posts on this thread that immigration/amnesty issues are too emotional to be figured out correctly.

Oh...actually there was one point I want to make regarding an amnesty:

Well, my personal view on this is that an amnesty will become inevitable one day because it is physically impossible and unrealistic to deport every single illegal immigrant in Britain. We are talking of hundreds of thousands of people (possibly over a million). Could you imagine how much it would cost to deport every single one of them? And who would clean your house and look after your children when they are all gone? An amnesty has to happen one day and better to have it happen sooner rather than later.

The problem with an amnesty is: what do businesses want? Some businesses want more workers, right, but even some of the most important businesses in the UK would not survive without illegal immigrants, who get paid peanuts, but who help these businesses survive. So, amnesties are more than just about morals, logistics, politics..but economics, geography, etc etc.

I don't think not having an amnesty means deporting people (although that is going on, it isn't going to reduce the numbers), but simply leaving it be seems to be the best options according to some politicians.

I would use the US as an example of a country where illegal immigrants are so vital, cannot be deported, but in many ways politicians/businesses would much rather leave them in limbo because they feed the economy, than make them legal where they can (according to these thinkers) claim all sorts of things such as medicaid, housing, reduced in-state university fees (although that is available already in some states). Also, they consider an amnesty/legal residency out of the question precisely because it leads to more 'chain migration' (i.e. bring over one's spouse, young children, grandparents, etc, if not already there)...which, as we know, is available in the US (can't remmeber what it's called, but they can petition to bring over family members, even cousins, uncles, etc).

So, for many, amnesties would mean people would be allowed minimum wage...don't know how the cockle picking industry would survive having to pay people like £2-4 more per hour than they used to. So, basically, leave them to clean toilets, offices, etc, because it is good for the economy to have certain 'undesirable' jobs taken by illegals rather than make them legal and have to enforce minimum wage, meaning business go bust (how much is the cleaning industry worth, BTW...a few billion no doubt, thanks partly to illegal immigration, where profit margins are made even bigger). It is also a problem of the welfare state to not get lazy people working, because they know they will not, so it is better to leave illegal immigrants, knowing that they (currently) do not harm society by working in these industries.

This is a useful tactic by the Home Office...focusing on 'benefit-scrounging' illegals (even though, as a Conservative MP pointed out, few of them are on benefits) means they do not have to 'go after' those working in Chinatown or cleaning major banks in the City. They are 'good' illegals...needed (for now) so let them be. Although, this doesn't mean some of them are not targetted, but it's all about numbers for the HO, so they arrest 400 this week, to grab headlines.

Note: I am not saying this position is right, merely pointing out that this is another aspect of why amnesties are not considered (in the UK).

[Dawie]

Yeah, I completely agree with you. Big business is probably the single biggest beneficiary of illegal immigrants and the biggest employer of them too, either indirectly through sub-contracting or directly. HSBC, ABN-Ambro, USB Warburg, Barclays...all these big corporates stand to lose millions of pounds in increased costs should there ever be an amnesty. Illegal immigrant workers keep their costs down and they have a keen interest in making sure an amnesty never happens.

Your other point about "benefit-scrounging" illegals is also very valid. I always laugh out loud when ignorant people refer to all the illegal immigrants in this country "scrounging" benefits. Unless you are a genuine asylum seeker, a holder of indefinite to remain, or an EU or British citizen, you quite simply cannot claim benefits. Simple as that. Where illegal immigrants have managed to incorrectly claim benefits, it is usually due to the incompetence or collusion of government officials.

The irony is that the biggest problem the benefits system faces in this country is not from illegal immigrants, but from benefit-scrounging British citizens who are too lazy and job-shy to find employment and live their entire lives on employment and disability benefits. An even bigger irony is that these very same British benefit-scroungers are the same ones complaining about immigration....immigration that is necessary because they are too lazy to go out and work themselves! You sometimes really have to laugh at the craziness of it all.

[OL7MAX]

merely pointing out that this is another aspect of why amnesties are not considered

The one over riding factor for any politician is getting elected. It takes precedence over the welfare of the country, the size of the armed forces, the environment, childhood poverty in the UK.... everything. If there were some poliitcal advantage to be gained from extending an amnesty politicians would jump on the idea.

One possible influence could be money. In the materialistic, consumer society that is the UK money talks. When someone shows how much the UK can gain from legalising and taxing the "illlegal immigrants" - and how much of difference that will make to pensioners' council tax, to layabouts' benefit payments, to the number of police on the beat - legalising them could become popular demand.

[jes2jes]

Nice and interesting comments by Dawie, OL7MAX and Sakura.

This is what we really want instead of people just 'shooting their mouths' without any valid arguments but just pure emotions. Funny enough, most people are very ignorant when it comes to pros & cons of migration and they go by what others have said in the past concerning the topic without even finding out whether the point on which they are basing their argument(s) on are valid or not.

I saw the Director of Migration Watch UK on TV last night or the night before (On BBC 24) arguing about the negative effect of migration on this country : Britain is over populated, wages are low due to the 'polish plumber' etc. I was really amazed that a person called 'Sir' could make such uneducated arguments with statistics. Conclusion, the UK does not need migrants (lol) but the other bloke from one of the Think Thank organisations made a very intellectual and valid point as to how badly the UK needs immigrants else 'the UK' stands to loose out (if not loosing out already) to the US, Canada, Australia, Ireland etc.

In this morning's Metro, there was a report by the IMF encouraging the UK to give incentives to the polulation to have more children and also bring more Immigrants in to offset the aged population whose pensions cannot be paid by 2050 if nothing is done about it. Thank God I will be long gone from this country before then!!!

Amazing how the glass looks (half empty or half full) from your stand point. Sooner or later, circumstances would force the politicians to make a decision on All 'Undocumented' migrants. The sooner someone with a 'spine' makes a decision the better to avoid the unvoidably bad situation it would generate into in the near future.

This is my two cents.

[Dawie]

It does seem that a lot of people who have commented on this particular topic have condemned illegal immigrants merely for the fact they are "illegal" without thinking through the various social, political and economic reasons for why they have become illegal immigrants in the first place.

If you just stopped for a second and thought through the sheer ridiculousness of it all....an entire group of people are condemned and given criminal sanction, not for murder, not for rape, not for robbery, but for merely being "illegal". For the sheer criminality of daring to live in a place without "permission".

We have got to a stage in humanity where we treat our fellow human beings worse than we treat animals. Why aren't migrating birds arrested the moment they set foot in Britain for not entering through the proper ports of entry? Do German swans know that they can exercise their treaty rights here in the UK? Do African swallows know that they have to obtain entry clearance prior to flying here? Are migrating albatrosses aware of the limit of 20 hours a week working on a student visa?

I know these examples are a bit silly, but if an alien race was watching from space they really would wonder what the hell is going on down here.

[Rawling]

I think the term "Undocumented migrants" or irregular migrants should be used. It seems some people can not sees past the word illegal.

[yankeegirl]

It does seem that a lot of people who have commented on this particular topic have condemned illegal immigrants merely for the fact they are "illegal" without thinking through the various social, political and economic reasons for why they have become illegal immigrants in the first place.

I agree. As a whole, it seems the world these days lacks comapssion. Now, I'm not saying to open borders to everyone everywhere (though in my imaginary world I would ) but there are so many different types of "illegal" immigrants and different circumstances as how one finds themselves in that situation to begin with. There are people that came over as children; the UK is the only country they know and I definitely do not think they should be sent off to somewhere where they have no ties. Unfortuately those are not the type of "illegals" that grab headlines; its those that then commit crimes, sell illegal/fraudulent documents etc. Yet those appear to be in the minority.

[Dawie]

For anyone who's interested there's an excellent book available from Amazon called "Open Borders: The Case Against Immigration Controls" by Teresa Hayter. It's a thoroughly absorbing read and highly recommended.

[Rawling]

If you want to take part in the discussion read all my postings
Do not just read the last post or snapsot.

No wonder about your stetement here.
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... ght=#73958

I have mentioned many times in my post one of the solution is to seek justice, to be honest, and to be fair. If your case is decided then that it is. UK justice system is the one of the most independent institution in the world.

Adindas.

[/quote]

So you believe the Uk justice system is justice, honest and fair and does not influenced by government and is totally independent. How in the world then They want to send back Zimbabwean back to Zimbabwe, Many Iraqis given no status whatsoever while situation in Iraq is well known by everybody.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

[Docterror]

While there are a lot of topics that I do agree with, there are some that I do not which may be either due to my ignorance. Now looks like a good time to discuss them, and gain some knowledge rather than keep quiet and stay dumb for ever.

Some businesses want more workers, right, but even some of the most important businesses in the UK would not survive without illegal immigrants, who get paid peanuts

I can understand the business wishing to have more illegal immigrants as it increases profits, but they wanting illegal immigrants to stay afloat? Any sites or links for information that will help me understand this phenomenon better?

an entire group of people are condemned and given criminal sanction, not for murder, not for rape, not for robbery, but for merely being "illegal". For the sheer criminality of daring to live in a place without "permission

Any thing against the law will be considered illegal. And it exists for a good reason as well- to get control over situations. If for example we were to say that just not getting permission should not be offense, then no one would bother apply for driving licence. Accidents would be on the rise than it currently is and no one would have a say.

We have got to a stage in humanity where we treat our fellow human beings worse than we treat animals.

Its quite simple. We human beings just eliminate anything we feel threatened about if given the power to do so. The reason we do not prevent all the animals in question and all is just because we do not feel that they are a threat. We would not have an open door policy to, say, locusts or anacondas that decide to migrate to this place. Its almost the same with immigration controls. A free world without border controls will create a mass exodus of people who will inevitabily be unsustainable for the "richer" part of the world and so the controls become a necessary evil so that the devoloped nations can maintain a better standard of living for their inhabitants. The developed world do see the potential exodus as a threat, but as they are also humans the "richer" countries just have the necessary measures in place to prevent them instead of eliminating them.

I agree. As a whole, it seems the world these days lacks comapssion.

Every person individually has compassion, but collectively the self-centered survival instinct makes it a better deal to pay less to no attention to others and horde everything. It is a shame indeed. It feels good to stand up and talk about good will to the whole world, and we should practice what we preach to our level best. But where do we draw the line?

Looking forward to a debate that will change my current stand as I find myself to be cynical and do not enjoy it very much.

[Dawie]

I recommend you read the book whose details I posted a few posts ago. I'm all debated out for now!

[adindas]

Rawling
Everything must be tested in the court rather than believe their story. Everybody could make their own story, but how you know that is true or not need to be tested. In the court every evidence will be considered people could follow the whole case. So the people who make decision will be very very careful about it.

See for instance Afghan Hijackers. There are some religious extremist HO want to deport but they could not because the court have ruled otherwise.

They want to send back Zimbabwean back to Zimbabwe, Many Iraqis given no status whatsoever while situation in Iraq is well known by everybody

Let justice system determined it. If they are genuine the truth will come out in the court of justice. If the court have decided the case then you need to honour it. That is justice.

Adindas

[sakura]

I can understand the business wishing to have more illegal immigrants as it increases profits, but they wanting illegal immigrants to stay afloat? Any sites or links for information that will help me understand this phenomenon better?

I meant businesses wanting more skilled immigrants, like the CBI had mentioned before: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 474997.stm and http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/cbi_bss.nsf/ ... enDocument ,the large multinational and transnational corporations certainly want more skilled workers, whether they are from Newcastle, Nigeria or Nicaragua.

At the same time, (I meant that) some of their work is done by illegal immigrants (like cleaning), and other businesses/sectors rely heavily or solely on illegal immigrants (like cockle picking). I do not know all of the types of industries, but these are just examples of types of jobs that would go undone, but highly noticed, were it not for illegal immigrants.

The problem with the 'does it benefit the UK to have an amnesty?' question is: who will undertake the report? IPPR says £6bn, but how do they calculate that? And what happens after a generation or so? And...some might say, 'they would say that, being a lefty think-tank', whereas Migrationwatch UK would probably want to say -£6bn, but then they are more right-leaning. Few organisations/people will be respected on both left and right side of politics, because we all have a political leaning that might tar the report's credibility.

To read about the IPPR report: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_b ... 354784.ece

[OL7MAX]

an entire group of people are condemned and given criminal sanction, not for murder, not for rape, not for robbery, but for merely being "illegal".

Adindas, a recent news item explained this: When commonwealth servicemen serving in the British military are killed on duty (fighting for Britain) their wives could be deported as they don't have British passports. Fair and just?

The term undocumented migrants is so much more accurate. Maybe that's why it won't catch on.

business wishing to have more illegal immigrants as it increases profits, but they wanting illegal immigrants to stay afloat? ...... Any sites or links for information that will help me understand this phenomenon better?

As a businessman I would look suspiciously on a business model that relied so heavily on illegal immigrants that it couldn't manage without. It's obviously not a sustainable model. However, that said, there are hundreds of thousands of "undocumented" people working in the UK. You won't find stats for them as they don't stand long enough in one place to be counted. But, to answer your question, imagine a few hundred thousand people taken out of the workforce - especially in the lower paid, unsocial hours, unpleasant jobs - and you can almost see the bankruptcy CAs rubbing their hands in glee.

I am "undocumented". If I have to leave the UK tomorrow at least one of my businesses would go bust and a lot of UK taxpayers would be out of a job.

If for example we were to say that just not getting permission should not be offense, then no one would bother apply for driving licence.

Good point. You've got two options: Lock these drivers up and let the state pay for their keep for six months. Or force them to take a driving test and pay the state a lot of money for the privilege. One small difference: Your unlicenced driver is intentionally unlicenced. Most undocumented workers are happy to get legal and pay taxes if given the chance.

[adindas]

OL7MAX

If U browse all my postings I always believe in Justice, and I believe in UK justice system.

Could be deperted does not mean will be deported ....
This case must be tried.

Adindas


If you are unfairly treated then you should seek justice.

Adindas

[quote="OL7MAX"]

Adindas, a recent news item explained this: When commonwealth servicemen serving in the British military are killed on duty (fighting for Britain) their wives could be deported as they don't have British passports. Fair and just?
quote]

[OL7MAX]

Could be deperted does not mean will be deported ....
This case must be tried.

According to the law the wives of those servicemen will be deported. There is no legal case for them to stay.

Do you support their deportation or do you think they have a good case for compassion/amnesty?

[Docterror]

I meant businesses wanting more skilled immigrants

IPPR says £6bn, but how do they calculate that? And what happens after a generation or so? And...some might say, 'they would say that, being a lefty think-tank'

I really do not think there is much of an argument about whether skilled immigrants are good for the economy of a country or not. The feel that IPPR report does have a leftist slant to it as the 4.7 bn out of the 6 bn figure put forth is not because of benefits we get from what the illegal immigrants will do, but rather by the money saved by not doing anything against them. But I did like a terminology "unauthorised migrants" used in the article which I think is very accurate compared to illegal immigrants.

As a businessman I would look suspiciously on a business model that relied so heavily on illegal immigrants that it couldn't manage without. It's obviously not a sustainable model.

That is my point of view as well.

I meant that) some of their work is done by illegal immigrants (like cleaning), and other businesses/sectors rely heavily or solely on illegal immigrants (like cockle picking). I do not know all of the types of industries, but these are just examples of types of jobs that would go undone, but highly noticed, were it not for illegal immigrants

But, to answer your question, imagine a few hundred thousand people taken out of the workforce - especially in the lower paid, unsocial hours, unpleasant jobs - and you can almost see the bankruptcy CAs rubbing their hands in glee.

This is exactly where the problem with an amnesty lies. If an amnesty were to be offered and the unauthorised immigrants were allowed to become authorised, they would stop wanting to do the lower paid, unsocial hours, unpleasant jobs and would want to be in par with the other authorised immigrants and their local/European peers. This would effective wipe out any benefit gained by the economy or employers by employing the unauthorised personnel and an new wave of unauthorised immigrants will be required to bring "stability" back.

I am "undocumented". If I have to leave the UK tomorrow at least one of my businesses would go bust and a lot of UK taxpayers would be out of a job.

Sorry to be blunt, but if the UK doesnot want you, why do you want to be bothered about the benefit you bring to UK? Take all the documents about your business and how you benefit the UK and head back to the country you are supposed to be from and apply at the British Embassy over there in the appropriate category. I have heard a lot of incidents about the terrible encounters with ECOs from a lot of posters here and I will not be able to make a fair comment pertaining to this as I personally never had to face the wrath of an ECO myself. But if they deem that you are not needed then it is their loss, and so take your abilities elsewhere. If an entrepreneur is denied a chance to prove his worth to a sponsor but was successful in minting millions for his subsequent sponsor, who loses?

To me all this insistence on how beneficial it is to have "illegal" immigrants just seems to be a ploy to get the government to authorise them rather than the burning desire for the "illegals" do really benefit the treasury. If the unauthorised immigrants deem that life is harsh with all the inequalities they have to suffer and that they are not given the basic human rights, then theoretically they should be able to fight it.

I said theoretically, because I do not see any way they will be able to do that and the only practical way I see is to either head back to where they are from and suffer whatever it was that they ran away from in their home country in the first place, or decide that life in UK as an unauthorised immigrant is even better than what is on offer over at their home country.

One small difference: Your unlicenced driver is intentionally unlicenced.Most undocumented workers are happy to get legal and pay taxes if given the chance.

Hmm... I have to agree. The bad thing about a good point is that it cannot be argued against... atleast by me.

As a personal note to OL7MAX, its quite refreshing to see that you did not use the words from my post like "ignorance" and "dumb" to get back at me with the typical "agreed" seen in many posts here. It kind of makes you look... dignified. It was not my intention to cause you any offense with my prior post to you but I felt that I just have to call it the way I saw it. No hard feelings.. I hope.

[OL7MAX]

Sorry to be blunt, but if the UK doesnot want you, why do you want to be bothered about the benefit you bring to UK?

Sorry to be blunt but I ain't bovvered. In fact, I'd dearly love to leave and the sooner the better, I've made posts about that in other threads. The problem that people like me have is that they've built roots here. My wife is British and this is the only home she's ever known. All my children are British virtue their mum. They attend school here, have grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins and friends here and, like their mum, moving to India would be a major upheaval. However, the law does not require them to do so. But the law is quite happy for them to effectively lose their father and become reliant on state handouts. Some would see that as being not very clever.

For people who've been here a long time it's difficult to leave and go back home... because this is now home. It's not broken bones we're escaping but family ties we're trying not to break. In my particular case I'll get ILR - if not under the 14 year rule then by exercising EEA spouse rights in another EC country or by buying a business visa/ILR. Money doesn't talk in this sorry country, it shouts. Many aren't in my financial position but they have all the emotional and other ties I do.

Heck, if I wanted to play games I'd get my family to claim benefits and I'd continue living here by the simple expedient of officially returning to India and coming here for two six month holidays every year. If I pay my ticket the British people would pick up the tab to support me and my family. But some of them would still not concede it's better to give people like me ILR! I think it's completely bonkers. An amnesty is an opportunity to iron out anomalies that the more rigid "laws" end up creating.

If an amnesty were to be offered and the unauthorised immigrants were allowed to become authorised, they would stop wanting to do the lower paid, unsocial hours, unpleasant jobs

That is conjecture. At least the assumption that all of them will move to other jobs is conjecture and almost impossible to accept as the likely scenario. Some will move, yes, but many who are doing those jobs are doing them not just because they are "undocumented". Many of them have NI numbers etc., and can pass off as authentic legal workers. Others can (and do) use fradulent documents. There are several good reasons why some of them will continue to do those jobs even after an amnesty e.g. unsocial work pays better. First gen immigrants (Ugandan Indian newsagents/marketstall owners?) are more willing to sacrifice social life for a more secure financial future. Secondly, lack of language/education/other skills will confine some to similar jobs to what they are doing now. Bear in mind that people like me didn't need an ILR stamp to break out of low paid work: I don't even have an N.I. number. Those that can break out have already likely broken out of that type of work. But, yes, there will be some small effect, especially in the below minimum wage market. But it won't be as marked as you suggest partly because not everyone will get amnesty. It would be limited to "illegal immigrants" who satisfied certain criteria.

To me all this insistence on how beneficial it is to have "illegal" immigrants just seems to be a ploy to get the government to authorise them rather than the burning desire for the "illegals" do really benefit the treasury.

Considering you (the HO) cannot identify and deport most of those 500,000 undocumented workers you have two choices: Let these people continue to work in a large (and growing) black economy, completely unregulated and outside the law. Or tax the lot of them. That's it. Only two choices. In the second choice the UK stands to gain financially but it does require an amnesty to get them to come out of the woodwork. Downside: Bringing them into the system imposes costs as they become eligible for benefits etc (in addition to NHS treatment and other stuff they get for "free" without contributing) but the demographics of the undocumented migrant population is its forte:
- Their average age is young (the UK needs workers to fuel pensions).
- Their average health is good (less demands on NHS partly because they are young).
- The work ethos is proven high (less demands on benefits).

I fail to see how the net financial effect of an amnesty could possibly be negative. Am I missing something here?

[adindas]

I support justice. Whatever the ciurt decide that is justice.

Adindas

Could be deperted does not mean will be deported ....
This case must be tried.

According to the law the wives of those servicemen will be deported. There is no legal case for them to stay.

Do you support their deportation or do you think they have a good case for compassion/amnesty?

[JAJ]

I fail to see how the net financial effect of an amnesty could possibly be negative. Am I missing something here?

You're missing the fact that an amnesty would just encourage another 500,000 or so to sneak in and wait around for the next "amnesty".

If it takes 25 years to deal with the illegals currently in place, then so be it.

[OL7MAX]

You're missing the fact that an amnesty would just encourage another 500,000 or so to sneak in and wait around for the next "amnesty".

That is, of course, the usual argument wheeled out to counter any talk of amnesties. But, let's take a step back. There is a constant inflow of people to the UK, some of them illegal from the start, others who become "illegal" while here. The #1 factor in checking that flow is quality of border control... from actual security guards to emmigration checks/controls/records and proactive searching for overstayers. Politicians try to convince you otherwise and that's to cover up the numerous failings in border control.

The #1 factor is not and never will be a potential amnesty. Otherwise how do you account for the 500K already here? Even if there is no amnesty there will be another 500K at some point in the future. Why? It's about the quality of border control.

Just FYI, all the undocumented immigrants haven't "sneaked in" here. I didn't, those minor kids of asylum seekers didn't, the war widows didn't, those sex slaves didn't, many others didn't. You are reverting to that stereotype that all undocumented migrants are "illegal" and have entered the UK duplicitously.

It's interesting that some here would support no amnesty even for special cases like the war widows whose husbands gave their lives for Britain. But, hey, "native" British don't appreciate the blood sacrifices their own grandparents made in the war so why should you immigrants appreciate when someone has given his life to make yours more secure? It's a lovely world, isn't it? I hope that if any of you need compassion one day you get a larger slice than the one you extend to others.

[JAJ]

You're missing the fact that an amnesty would just encourage another 500,000 or so to sneak in and wait around for the next "amnesty".

That is, of course, the usual argument wheeled out to counter any talk of amnesties. But, let's take a step back. There is a constant inflow of people to the UK, some of them illegal from the start, others who become "illegal" while here. The #1 factor in checking that flow is quality of border control... from actual security guards to emmigration checks/controls/records and proactive searching for overstayers. Politicians try to convince you otherwise and that's to cover up the numerous failings in border control.

The #1 factor is not and never will be a potential amnesty. Otherwise how do you account for the 500K already here? Even if there is no amnesty there will be another 500K at some point in the future. Why? It's about the quality of border control.

Just FYI, all the undocumented immigrants haven't "sneaked in" here. I didn't, those minor kids of asylum seekers didn't, the war widows didn't, those sex slaves didn't, many others didn't. You are reverting to that stereotype that all undocumented migrants are "illegal" and have entered the UK duplicitously.

It's interesting that some here would support no amnesty even for special cases like the war widows whose husbands gave their lives for Britain. But, hey, "native" British don't appreciate the blood sacrifices their own grandparents made in the war so why should you immigrants appreciate when someone has given his life to make yours more secure? It's a lovely world, isn't it? I hope that if any of you need compassion one day you get a larger slice than the one you extend to others.

Well maybe I'm wrong. If your argument is accepted then dangling out an "amnesty carrot" might lead to a lot more than 500k arriving in future. Perhaps a million. Or two million.

If you are willing to countenance an unconditional immigration "amnesty" then you should ask yourself what's the whole point of having immigration and border controls in the first place.

There's a fairly fundamental issue here. Should the United Kingdom have the right to determine who comes to the United Kingdom and who has a right to remain? Or not?

There are those on the ideological right who take the position that uncontrolled immigration is just a function of the free market. And those on the ideological left who believe both that nations do not have these rights, and that mass immigration will achieve the kind of social engineering they desire.

But I would suggest that a constant influx of close to 2 million people per decade into a small, relatively highly populated country like Britain, cannot be allowed to continue without risking the most terrible public backlash in due course.

It's especially surprising that trade unions and others who pretend to support those in the community with fewer resources have been so silent about the impact of uncontrolled low-skill immigration on the employment prospects and wage levels of lesser skilled British citizens.

We already have programs in place to allow certain overstayers to regularise their situation on a case by case basis. No-one that I am aware of is suggesting that these be abandoned. However, by any reasonable definition of the term, these cannot be described as an "amnesty".

[OL7MAX]

unconditional immigration "amnesty"

By baying irrationally about something nobody is advocating or considering you distract from the serious points being discussed. But throwing in the "unconditional" is standard gutter press tactics. Like the 2 million per decade figure. You still talking about "illegal immigrants"?

Should the United Kingdom have the right to determine who comes to the United Kingdom and who has a right to remain?

No, of course not, that right should vest with the immigrants themselves! <sigh> What part of my enlighted self-interest argument did you miss?

...might lead to a lot more than 500k arriving in future. Perhaps a million. Or two million... what's the whole point of having immigration and border controls in the first place.

What's the point indeed? If your border control cannot prevent immigrants arriving/staying illegally then blame your border control for being pathetic incompetents. The possibility of amnesty is irrelevant for purposes of quantity of new "illegal immigrants". As long as there are big quality-of-life gaps between the UK and areas of deep deprivation in the world there will be people attempting to come here. Whether they can live here legally or illegally the flow will be running at the maximum possible capacity that can get by your border control (not your amnesty rules). It's the border control that's the weak spot not some vaguely possible future, unguaranteed, limited condition amnesty.