ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
.KayalamiKayalami wrote:There are currently more than 10 million overstayers in the US. Most sit it out for an amnesty often for many years (even to 15 years) - after all you have nothing to lose until you get caught and deported. There is of course a link between overstaying and economic growth - someone has to do those jobs that no one in the local populace can or is unwilling to do. Were the government to facilitate/ require all overstayers to depart the UK then such would adversley impact on the economy especially in the South East and particularly London.
.
.Smit wrote:I am very encouraged by the healthy debate that has been generated on this issue. I would add that if the UK economy relies so much on overstayers, why not go down the Spain amnesty route and make these people legitimate tax payers and relieve them of exploitation, bias etc. not to mention always looking over the shoulder for the immigration guys to catch you.
Hum.... The question raises from the bull shits above is, what benefit will it bring?Smit wrote:I agree with Rogerio. Such checks would especially catch out overstayers. In fact, if it is not already, overstaying should be made a strict liability offence such as jumping a red traffic light and people caught doing it in the UK should be kicked out permanently and people who had overstayed previously and who apply for EC at a British mission overseas should not be granted visas, fullstop. No excuses should be allowed.
This should deter overstaying which seems to be widespread as many posters on this board have demonstrated.
Dawie, immigration, legal or illegal is always a very emotive issue, those that are here legally feel they have worked hard to get where they are and tend to feel those that are here illegally are spoiling it for everyone else.Dawie wrote:In my humble opinion all embarkation controls serve to do is to deter any overstayers who are considering going back to their home countries from doing so.
I also find it interesting that some members of this board should show so little sympathy (empathy?) for their fellow immigrants in this wonderful country who are perhaps not quite as legal as themselves. At the end of the day all legal immigrants in the UK are only legally here by the grace of some pen-pushing bureaucrat at the Home Office (myself included), not because they have any god-given right to be here.
In the days before jet travel, geographical constraints acted as a check on uncontrolled mass migration and that is why there was no real need for immigraton controls. That has only become necessary as travel has become easier, cheaper and more convenient and whilst the perspective of an immigrant is always that it is a positive there is no proof that mass, uncontrolled immigration would be generally beneficial. Expecting native populations who enjoy a high standard of living to welcome mass immigration of people from poorer countries ( with the inevitable impact on their quality of life) is unrealistic. It is human nature to want to live in communities and the mass immigration that would result form opening up the borders to all and sundry will not be generally beneficial in my view.Dawie wrote:Immigration controls as we know them are a phenomonen of the 20th century. Before the 1st World War there were no such thing as immigration controls and people of the world were free to move whereever they wanted.
