Immigration amnesty is ruled out

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:33 am

Nice of you to ignore first link.

No honest debate ignores facts. I'd be delighted if the HO engaged with (legal) citizens in a genuine debate as to what's in the nation's best interest.

There was no official announcement of any amnesty. The closest the HO gets is that certain concessions were made in some cases of failed asylum seekers. But, for argument's sake, let's call them amnesties and use the HO (and your) logic: If there've been three amnesties for failed asylum seekers shouldn't that presage a flood of new asylum seekers? If I recall asylum applications have actually dropped. So would you concede that what you call "amnesties" seems to have worked in this case?

I don't know how many are aware that most illegal immigrants in the UK get full voting rights because they are resident here and pay council tax or live in houses that are paying council tax.

8. Illegal immigrants are skewing your democratic process. They may be only 1% of the population but because most of them are adults - and they are more likely to vote - they constitute (an estimated) 5% of the votes in any local or general election. Marginal seats are often won by less than 1%. You are better off voting in politicians who represent the interests of the tax paying section of the population!

Post by **JAJ** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:21 pm

OL7MAX wrote: I don't know how many are aware that most illegal immigrants in the UK get full voting rights because they are resident here and pay council tax or live in houses that are paying council tax.

8. Illegal immigrants are skewing your democratic process. They may be only 1% of the population but because most of them are adults - and they are more likely to vote - they constitute (an estimated) 5% of the votes in any local or general election. Marginal seats are often won by less than 1%. You are better off voting in politicians who represent the interests of the tax paying section of the population!

And the obvious solution is to restrict the right to vote to British citizens only.

marianne001 · Post by **marianne001** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:33 pm

Illegal immigrants are skewing your democratic process. They may be only 1% of the population but because most of them are adults - and they are more likely to vote - they constitute (an estimated) 5% of the votes in any local or general election. Marginal seats are often won by less than 1%. You are better off voting in politicians who represent the interests of the tax paying section of the population!

Which would probably mean any party who does go through with an amnesty would be highly favoured during elections.

Just by show of hands, who here supports/disagrees with an amnesty, and what would be your reason?

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:10 pm

JAJ, LOL. Do you have any idea how difficult that really is? There are large sections of non-citizens who can't legally be deprived of their vote (including people with no voting rights elsewhere in the world, people on ILR who've made Britain their home etc. You'd like them to pay all taxes but not be able to vote? C'mon!)

marianne001, polls are very popular with tabloid papers and Big Brother type programs and they tend to get the masses very excited. Wny not take a poll exclusively among the illegal immigrants themselves, or just immigrants in general, or single mums waiting in the housing queue while asylum seekers are housed ahead of them? Because they would give you skewed results. As would a poll on any place called "immigration boards". Choosing the "sample" properly is key to any serious statistical sampling based analysis. What's next? A premium rate phone number and Davina McCall?

any party who does go through with an amnesty would be highly favoured during elections

marianne001, marianne001, yes, that party would be favoured by the minority ... and rejected by the majority. That's not generally what most political parties strive for.

A national level enquiry headed by a reputable High Court judge to examine pros and cons and make recommendations as to what's in Britain's long term interests would be.... in Britain's long term interests. It would beat political decisions based on which way the wind is blowing today.

So far, I've got 8 good points the learned judge could start examining.

Post by **JAJ** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:43 pm

OL7MAX wrote:JAJ, LOL. Do you have any idea how difficult that really is? There are large sections of non-citizens who can't legally be deprived of their vote (including people with no voting rights elsewhere in the world, people on ILR who've made Britain their home etc. You'd like them to pay all taxes but not be able to vote? C'mon!)

Can't be? What on earth do you mean? - all that's needed is a simple amendment to the Representation of the People Act.

Other countries - Canada, the U.S. and Australia - do not generally allow non-citizens to vote. Why should the United Kingdom?

If people on ILR who have made the United Kingdom their home really want to vote, they should become naturalised British citizens.

ppron747 · Post by **ppron747** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:14 pm

I don't know enough about human rights legislation to know whether depriving people of a long-held right would be a possibility or not, but I suspect not.
One way that it could be tightened up, however, would be if people were actually required to prove their eligibility to vote under existing legislation. At the moment, you only have to declare that you're eligible, without even giving an explanation as to why. But even this would be a major administrative headache, and would cost millions to enforce.

Post by **JAJ** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:46 pm

ppron747 wrote:I don't know enough about human rights legislation to know whether depriving people of a long-held right would be a possibility or not, but I suspect not.

A parliamentary statute can override any "human rights legislation" provisions.

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:34 pm

As things stand now, one way of solving the voting problem is legislating and spending vast sums of money to ensure that II can't vote. There are more urgent issues in Parliament and other things politicians want to spend money on so, dream on, but they aren't going to do anything about this.

OTOH, an amnesty likely makes all that effort and expense unnecessary. Solving the voting problem is one of the ancilliary benefits of an amnesty - not its raison d'etre.

(marianne001, you have a PM)

jes2jes · Post by **jes2jes** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:30 am

As things stand now, one way of solving the voting problem is legislating and spending vast sums of money to ensure that II can't vote. There are more urgent issues in Parliament and other things politicians want to spend money on so, dream on, but they aren't going to do anything about this. an amnesty likely makes all that effort and expense unnecessary. Solving the voting problem is one of the ancilliary benefits of an amnesty - not its raison d'etre.

I believe this is very important for parliment to debate on. Commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote in the UK. I believe if the process is revised and anyone requiring registration on the voters register has to prove their eligibility in the first place to live in the UK will weed out II to be on the register. Secondly, I believe there must be a time limit for anyone to stay in this country before they are allowed to vote with the right credentials as it is with other HO applications eg. ILR, naturalisation etc.

I think, the immigration issue is one that would hardly go away no matter how many times we dodge it. Amnesty or no amnesty, we need to find a solution to this. I believe politicians do not want to touch anything which will make them unpopular in the event of losing votes for a forthcoming election. It takes a government and Ministers with spine to decide to make bold decisions and solve the issue ones and for all.

The UK needs to start on a clean sheet. Legalise all illegals (case by case to select the right ones) and put in systems to monitor incoming and out going foreigners.

I believe a closer observation to what is happening in the US will give us a clue. When congress votes we will know and we can learn from their example. Notice I said learn and not copy or adapt their legislation but would be a framework or guidance in shaping ours since the dynamics in Uncle Sam land is different from the UK side of things.

I will vote hands up for amnesty for all who are already here as II for starters. That is my opinion.

marianne001 · Post by **marianne001** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:54 pm

Although this isn't about Spain's amnesty, it does show that the number if migrants reaching the country has dramatically risen, and it might be due to the amnesties spain has carried out. click here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5208314.stm

Also: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Fea ... cfm?id=331

It shows that Spain had a total of six amnesties, 3 since 2000, totalling about 1.1 million people- http://www.migrationinformation.org/Fea ... cfm?id=330

So, if Spain has had 3 amnesties in the space of 6 years, wouldn't most would-be illegal immigrants assume that Spain will go through another regularisation programme if the numbers go up again?

Also....if at last count Spain had about 800,000 illegal immigrants, how could the HO think the UK only has at the most .5 million? Yes the UK is an island, but I'm still not sure. (btw most illegal immigrants in Spain were not N. Africa, i.e. just a short boat journey away or something. Many came from L. America, which one assumes means they overstayed their visa..as it is in the UK)[/url]

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:41 pm

most illegal immigrants in Spain were not N. Africa, i.e. just a short boat journey away or something. Many came from L. America

Latin America? Why not China? Or India? Or Somalia?

I think it's unlikely that the UK will get flooded by people primarily from Latin America.

See? Each country is different. The Spanish experience bears very little resemblence to the UK situation. That's why my original suggestion was for an enquiry by a UK judge as to what's in Britain's best interests.

marianne001 · Post by **marianne001** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:30 pm

Latin America? Why not China? Or India? Or Somalia?

My point was that the nationalities of those who applied during the amnesty showed that a lot had come from very far away, leading to the assumption that they must have entered as students, tourists, etc. I mentioned L.America because most came from L.America!

I did not mean (or ever mention) that the UK will be flooded by people from L.America or by any other continent. My point was that the amnesties in Spain (as in Greece, US-once-, and Italy) shows that an they don't get rid of the problem and could well exacerbate it.

I was also trying to show that the UK's estimates seem (to me) to be low compared to other countries such as Spain or even Greece.

adindas · Post by **adindas** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:53 pm

Also do not forget that by their nature Most of unlawful immigrants are "CRIMINAL". They forge the document, bribery. They forge NI number, passport, what come next, bank notes forgery?. They bribe the police in their countries, UK to get fake documents, testemony. They certainly have connection with a large criminal network in other to do this job.

How could you believe "CRIMINAL".

Adindas

Post by **JAJ** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:21 am

OL7MAX wrote:See? Each country is different. The Spanish experience bears very little resemblence to the UK situation. That's why my original suggestion was for an enquiry by a UK judge as to what's in Britain's best interests.

Why should a judge be allowed to make an assessment that is inherently political?

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:20 am

A decision would be political. An assessment is objective, designed to be free of political influence, and intended to find the truth.

But I can understand some people being against it.

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:56 am

Most of unlawful immigrants are "CRIMINAL"....fraud...

Most? The Home Office doesn't know how many are overstayers and how many came here clandestinely. I'm sure they'd be interested if you could provide some figures.

I have never knowingly committed a criminal act but I'd gladly consider it if the circumstances were right. If my child's life were dependent on coming to the UK - and that was his only hope of survival - I'd be willing to forge documents. So, probably, would you. I'm not saying it's acceptable or shouldn't be punished. I'd be quite happy if anybody suspected of criminal activity was brought before the courts. No, not politicians. Courts.

9. Justice After an amnesty you can prosecute erstwhile II who are known to have committed fraud. At least you know where they are now.

jes2jes · Post by **jes2jes** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:11 am

As I posted earlier, there was nothing in the Home Secretary (HS) speech on how he was going to 'remove' the assumed 500K II from Britain. I guess it would be by the whistle blowing process mentioned in his speech via a dedicated telephone line by HO and the Police. Although, this method will cause witch hunting and employers using this as a means to disrupt rival businesses. I wonder if Illegal Migration can be eradicated totally. The only solution as mentioned above is to set up a committee of Judges not just one judge and sort this out to close some of the loop holes.

I hear the HS will make another announcement this week, maybe there would be something in there concerning the removal. If I was an II, I would be very uncomfortable since it is not a pleasant situation to be in. You will always be on the edge. Thank God, if you are a legal resident, although you might not have everything you dreamt of, at least you are not leaving on the edge as some people do.

God bless.

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:16 am

not just one judge

That sounds sensible and is an improvement on my suggestion.

>> whistle blowing process
LOL

1. II don't go around telling others that they are illegally here. Many claim to be asylum seekers.
2. There'll be so many whistles blowing (including baseless, vindictive types kinda like your example) that it will overwhelm the system. You think the IND can follow up a million odd tip-offs?
3. This would be a good boost for the forged documents business. Well Done, HS!

adindas · Post by **adindas** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:04 pm

OL7MAX
I did not mention about you. I even did not know who you are.. From BBC breakfast this morning. There is new evidence that immigration officer get bribe thousands of pounds from "unlawful" immigrants.

I fully understand about the survival argument which I belive almost everyone will. However, this is not about survival. this is about cheating. If survival is the case, the truth will come out in the court of justice. But evidence suggest, many have been tried in the court of justice and mostly fail to claim asylum. The failed asylum seeker is the HO try to address by removing them from the country not to grant them Amnesty.

The logic dictate that those who come unlawfully have already intention to cheat from the beginning even before they arrive. They already prepare the story before making their journey. They know already once they arrive they will find someone to forge NI number, Passport, etc. I know some people who claim asylum which is defenetely economic migrant rather then genuine asylum. This is definetely unfair to the genuine asylum seeker who flee to escape from prosecution, toture or death sentence.

Adindas

OL7MAX wrote:
Most of unlawful immigrants are "CRIMINAL"....fraud...
Most? The Home Office doesn't know how many are overstayers and how many came here clandestinely. I'm sure they'd be interested if you could provide some figures.

I have never knowingly committed a criminal act but I'd gladly consider it if the circumstances were right. If my child's life were dependent on coming to the UK - and that was his only hope of survival - I'd be willing to forge documents. So, probably, would you. I'm not saying it's acceptable or shouldn't be punished. I'd be quite happy if anybody suspected of criminal activity was brought before the courts. No, not politicians. Courts.

9. Justice After an amnesty you can prosecute erstwhile II who are known to have committed fraud. At least you know where they are now.

Marie B · Post by **Marie B** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:35 pm

They even claim that the UK had three amnesties recently! All three in the time I've been here and nobody told me!

The UK has had a number of amnestys for families of failed asylum seekers, in fact as stated on the ncadc website (national coalition of anti-deportation campaigns) 16,870 families have benefited from them and been granted ILR, all without your knowledge OL7MAX, fancy that! By the way since when is migration watch anti-immigration? I thought they were an agency set up purely to study immigration trends and are impartial.

These amnestys have already been discussed on this site at:

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... highlight=

and:

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... highlight=

There was no official announcement of any amnesty.

Yes there was OL7MAX, I have previously found announcements made on the ind website (I'm not saying they shouted it from the rooftops but there was definitely an announcement on the website), I can't get onto it at the moment to provide the link. The last one was when they announced the last amnesty and stated the closing date of the 31st December 2005 although they do seem to accept applications as and when they are received. When I saw the announcement it did mention it was a 'Family Amnesty', although the address to send an application is 'Family Exercise' (don't think they like the word amnesty).

The following information about the amnesty is also taken from the ncadc website:

http://www.ncadc.org.uk/resources/familyamnesty.html

Numbers of new asylum cases are falling despite this amnesty, but I don't think this type of amnesty (as opposed to an amnesty for all) would encourage more people to come here illegally as only families can apply, and the dates they must have made their original asylum application prior to is almost 6 years ago, and the latest date they must have had a child by is almost three years ago, i.e. you are going to have to wait a long time and have a particular case to ever profit from an amnesty of this sort. This is an amnesty aimed primarily at the children who have been born in this country who the government want to avoid displacing. This is not an amnesty for all illegal immigrants, and not even an amnesty for singles; probably the majority of failed asylum seekers, young men who are really economic migrants working the system.

Even though my husband was previously an overstayer (failed asylum seeker) I would still not support an amnesty for all.

The majority of illegal immigrants I have met are either failed asylum seekers (or more correctly economic migrants who lied when claiming asylum) and now working on fake documents or came here on fake documents in the first place; this is a more recent trend as people now know how difficult it is to be granted asylum (especially since the HO listed 'safe countries' and if you come from a country on the list your application will be rejected immediately and you will be removed), this is probably the real reason there are less new asylum cases - the HO have improved the system and people know there is no point trying to stay in the country this way, especially when good quality fake documents are so cheap.

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:01 am

without your knowledge OL7MAX, fancy that!

Fancy that, indeed! I'm cross that they didn't have the courtesy to let me know. No, wait - they were very Asylum Seeker thingies. Even if you could call them amnesties they weren't really amnesties for II at all. Fancy that!

don't think they like the word amnesty

Maybe because they were not amnesties. And even if some do call these amnesties - they weren't amnesties for II anyway (which is what we are discussing here).

you are going to have to wait a long time and have a particular case to ever profit from an amnesty of this sort

I agree. So asylum seekers realise that past relaxations in rules are no guide to future relaxations, but II can't work that out?

Similarly with your other argument. If the HO improves their border policing then would not an amnesty for II have the same effect that your "amnesty" for asylum seekers had: A big reduction in numbers?

Marie B · Post by **Marie B** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:01 am

You've lost me. This topic is about amnesties for illegal immigrants, or am I mistaken? For what reason do you think failed asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants?? I can't see that my previous points are somehow irrelevant to what is being discussed in this topic, and I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'illegal immigrants' if your definition does not include failed asylum seekers? Perhaps you could elaborate.

In terms of the United Kingdom Immigration Rules “illegal immigrants” include:

• overstayers (people who have entered legally in one of several different categories, for example as visitors, students, work permit holders, or fiancé(e)s), and not sought or not been granted an extension of stay);
• people who have permission to be in the country but are in breach of their conditions of stay (such as visitors working illegally);
• people whose asylum applications have been refused and who have had any appeals against refusal rejected; and
• illegal entrants (people present here who have not been granted leave to enter on arrival, for example because they entered clandestinely, or who obtained it by deception).

So 'asylum seeker thingies' as you put it are in fact 'illegal immigrant thingies', and therefore these amnesties do involve one type of illegal immigrant, which in my understanding is what this topic has been discussing?? If you are discussing an amnesty for illegal entrants and overstayers only and not 'illegal immigrants' then say so in your own posts.

I think the amnesty for families is as amnesty even if the HO don't like to call it one, the definition of an amnesty as found in the Oxford English Dictionary is:

amnesty • noun (pl. amnesties) 1 an official pardon for people convicted of political offences. 2 a period where no action is taken against people admitting to particular offences.

ie. admitting to remaining in the country without leave to do so following a failed application for asylum, and on application being granted ILR outside of the immigration rules if all conditions pertaining to amnesty are met.

If the HO improves their border policing then would not an amnesty for II have the same effect that your "amnesty" for asylum seekers had: A big reduction in numbers?

Firstly, it was not 'my' amnesty and secondly no, I don't agree. Improving border policing will reduce the numbers of illegal entrants but I don't think this will ever have an effect on people overstaying or those who breach the condition of their stay. You can turn all illegal immigrants into legal immigrants, claim a victory for the reduced number of illegal immigrants, but in the long term what deterent is there for people not to overstay or breach the conditions of their stay in future? The reduction in numbers will increase and people are more likely to attempt to enter legally in a category they are not intending to abide by (e.g. student) in order to profit from future amnesties.

jes2jes · Post by **jes2jes** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 5:17 pm

Another twist to the saga of II which can weigh down on any attempt to 'amnetise' the II in the UK.

Italy warned over immigrant amnesty
01 August 2006

The European Commission has issued a warning to Italy that it could face EU sanctions if its move to legalise up to 350,000 immigrants breaches union law.

Justice commissioner Franco Frattini said that the Italian authorities would have to check each one of the thousands of applications for regularisation to make sure they comply with EU law.

"I am asking the Interior Minister Giulio D'Amato to examine one by one the 350,000 requests for regularisation from immigrant workers," said Mr Frattini in Rome.

"Checks are needed to determine if these are fictitious demands or if they effectively correspond to a work offer and lodging. Otherwise, European Union sanctions are envisaged," he said.

Taking figures from a 2004 survey, the justice commissioner pointed out that Italy had a higher than average amount of people working on the black market.

"Italy had 16-17 percent working 'on the black', compared to a European average of four to five percent: the fight against illegal immigration also has to be seen in this light."

Mr Frattini's warning comes after Rome last week announced that it intended to put in place a quota of 350,000 non-EU citizens who would be able to legalise their status in Italy as well as regularising more than 500,000 workers already in the country.

This is not the first time the EU has warned member states about these kinds of moves.

Brussels grumbled when Spain last year put in place an amnesty allowing thousands of immigrants to be legalised saying governments should make these steps in a more harmonised manner.

Madrid's surprise move was also criticised by some member states leading to calls for an early warning system to be put in place when governments are considering immigration procedures that will affect other countries.

Source: www.workpermit.com\news

OL7MAX · Post by **OL7MAX** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Marie B, asylum seekers are not the same as illegal immigrants. Some asylum seekers can become illegal immigrants but even when they do they are still a subset of the wider Illegal Immigrant "community". It's derogatory to use the term Asylum Seeker as synonymous with Illegal Immigrant.

I'm having trouble understanding your logic. My argument was that if an "amnesty" for Asylum Seekers combined with tighter controls leads to a situation where the number of Asylum Seekers is "under control" .... then the same should apply for Illegal Immigrants. That some are overstayers, some are here on fraudulent documents etc is completely irrelevant. If an amnesty for II is combined with tighter border control (this includes Reid's embarkation records/controls) then the logical conclusion - based on the A.S. experience - should result in lower numbers of new II every year. Why do you believe that won't happen?

Mafia · Post by **Mafia** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:50 pm

OL7MAX wrote:I'm having trouble understanding your logic. My argument was that if an "amnesty" for Asylum Seekers combined with tighter controls leads to a situation where the number of Asylum Seekers is "under control" .... then the same should apply for Illegal Immigrants. That some are overstayers, some are here on fraudulent documents etc is completely irrelevant. If an amnesty for II is combined with tighter border control (this includes Reid's embarkation records/controls) then the logical conclusion - based on the A.S. experience - should result in lower numbers of new II every year. Why do you believe that won't happen?

With due respect, you seem to have trouble understanding the argument that has been put over and over again that amnesty for illegal immigrants does not result in a lower number of new illegal immigrants every year. Of course, it may be a different story in Utopian Kingdom or other Orwellian based society.

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Immigration amnesty is ruled out