Immigration amnesty is ruled out

[ppron747]

Marie B, asylum seekers are not the same as illegal immigrants.

As it appeared in my browser, Marie B's post used the term "failed asylum seekers" - enough times to make it pretty obvious that she wasn't talking about people who were seeking asylum - she was talking about people who had sought asylum, and not succeeded. You are contradicting a point that was not made.

[OL7MAX]

that amnesty for illegal immigrants does not result in a lower number of new illegal immigrants every year

I completely agree with you in that it is not an automatic sequence of events. But when it's coupled with other measures an amnesty can reduce the number of new illegal immigrants. Like it did for asylum seekers. But, feel free to put forward any logical reasons why it absolutely cannot achieve the desired result.

ppron747, quite the contrary, in fact. The so called amnesty of 2003 involved people who were mostly not failed asylum seekers. She can keep mentioning failed asylum seekers all she wants but the people she refers to were mostly those with cases still under consideration and they were not here illegally (according to even the very website she quotes). At worst, says migrationwatch, they were quasi-legal. My apologies, I should have explained this in my previous post.

So, I'll return to my comments that sparked this diversion: I was talking pros and cons of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. While there is perfectly understandable animosity at their very presence - and a general reluctance to allow them to benefit from "breaking the law" - I was hoping to see some good arguments for why they shouldn't be granted some sort of special and conditional visa. So far the only reason ventured is that it will exacerbate the problem. I obviously don't agree. But to move on can we agree to disagree on this particular point ... and move to other reasons against any sort of amnesty?

<edit reason: Added apology>

[Christophe]

She can keep mentioning failed asylum seekers all she wants but the people she refers to were mostly those with cases still under consideration and they were not here illegally...

My bold text, and a different point entirely - but this is one of my biggest bugbears with the whole system - some asylum seekers were "under consideration" for years and years: a wholly ridiculous situation that was of benefit to nobody: not the asylum seekers concerned, nor their children, nor the country as a whole. From these seemingly interminable delays and the lack of clarity from the Home Office about the whole process have stemmed many of the problems with "failed asylum seekers" that are being faced today, in my view. What sort of message is given out in practice when it takes 5, 6, 7 years to reach a decision that really ought to be able to reached in a few months, and the answer then is "no"? People have inevitably created new lives (of a sort, though against a backdrop of frustration and uncertainty in many cases) for themselves after that length of time. I am talking here, of course, about people who were genuine in their seeking of asylum - the fact that they might be "failed" does not necessarily mean that their claims were "bogus".)

[OL7MAX]

Christophe, you are absolutely right. Not to detract from the HO failures but part of the problem with delays is the system itself. Not that I'm against appeals but there are obviously ways of taking advantage of the system that people desperate to stay here will exploit. I believe it will be easier to get any system in order and functioning more like it's meant to function if it wasn't handicapped by a vast backlog.

I'm glad you brought up the issue of children. Many of them are in schools, may know only the UK, and may consider this place their only home.

[Christophe]

Christophe, you are absolutely right. Not to detract from the HO failures but part of the problem with delays is the system itself. Not that I'm against appeals but there are obviously ways of taking advantage of the system that people desperate to stay here will exploit. I believe it will be easier to get any system in order and functioning more like it's meant to function if it wasn't handicapped by a vast backlog.

I'm glad you brought up the issue of children. Many of them are in schools, may know only the UK, and may consider this place their only home.

And you're absolutely right about the question of appeals - although I was really thinking of those cases where no decision was reached by the Home Office for 5 years or more, so no appeals would have been entered during that period! The appeals process is another problem: again, the problem is not so much the appeals themselves (although of course it is a burden of expense) but the length of time it takes for the process to work. To be fair, as you say, that is not really the fault of the Home Office but of the legal system: almost everything to do with the courts is slow.

[OL7MAX]

Sorry, I see your point now. The "no decision... for 5 years or more" must be agonising for those waiting. Bear in mind that you may have fraudsters and crooks in the queue waiting for a decision but you also have respectable, professional people who are only trying to do the right thing. They just want to get on with their lives and contribute to the society they're living in.

I would request readers of this thread to not automatically assume that everyone who is an illegal immigrant has entered the country clandestinely, under forged documents, with the intention to deceive, or the intention of going illegal. Apart from odd cases like mine there are, for example, tens of thousands of children here, of varying ages, who are "illegal immigrants" through no fault of their own.

[Dawie]

We are all forgetting the real reasons why there are so many failed or bogus asylum seekers.....because the government has made it so difficult for economic migrants to legitimately immigrate to the UK.

It's not surprising that people try to the use the asylum system as a last resort when it is practically impossible for a low-skilled person to obtain a work permit. If there were more legal channels for low-skilled economic migrants to come here it would take a great deal of pressure off of the asylum system.

To those of you who would argue that the UK doesn't need low-skilled immigrants, well, you only have to take a look at the people who clean your office, serve you your coffee at Starbucks, or make up that Super-sized Big Mac for you at MacDonalds to realise that that is not the case.

The fact of the matter is that the economy has more than enough capacity for high-skilled and low-skilled immigrants. In fact the amount of illegal immigrants in the UK just goes to show that in the end market forces are a lot stronger than immigration laws. Inevitably immigration laws that are impractical, unenforcable (as most of them are) and disproportionate are always bypassed or ignored by the market. That's the nature of our capitalistic society and something, might I add, that makes the UK such a great and exciting place to live.

[OL7MAX]

I like your arguments, Dawie

Maybe there's a case for a vent in the pressure cooker.

[jes2jes]

All the points mentioned above are all valid but immigration in itself is a tricky area like the egg and hen issue. Just to let you know, I believe I read somewhere, the Aussies are going to introduce legislation very soon to bring in low skilled migrants to help 'block the leaks' in the economy where help is needed.

I wonder what will happen to a child of an II who is for the sake of argument 17 years old, whose parents have been asked to leave the country? Does this person stand a chance in the courts on the basis of human rights and compassionate grouds claiming the UK as the only place they have ever known? Note that, a person in this situation might not have left the shores of the UK from birth due to issues with His/her papers.

I know someone who is an II and anytime there is a trip abroad from the office, be it business or pleasure, has to make an excuse not to attend. To avoid suspicion, this chum chum of mine changes job within two years. Highly skilled fellow with all tetiary education done in the UK and occupation is also on the HO's shortage list. Funny world!

Lord have mercy on II, it is not the best shoes to wear no matter what circumstance led one into that situation in the first place. I judge no one because we are still living and you never know what you may encounter in your short life on earth.

[Christophe]

Sorry, I see your point now. The "no decision... for 5 years or more" must be agonising for those waiting.

Dreadful. I know two people (one a family actually) who have been in that position. The uncertainty and confusion caused by what seemed to be simply complete incompetence at the Home Office merely compounded the misery that had been caused by the poisonous situations in their home countries that they had fled. (Worth noting too that neither was ever in this country illegally.)

But I guess that all of this is a different point, and not really relevant to the topic of this thread (i.e. an amnesty)!

[adindas]

How about the new EU countries who entitle to work in the UK ??
How about wokring holidaymakers ??
How about the foreign students who also need the jobs while studying ??
It that not enough ?.

Especially for foreign students remember that they pay 3-4 times higher then Home/EU students. It is unfair to take the job from them.

Adindas

We are all forgetting the real reasons why there are so many failed or bogus asylum seekers.....because the government has made it so difficult for economic migrants to legitimately immigrate to the UK.

It's not surprising that people try to the use the asylum system as a last resort when it is practically impossible for a low-skilled person to obtain a work permit. If there were more legal channels for low-skilled economic migrants to come here it would take a great deal of pressure off of the asylum system.

To those of you who would argue that the UK doesn't need low-skilled immigrants, well, you only have to take a look at the people who clean your office, serve you your coffee at Starbucks, or make up that Super-sized Big Mac for you at MacDonalds to realise that that is not the case.

The fact of the matter is that the economy has more than enough capacity for high-skilled and low-skilled immigrants. In fact the amount of illegal immigrants in the UK just goes to show that in the end market forces are a lot stronger than immigration laws. Inevitably immigration laws that are impractical, unenforcable (as most of them are) and disproportionate are always bypassed or ignored by the market. That's the nature of our capitalistic society and something, might I add, that makes the UK such a great and exciting place to live.

[OL7MAX]

adindas, I hear what you're saying and it's a good point. However, despite all those categories you mention I still find it difficult to get staff for low-skilled jobs.

[Mafia]

But when it's coupled with other measures an amnesty can reduce the number of new illegal immigrants. Like it did for asylum seekers.

Are you referrring to your earlier posting that asylum applications have actually declined and using the BBC article to support your argument?

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4758144.stm

[OL7MAX]

Mafia, I don't know if you check your PMs but you have mail

Thanks for that link. There's an important point in that article that's worth bringing up here.

Campaigners say a key test for the government is not how fast it deals with asylum seekers, but how fairly.

While the number of appeals fell in 2005, almost a fifth of applicants were found to have been wrongly refused asylum

It appears that after waiting several years for a decision if you are turned down there's a one-in-five chance that you should really have qualified. Arrgh! (a fifth of applications overall, or a fifth of those refused?)

There could be a percentage of people currently called illegal immigrants who wouldn't be illegal if it was not for talk to ups at the HO.

[adindas]

If they are genuine asylum seekers who flee from prosecution, death sentence the truth will come out in the court of justice. Unfortunately majority have been tried but failed. There is clear evidence of cheating, make false story about prosecution, make false story about coming from the back of the lorry, false testemony, falsify the documents, etc.

I believe most people will agree that the justice system in the UK is one of the most independent institution in the world. For instance the Afghan hijackers , the court has ruled in favour of them and therefore they can not be deported without HO could do anything.

We do not need to blame the HO too much if the genuine asylum seekers in the UK are becoming more difficult because of the people who manipulate the system, cheating, make false story etc. HO has suffered a lot and has been trenchantly critisized because of these people. We should put ourseves on the HO's shoes.

What is really dis****ing (bad) is that some of these people even use the church as the sanctuary. They abuse the hospitality of pastors, priests. They know that traditionally, these clergy men are always in their site.

Let me tell you, I personally know few asylum sekeers that have been granted asylum in the UK. The truth is that they are no more then just ecomonic refugees who cheat the system, make false story about prosecution. Some people will tell you if they have been granted asylums, (so no more risk for them for rejection) or to boaster how clever they are on cheating the system.

Adindas
HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICE. I BELIEVE THAT ONLY IF THERE IS ELEMENT OF FAIRNESS THE PROBLEM CAN BE RESOLVED

Mafia, I don't know if you check your PMs but you have mail

Thanks for that link. There's an important point in that article that's worth bringing up here.

Campaigners say a key test for the government is not how fast it deals with asylum seekers, but how fairly.

While the number of appeals fell in 2005, almost a fifth of applicants were found to have been wrongly refused asylum

It appears that after waiting several years for a decision if you are turned down there's a one-in-five chance that you should really have qualified. Arrgh! (a fifth of applications overall, or a fifth of those refused?)

There could be a percentage of people currently called illegal immigrants who wouldn't be illegal if it was not for talk to ups at the HO.

[OL7MAX]

adindas, I have no doubt that there are thieves and liars that manipulate different systems. As the owner of a small business I'm very much the victim time and time again, and it's not a pleasant feeling.

But the issue is about what should happen to people who've become illegal immigrants. Many here would argue that the ideal solution is for them all to be collected and deported. If it was that easy the HO would have already done it - it's just not going to happen. You now have only two choices. Choose from these: should they be allowed to continue as they are tax-free but with full access to many UK services, or should they be registered and taxed under some sort of amnesty/special visa? Why?

[Merdok]

Hello folks!

I am basically the subject of this debate Me myself have seen how the system was abused to my utter irritation and disgust, and to my thinking it was mutually beneficial. But I could not fit in, I was complaining – why my case is under consideration for years?! This resulted in an interview, where HO caseworker was barely capable of speaking in English.. The subsequent “independent” court hearing resulted in a refusal, because the adjudicator has found some new argument doing the HO job (HO representative didn’t turn up). I’m not versed in the juridical system, but can a judge bring over a novel argument in order to reject the appeal? Anyhow, all previous HO arguments had been rejected... On this bases I applied for reconsideration, and my case is under consideration for years now again.. Mind you – I have no right to work, do not receive any benefit.. So far I managed to survive without resorting to any false documents stuff, or dropping a bank (a popular thing amongst illegal – you have a false name, why not to avail oneself of the perks??). I’m now at a turn-point, and if I’m given any rights this country would benefit from my work greatly (some project is underway..). Anyhow, think my situation is not typical..

But what I want to say – there gotta be something for illegal.. New biometric passports have been introduced and are compulsory from the next year (am I right?). People leaving this country is now registered and checked.. This is all to do with the terrorism threat.. But! How would you count those leaving in this county? With virtually no possible way to find a job or open an account (new docs gonna be asked..) they are in a very strain situation.. Which can prompt some to do nasty things (believe me, I was on the verge..). And as you will remember, some of the terrorist threats were from failed asylum seekers (those Algerians, a year ago?).

So, there gotta be something.. and the sooner the better..

[Merdok]

Hello again!
In the view of the current security situation in the UK – do you know how many illegals have information about illegal things going on, but, although willing to share it with the authorities, are unable to, cos just gotta keep their profiles low? Couple years ago, in the news – thugs that were selling forged docs were also offering guns and explosives..

PS Just spotted in the ind websites – it turns out that turkish nationals are able to work here as self-employed, with no heavy investments.. – special eu agreement.. and plus dependants (+10)..

Why they picking on me then? Can I strike back?

[Merdok]

Hmm, new member states, such as Bolgaria and Romania, will be joining the EU in January 2007.. The low-wages market will be flooded with cheap-labour.. I, for one, wont be able to find a job, or only something like 2/h.. I think I will resort to applying my skills to devising an alga-like microorganism that would produce weed active ingredients.. It’s actually impossible to devise such metabolic pathways in an alga by gene transfer, but there is another way.. Do you reckon I will find an interested party to pay me 5/h?

[OL7MAX]

As I say here it's not just Romanians and Bulgarians who'll flood the UK job market but anyone who has the money to buy a Bulgarian visa which, I understand, are pretty freely available wherever in the world you come from.

Expect the UK government to make some fuss about possibly restricting the number of new migrants and then wait for the inevitable when they discover they've handed control to Brussels and there's really nothing they can do.

Well, not really nothing. They'll play a trick - like the one they used when Poland joined. They'll announce that they've worked out the likely influx, publish some silly number like 17K, and when the reality turns out to be 600K they'll make some big noise about illegal immigrants to distract you lot. And, guess what? The British public will get distracted

[JAJ]

As I say
Expect the UK government to make some fuss about possibly restricting the number of new migrants and then wait for the inevitable when they discover they've handed control to Brussels and there's really nothing they can do.

Hate to let facts get in the way of a good argument, but the decision on whether to apply a seven year transition period or not is up to the member state concerned.

[OL7MAX]

You are correct. They haven't handed ALL control to Brussels. I should have said MOST control.

But, thanks for that. I admit when I'm wrong and it is the case that the UK can apply a transition period.

Is the rest of the "good argument" completely factual?

[JAJ]

You are correct. They haven't handed ALL control to Brussels. I should have said MOST control.

In fact the United Kingdom could reimpose immigration control on those from EU states at the stroke of a pen if it wishes. It would obviously invite removal of British citizens equivalent rights in other EU states, and would more than likely lead to renegotiation or withdrawal from the EU entirely.

But it could be done if a British government was minded to do so.

Free movement of labour within the EU would not survive if there were sustained, significant flows of people that were not accepted by the host nation. When previous "poor" countries joined (Greece in 1981, Spain and Portugal in 1986) a seven year transition period was imposed on free movement of labour rights to allow the economies of these countries to develop to the point where mass emigration would become less likely.

[Merdok]

As I say here it's not just Romanians and Bulgarians who'll flood the UK job market but anyone who has the money to buy a Bulgarian visa which, I understand, are pretty freely available wherever in the world you come from.

There is an elephant-size bit that obviously eludes you! It’s not that I’m clawing the ground to be here.. It’s just that I happened to be here, and I have nowhere to go, or going somewhere would constitute the same applying for refugee status.. It’s not that I’m keeping scares, no, on the contrary – I’m reporting for signing up to HO ever single month for 4 years now.. While my application has been refused 3 years ago, the court recognised the contradiction to human rights if I to be moved back home.. I’m just not fitting in to the Convention smoothly.. And the professional and overall intelligence level of HO caseworkers do not allow them to come up with a decision for 3 years..

U know, I’ve seen the system from the inside.. I saw people using fake names and stories get the status and eventually british passport.. I know at least 20 such cowboys.. I knew fellows who sold such stories, and who now have a respectable law firm.. So, if you are afraid of rat-cheater getting amnesty – don’t, they are already in.. Those left behind (losers like me) are just a bit not fitting in the system, appalled of the years of litigation, or just victims of HO ignorance.

[OL7MAX]

It’s not that I’m clawing the ground to be here.. It’s just that I happened to be here, and I have nowhere to go

Hey, I hear you. I'm in your boat. Do stop bl**dy rocking!

renegotiation or withdrawal from the EU entirely

We both know that there's more chance of Tony Blair learning how to turn water into wine.

a seven year transition period

Do you know what this seven year period actually means on the ground? Would they be restricted from coming to the UK... or just from working? If it's the latter then won't there likely be massive numbers of them coming to work illegally? They could stay for a few months, return to Bulgaria and re-enter the UK as many times as they wanted. And as their incomes there are roughly 1/10the of what they are here is the UK government preparing for a massive increase in illegal workers come Jan 2007?