abc

[gordon]

I suppose that one would want to examine the numbers more closely to determine whether those with experiences comparable to yours (presumably as an erstwhile stateless alien?) or children of individuals with failed asylum applicants, inter alia, are representative of the 500k people being discussed. My understanding is that most undocumented migrants (to use an alternate, less loaded term) are economic migrants, who have, for instance, overstayed short-term visas, and it was to that subset that I directed my comments.

Life is unfair, I agree, but it does not therefore follow that those whose actions or status do not fall within the boundaries of the immigration laws should be rewarded, while potential law-abiding migrants are left out in the cold as a result. After all, policies are being formed to permit the latter group in the course of managed migration, as a matter of national 'long-term' interest. The same cannot be said for the former group. And to be frank, I do think that my going through established (though difficult) channels gives me a higher claim than those who obey laws and regulations only when convenient; mine is the arrogance of the law-abiding person. Would it better serve Britain's interest to have 100k additional skilled workers rather than 100k unskilled undocumented ones ? I would argue affirmatively, and would further note that while the BIA can manage the inflow of the skilled ones, they are deprived of the opportunity to manage that of the undocumented ones. And that cannot further the national interest.

Some people may think that laws, processes, and rules are for suckers, but I'm not one of them. People should abide by the laws of their host country at all times and in all places, regardless of the Government's ability to 'catch them'. I haven't much patience for people who think that laws may be ignored so long they are not caught at it, and even less patience for the argument that the Government should simply throw up their hands in despair and let the erstwhile scofflaws go their merry way.

G

[OL7MAX]

My understanding is that most undocumented migrants (to use an alternate, less loaded term) are economic migrants, who have, for instance, overstayed short-term visas

I don't doubt that there are large numbers of people who are clear economic migrants, come here (or overstayed) illegally purely for economic reasons. The first thing is to recognise that these people's should be considered differently to war widows whose husbands gave their lives for Britain, for example. The second is to take a pragmatic approach to their status. Do you have any chance of catching them and deporting them? Realistically? Then is it better to regularise them or leave them in the black economy? What about if one has been here 20 years and her children are British? What if one is a specialist surgeon whose place can't easily be filled?

Many of the so called illegal immigrants have NI numbers, PAYE numbers and can't easily be distinguished from those with ILR. Others have no papers at all. And there are plenty in-between. The system is a mess and there is no easy way of even telling who is legal and who is not (forget about actually taking action).

Would it better serve Britain's interest to have 100k additional skilled workers rather than 100k unskilled undocumented ones ?

But that is not the choice facing the British government and people. The choice is whether to live with those undocumented, out-of-the-legal-process people... or pull them in where their tax can be collected, their infectious diseases can be prevented from spreading, and their skills can be brought into productive use.

[sakura]

My understanding is that most undocumented migrants (to use an alternate, less loaded term) are economic migrants, who have, for instance, overstayed short-term visas

I don't doubt that there are large numbers of people who are clear economic migrants, come here (or overstayed) illegally purely for economic reasons. The first thing is to recognise that these people's should be considered differently to war widows whose husbands gave their lives for Britain, for example. The second is to take a pragmatic approach to their status. Do you have any chance of catching them and deporting them? Realistically? Then is it better to regularise them or leave them in the black economy? What about if one has been here 20 years and her children are British? What if one is a specialist surgeon whose place can't easily be filled?

Many of the so called illegal immigrants have NI numbers, PAYE numbers and can't easily be distinguished from those with ILR. Others have no papers at all. And there are plenty in-between. The system is a mess and there is no easy way of even telling who is legal and who is not (forget about actually taking action).

Would it better serve Britain's interest to have 100k additional skilled workers rather than 100k unskilled undocumented ones ?

But that is not the choice facing the British government and people. The choice is whether to live with those undocumented, out-of-the-legal-process people... or pull them in where their tax can be collected, their infectious diseases can be prevented from spreading, and their skills can be brought into productive use.

If they have been here 20 years, they would have, or should, apply for the long residency ILR category. If they are surgeons, and they know their skills are useful, they should return home and get EC, or else apply for exceptional circumstances if their country is a dangerous one (like Afghanistan) for a type of visa. Or some of them could try places like Australia or Canada, who would also welcome such people.

I think Gordon was spot on; his comments are not directed towards asylum seekers, children or 'war widows'. Let's call a spade a spade. At the end of the day, there is a large number of people who have not applied for asylum or are not children, but are simply here as economic migrants (and I just read a Parliament article that confirms). If that is the case, why then should they qualify before someone who, being a doctor, being highly skilled, is facing deportation or retrospective rule changes? Or a HSMP holder? For what purposes should they qualify?

I myself differentiate between the various types of undocumented workers, and whilst I do see a reason to have an 'amnesty' or 'exercise' (again, let's call a spade a spade) to asylum applicants (who have been here x years), unaccompanied minors (who have been here x years), I am not sure about that for the majority of undocumented (economic migrants). They have the family ILR exercise (hidden, I haven't heard anything about it in the news?) and probably something for minors.

Does anyone think that, rather than an ILR amnesty, something like a long-term permit should be given instead? (for economic migrants) That way, no one 'jumps the queue' to ILR, but are still subject to immigration laws. I don't know whether it should be a 5-year one, or something longer?

[olisun]

Does anyone think that, rather than an ILR amnesty, something like a long-term permit should be given instead? (for economic migrants) That way, no one 'jumps the queue' to ILR, but are still subject to immigration laws. I don't know whether it should be a 5-year one, or something longer?

I would support a long term-permit rather than ILR...

[OL7MAX]

not directed towards asylum seekers, children or 'war widows'

So you would support a "concession" for all those undocumented immigrants who have not deliberately jumped the border/entered with intent (provided they satisfy basic criteria like not having criminal convictions for terrorism)?

[jes2jes]

Gordon wrote:

It is precisely illegal immigrants and overstayers' actions that have prompted the development of increasingly stringent and nearly draconian immigration policies, making it immeasurably more complicated for legal migrants like me to gain entry into the UK.

I beg to differ. I have been in this country for quite a while now and this back clash to immigration has not been due to the above. In the past couple of years, no one bothered about illegal immigrants because they had little or no impact on the system (so to speak).

Due to the expansion of the EU and the 'open door Policy' for all countries in the EU (Open Boarders), this caused a tremdous amount of Eastern Europeans to flood this country. Because of their large numbers and the impact on public and social services, everyone has turned their 'eyes' on Undocumented Migrants but these category of people (UM) compared to the Eastern European Migrants are insignificant.

UM are being blamed for these cracks in the system rather than us taking a hard nose approach to address the situation. I do not condoned II or A Blanket Amnesty, but we are faced with a situation where there are illegal imigrants in the system and we have to address it. Talking about mass deportations etc would not solve the problem and it would be near to impossible to implement. The earlier we do something about it, the better and not rhetoric.

And Gordon, there is nothing you can do if the UK govt decides to grant some form of regularisation to UM since you would not be consulted in the first place.

I am amazed at your language of choice in terms of your HSMP status. It is not a right that you have earned but rather a priviledge that the UK government has extended to you and as such you should be grateful and not use it as if it was a birth right. You can be stripped of it any day any time if the governement decides so. I am not saying you should not have rights and freedom of speech but be careful of your language and don't think for a minute because of your status you can say what you want. Others who are better qualified have found themselves in one situation or another that has led them to be in limbo in regards to status but are not less human than yourself.

Thank you for a nice and educative post but look at the issue from all angles and not just from one stand point. I stand corrected.

[Rawling]

Thanks OL7MAX, You are always making excellent points on these boards. I 100% agree with your above points.

The decisicion should be made for longterm benefir of this country. I you can deport people what you do? Is it better to lock them up on detention centre which cost about £40 a day or deport them which run into billions of pound.

The scarse resources available would be better spent on NHS, education, provide better care for pensions, improving border control and invest in employing more police.

And people like OL7MAX if there were give ability to move and work free may be his contribution would be as big as Sir Alan Sugar to the treasury who knows.[/quote]

Why is that even relevant? The effort you may or may not have exerted is, you argue, a good yardstick for measuring eligibility? That if someone goes through the same "trouble" as you have then it's equitable? That's an arrogant approach. Why should the decision on whether to regularise them be based on your "suffering" rather than on what's best for the United Kingdom? Shouldn't the argument against an amnesty be that it's "not in Britain's long term interest" rather than it's unfair to those who've come through "proper channels"? Life's not fair, get used to it. I've gone through a labyrinthine process to go from India to an Ivy League American university where I studied for a while and had a rosy future ahead of me before I got stranded in the UK in a diplomatic war. I spent years trying to get out from here. The UK government gave me permission to stay till the papers were sorted .... but did not give me permission to work. They thought it would take a few weeks. It took months. Those months became years. I was living on the streets and had no option but to wipe tables, repair shoes, do other menial (and illegal) work ... or starve. I moved from that to starting my own business, more businesses, employing lots of people, making lots of money, paying barrow loads of cash in tax. You think that when I get regularised (which I will) that you have been hard done by?

[
Again, being an illegal immigrant is not the same as circumventing the law. Even if someone did circumvent the law the vindictive response is to punish him immediately and severely with the biggest stick that comes to hand. The smart response is to take the wider view and see if punishing him can be done in a way that's in the best interests of the whole country.

The best argument is that if the UK authorities can't catch them which they've clearly demonstrated is a task they are not up to then the best option would be to maximise the benefit from their presence and work.

[Rawling]

I would support a long term-permit rather than ILR...

Anything to try to solve the problem is better than nothing and pretending the problem does not exist. That will good place to start debate.

[Rawling]

Excellent points well thought through jes2jes.

I do think Undocumented migrants have made tremendous contributions to this country. 10 years of growth would practical be impossible without their contributions. Low inflation, Low interest, and growth above EU would have not been possible without UM contribution. The cost of looking after Old people, factory works,construction, hotels and hospitality, service industry would have been high indeed.

For example you are looking for plumber and all of them are occupied with other work for longtime. If you to ask him to leave his current job and come to do yours. You will have to pay him more therefore causing inflation and other work will go undone.

Now assume you have available and ready and eager workers ready to do the works for a fair wage. This will mean more work will be done for less cost to the employers hence decent profit for employers. The profits created will go back as investment to create more work. It means more tax revenue to the chancellor.

More revenue means the government can afford to keep interest rate down therefore more people can afford mortgages and other stuff. Also more investment by Employers will means more work would be created for everybody in the longterm.

[OL7MAX]

You compare me with Alan Sugar one more time and I'll thump you No, I'm not in the same league. However, the inability to go abroad to meet with other business people, sign contracts, attend fairs, present ideas... is a bit of a nuisance.

There are some who think that the 14 year rule regularises everyone who has been here more than 14 years. People like me can apply under the 14 year rule but it's important to note that not all 14 year applications succeed. The HO is very active in turning down any applicant it feels was ever served with a paper requiring him to leave the UK. AFATAC, the clock stopped ticking when they served that paper. So lots of longer term undocumenteds would hestitate to come forward, declare themselves and upset the status quo.

Rawling, I agree that border control is a mess. The best way to sell an amnesty to the public is to bundle it with improved border control or people will feel that the cycle is going to start all over again.

[gordon]

Well, I certainly take the point that my opinion doesn't count and acknowledge (at least in this forum) that the view of outsiders is inherently discounted on issues related to this. Perhaps what I find surprising is the rather cavalier approach to immigration controls, such that prior flouting of immigration controls by undocumented migrants would be ignored (forgiven?) for the sake of expediency and tax revenues. It seems a curious approach to the maintenance of civil society.

If amnesty is 'bestowed' on overstayers etc while leave to enter/remain is granted by grace as a privilege on WP-holders, HSMP visa-holders, with no distinction made between either of the two acts, I suppose there's little room for debate. By such an argument, legal migrants and undocumented migrants are functionally indistinct from each other in the native population's view, as the privileges granted to them would be the same.

A final note: that earlier suggestion that I discounted the humanity of some versus others is one to which I object quite strongly, and the implied slur was inappropriate. I did not suggest that those who do not abide by the law lose any of their humanity (or the attendant rights), but the traditional view has been that their legal transgressions consequentially diminish their entitlements and privileges, distinct from rights. Not doing so is perfectly within the discretion of governments, to be sure, but sending the message that unlawful acts have no sanctioned consequences, might be viewed as problematic.

But whatever is decided, I hope that the solution is profitable in the short- and long-term for the UK, and that there are no negative social or economic externalities arising from any amnesty exercises that might be implemented.

[Jing Wu]

abc

[OL7MAX]

If amnesty is 'bestowed' on overstayers etc while leave to enter/remain is granted by grace as a privilege on WP-holders, HSMP visa-holders, with no distinction made between either of the two acts

You really do feeled peeved at anyone achieving what you have unless they have been through the exact same hardships you've endured, don't you? The only reasonable grounds you can see for regularising the undocumented is if they qualify on the grounds you did. You seek to outline an injustice but damage your case by comparing your situation with new, just-over-the-border undocumented immigrants. Some of the current undocumented migrants are here through no fault of their own, some through the fault of others (like the British government), and some completely intentionally but all of them have suffered considerably, some in ways you can only imagine. Have you ever been a slave? Have you ever been physically kicked around, bullied, robbed, starved, raped, prostituted, imprisoned or mentally tortured because of the lack of a particular stamp in your passport? How dare you believe you've earned your stay more than any of the undocumented migrants?

... the message that unlawful acts have no sanctioned consequences

LOL. Try living illegally for a year, without the right to apply for a job, without the option of going to the local surgery when you are ill and with trying to find a school for your kids. Undocumented migrants, whether illegal immigrants or not, have paid a price. For many years.

What makes you a different migrant to the undocumented ones? You have come via a skills route and you have come here legally. That's it. Among the many illegal immigrants there are many who have not done anything illegal. So that leaves skills. In essence your argument is that you are better than they are; that you are more educated, have more skills and therefore deserve preferential treatment. Excuse me while I vomit.

I certainly take the point that my opinion doesn't count

You have presented your points very articulately and crafted some very intelligent posts that made for good reading. I'm surprised you're now resorting to throwing toys out of the pram.

[Siggi]

OL7MAX
Your criticism of Jing Wu is a bit much considering how you have responed to people in pass mails, who have dared to disagree with your current position.

[OL7MAX]

Your criticism of Jing Wu is a bit much

My apologies if there is any misunderstanding but my post wasn't meant in reply to him at all. In fact, I hadn't even read his post when I started typing mine up.

My criticism was not because an opinion was different to mine but because it involved at elitist expectation of better treatment solely on the grounds of qualifications/skills. It will possibly be argued that it's not elitist and applies to all skill shortages , even manual ones, but who are we kidding? Entrenchment of advantage is what it's about.

[Rawling]

You compare me with Alan Sugar one more time and I'll thump you .

We need a litle bit of humour as well because this issue is heavy and very emotion to a lot of people. Because a lot of people seems not to understand this issue and to most UM is the matter of life and death or close to it and is gonna get worse with increasingly restrictions for people who are already here.

Rawling, I agree that border control is a mess. The best way to sell an amnesty to the public is to bundle it with improved border control or people will feel that the cycle is going to start all over again.

These new even more restrictive measure will drive even more UM deep into underground. Where the only options left to them will be to starve or somehow to find the job where it would very difficult. You can only imagine what will happens to thousands of women who need food but have got no right to work. Or hundreds of thousands of mens who need to survive. But not entitled to rent accomodation, work, health service and the likes.

What happened if Birds flu pandemic occur, how the goverment is going to make sure the diseases is controlled when there are at least 1 million people outside the system.

Personal i see the only way out is to bring these people out from the cold and give them at least some sort of temporary permits or visa with conditions of course and they will need to prove themselves and make sure they meet these conditions. Before they get any chance to apply for ILR or citizenship. The money saved and fines, fees which UM will have to pay can then be used to enforce robustly border control.

[olisun]

These new even more restrictive measure will drive even more UM deep into underground.

You can't implement a tighter border control before trying to sort out the internal mess. And the only way to do that is to "discourage" more people from coming to the UK by implementing tighter immigration rules.

Once that's settled down, it will be easier to implement tighter border controls but that means at the expense of all the UM who are already inside the UK

[OL7MAX]

You can't implement a tighter border control before trying to sort out the internal mess.

Why do you believe this is not possible?

[olisun]

You can't implement a tighter border control before trying to sort out the internal mess.

Why do you believe this is not possible?

If I remember correctly the Govt. said exit checks can ONLY be put into place by the year 2011 (or was it 2014). This is one of tasks which form part of the tighter border control.

With the ever increasing no of people travelling to / from Britain it's not "easy" to implement such a solution without actually discouraging potential overstayers / settlers from coming to the UK. And the only way (I see) is to first sort out the internal mess by implementing tighter immigration rules. So that people are discouraged to either settle in the UK or Overstay.

These are my own thoughts though.

[Rawling]

If I remember correctly the Govt. said exit checks can ONLY be put into place by the year 2011 (or was it 2014). This is one of tasks which form part of the tighter border control.

With the ever increasing no of people travelling to / from Britain it's not "easy" to implement such a solution without actually discouraging potential overstayers / settlers from coming to the UK. And the only way (I see) is to first sort out the internal mess by implementing tighter immigration rules. So that people are discouraged to either settle in the UK or Overstay.

These are my own thoughts though.

But exit checks can be brought foward. If the problems is lacks of money by allowing UM to work and pay fines/fees say £5000 per person payable within 2 years or so. That is about £5bilion which can be used to pay for tighter immigration control. Also the money which should have gone to hold these people on detention and deportation can be put in good use by increasing number of border polices and spent on technology required to monitor people who are here.

If there is will to open discuss the pros and cons of the problem solution can be found and implemented well before 2014. 2014 seems very longtime to wait for solution.

[Rawling]

I think matters have been discussed, points have been made, over and over again. But when I look out of this website, I found that people are generally quite unaware of the whole situation.
.

Do whatever you can to make more people aware of the issue. Most people only hear one side of the augment. You can't blame british public when every time immigration issue is mention in the same sentence with terrorism and crime.

But there is some support of 72 MP, various trade unions and 3 candindates for deputy leader of labour party and various other organisations. It is not enough but their support is very much welcomed. These are brave MPs who are willing to look past the tomorrow headlines of the gutters press and look at facts and figures.

[Hernancortes]

I have been reading through the thread and i'm astounded by the piety displayed by some immigrants. I guess most immigrants are conservative.
If America can do it, Britain will do it. The ID card scheme will be useless without a regularisation scheme.

[Jing Wu]

abc

[Hernancortes]

[b]In flouting the law, illegal immigrants and overstayers are themselves criminals and should be treated as such; the fact that some might have done so for four years (or longer) doesn't make the act less egregious - rather, it compounds the error in judgment. And to make the argument that there are worse things going on, to which the Government should turn its attention, is disingenuous at best, and specious at worst[/b]

It may have escaped your attention that there is something called due process. The issue of undocumented migration cant be solved by criminalising over 1 million people. It is not feasible to incarcerate them or deport them. The question is similar to what the Americans are facing. The case for economic benefits has been made by the IPPR report, despite migrationwatch's attempts to rubbish it.
Economics will determine Gordon Brown's decision; just like BAE's behaviour in the middle east, money triumphs

[Rawling]

Interesting idea on taxing migrants by writen Phillipe Legraine for financial times.

Migrant tax would slash illegal entry into Europe

It is time that Europe’s politicians admitted to voters that governments cannot stop people moving across borders. Despite efforts to build a Fortress Europe, more than a million foreigners bypass its defences each year: some enter covertly; most overstay their visas and work illicitly. While draconian policies do curb migration somewhat, they mostly drive it underground.

That creates huge costs: a humanitarian crisis, with thousands drowning each year trying to reach Europe and thousands more detained; the soaring expense of border controls and bureaucracy; a criminalised people-smuggling industry; an expanding shadow economy, where illegal migrants are vulnerable to exploitation, labour laws are broken and taxes go unpaid; mistrust of politicians who cannot fulfil promises to halt immigration; corroded perceptions of immigrants as law-breakers rather than enterprising people; and the mistreatment of refugees to deter people who want to work from applying for asylum, besmirching our commitment to help those fleeing terror.

These problems are blamed on immigrants, but they are actually due to our immigration controls. Far from protecting society, they undermine law and order, just as Prohibition did more damage to America than drinking ever has. Pragmatic governments ought to legalise and regulate migration instead.

All the more so, since immigrants are not an invading army, but mostly people seeking a better life who are drawn to Europe by the huge demand for workers for low-end jobs which our increasingly well-educated and comfortable citizens do not want. The only way to reconcile aspirations to opportunity for all with the reality of drudgery for some is via immigration.

Migration’s benefits are akin to trade’s. Filipino care workers, Congolese cleaners and Brazilian bar staff are simply service providers who ply their trade abroad – and just as it is often cheaper and mutually beneficial to buy IT services from India, it often makes sense to import menial services that are delivered on the spot.

Moreover, because newcomers are more willing to move to where the jobs are, and to shift jobs as conditions change, they make the economy more flexible and boost growth as Britain’s recent experience shows. And just as women entering the workforce did not cost men jobs, nor do immigrants: they create jobs as they spend wages. Far from competing with native workers, immigrants often complement them. A foreign child minder may enable a doctor to return to work, where hard-working foreign nurses and cleaners enhance her productivity.

Immigrants’ diversity boosts innovation because foreigners with different perspectives and greater drive can help solve problems better. Consider Silicon Valley: Intel, Google and Ebay were all co-founded by immigrants. As China catches up, Europe must open up to foreigners to stay ahead.

Those who claim that tougher measures could stop immigration are delusive. Even if Europe became a police state, its borders would be permeable. Even if the EU built a wall along its vast eastern border, deployed an armada to patrol its southern shores, searched every arriving vehicle and vessel, denied people from developing countries visas, migrants would get through: documents can be forged, people smuggled, officials bribed.

If open borders are politically unacceptable, Europe should create a legal route for people from developing nations to come and work, regulated through an extra payroll tax on foreign workers. This would be transparent and flexible, raise revenue that would highlight migrants’ contribution to society, and give companies an ­incentive to hire, or train, domestic staff.

Even if set relatively high, it would undercut people smugglers and slash illegal immigration. Who would risk death, exploitation or deportation if they could come to work within the law by paying an extra tax? And if foreigners could come and go freely, many would stay only temporarily, since most do not want to leave home for ever. Over time, the tax could be gradually lowered – or raised again if migration led to unexpected problems.

Politicians should have the courage to stop fighting an unwinnable war. Treating immigration as an opportunity, not a threat, would enhance its benefits and mitigate its costs. ­London’s cosmopolitan dynamism shows how a more open Europe could thrive.

Financial Times, Immigration, Published articles | www.philippelegrain.com