abc

[Jing Wu]

abc

[Rawling]

I personally think they would do nothing, this way they won't get blamed. It’s safe. God will bless all II……

But I think the UK needs a real leader to stand out and become a doer, a politician who can put their own personal concerns aside, and let the result speaks.

I do not see Gordon Brown with this quality.
Do we really need to wait for another 4 years or even longer?

It is time to wait and see what is immigration position will be concerning this matter. A lot of people and organisations have been lobbying for some sort of regularisation. A letter below is one example

Women behind the Wire


Source: bwrap@womenagainstrape.net
http://www.bwrap.dircon.co.uk/


Letter from women detainees at Yarlswood IRC to:


Hon. Gordon Brown
House of Commons
London
SWIA OAA

Dear Sir,

Appeal for Amnesty


We write to you from Yarlswood Immigration Removal Centre and hope that this letter finds you well. We write to you as grandmothers, mothers, sisters., daughters, friends and supporters of your campaigns. We are victims of torture, rape and ill treatment from our countries having been forced by circumstances to flee our countries of origin in search of safety and protection.


We are detained in this detention camp as asylum seekers and overstayers and are gone/going through the immigration processes with no hope of success because of the laid down bureaucratic laws. Most of us do not have solicitors, thereby rendering it very difficult to have legal representation, which results in failure of proper decisions being passed, in cases where there is merit. The legal aid case workers provided can only take up cases to a certain level, they say because of funding difficulties and most of us are left to fend for ourselves with no clue as to the legal jargon and procedures to be followed.


Most of the cases are also on 'Fast Track' basis, which makes it very difficult for willing solicitors to take up cases due to limited time involved. It is very inappropriate to consider a case and pass a fair judgement within 24hrs, does not this reflect that the decision is already pre-determined, yet Home Office had tried to assure the public that each case will be dealt with on a one to one basis, but this is not the case. Clearly, they have a certain number of people, circumstances not withstanding, to deport by a certain period.


Some of the women here have been in this country for a period ranging from three years to over fourteen years. Some have families, whom include parents, husbands and children, who are forcibly being separated. We have also fostered close relationships with our communities and church members and those who had no one to call friends now have many friends. Some have been, reporting, signing on, accordingly on weekly and/or monthly basis for years. Yes we concede to the fact that I others were working subversively, due to the restriction placed on Asylum seekers from working (survival of defeated) and the fear of being forcibly returned to their countries, but nevertheless have been working and paying their taxes dutifully.


Some have served their sentences for working with false papers but have not been involved in any other crime, . . . . our crime is trying to survive by working hard, not by stealing, fraud or claiming benefits. When our 'Fast Tracked' cases are dismissed within a 24hr period, we are served with deportation/removal orders and are advised this will be imminent. Unfortunately this is not the case because some of the women have been here for periods ranging one month to two years still awaiting travel documents. Our psychological, mentally and physically torturing continues.


Suicidal attempts are many, physical deterioration escalating with the bare health care facilities provided. Pregnant women have lost their babies. Fibroids are causing intolerable pains . . . the suffering is endless. Those with terminal cases, i.e., diabetes, high blood pressure, anaemia ...... ... do not have proper diets and fear that this of course will cause bigger problems in a few years time. We have no proper dental care. Yes, we might have been judged as criminals for trying to live a more secured life, by working as hard as we possibly can, but doesn't the sentence end, should we continue to be punished?;


Our fears and nightmares continue. When it comes to 'removing' us we are being beaten mercilessly and bundled in the plane, injured and in the most inhumane manner you can imagine. Even beggars have their 'Human Rights', which is always emphasized in the UK and is 'believed to be practised.


In light of the above petitions, we call upon your kind intervention and advocacy, into our plight to grant us the safety and protection we are looking for in this country.


We thank you; most gratefully in anticipation of your urgent action.


Yours truly,


Signed by 118 women detained in Yarl's Wood IRC


(Attached pdf contains all the signatures)


End of Bulletin:


Source for this Message:
bwrap@womenagainstrape.net
http://www.stillhuman.org.uk
--

[jes2jes]

Well, some article I found concerning the US Immigrantion debate. Nice that Bush has admitted deportation is not the key.


Bush pitches for immigration bill
WASHINGTON, June 14 (UPI) --

President Bush once again urged Republicans to support the immigration bill in a Washington speech Thursday before a building contractors group.

The president, speaking at the Capitol Hilton, addressed an audience likely to be sympathetic to the bill since immigrant labor is increasingly important in construction.

The bill failed a key Senate vote last week after grass-roots opponents who consider it an amnesty measure deluged legislators with e-mails and telephone calls. Bush, in his speech to the Associated Builders and Contractors, maintained that giving the millions of people living illegally in the United States a path to citizenship is not amnesty.

"Look, we need to do this without animosity and without amnesty," Bush said. "I know there are some people who I guess believe that we could just kick them out of the country. That's just totally impractical. It won't work. We need a practical solution to a problem that has arisen as a result of a bill that didn't work, the 1986 immigration bill."


http://pub18.bravenet.com/news/1505173563/135824/1

[jimquk]

Having read through all these posts, I hardly dare as a new member to re-open the debate. However i feel it is really important to confirm from my experience working with failed asylum-seekers Jing Wu's and OL7Max's heartfelt descriptions of how absolutely grim and dehumanising life as an illegal generally is.

From a humanitarian point of view, I believe that all asylum-seekers should be allowed to work unless and until the Home Office can get their act together to remove them. This would not only save money in NASS support costs, but would remove much of the resentment which is felt toward immigrants generally. If the Home Office have not been able to remove someone after four years of compliance (signing, etc), they should be allowed to remain.

I fully concur that access to benefits should be restricted - in fact for Brits as well as newcomers.

I notice that some people here who have come legally resent bitterly that others may acheive the same rights having come illegally; but really their bitterness is I think based on the exorbitant fees, general bureaucracy, and disrespect that they encounter at all levels of society toward them. They in fact suffer from the same politics of paranoia as that which destroys the lives of illegals.

The refused asylum-seekers I deal with are often skilled, and have many personal qualities that they need to make their journeys here. They are also generally young people, full of hope and energy. It is heartbreaking to see them being ground down relentlessly by the system. If you HSMP people think you have had it hard, try being an asylum-seeker - it is grim while waiting for a decision, and intolerable if refused.

This country is very proud that we don't torture people with electricity, but asylum-seekers know how we torture them with paper.

As for people-smugglers, the simplest solution would be simply to sell work visas to all that want them.

As a previous poster said, God bless all illegals, and inevitably the day of regularisation is approaching for many of them.

[OL7MAX]

I fully concur that access to benefits should be restricted - in fact for Brits as well as newcomers.

I see a lot of my hard earned money going to keep spongers in full supply of KFC and beer. I vote for a serious overhaul of the benefit system. Anyone capable of working but without a job should have to accept community work/voluntary work if they want to get benefits, whatever that community work happens to be. But that's more to do with native Brits than undocumented workers. A fact that's oft forgotten is that undocumented migrants can't claim benefits like citizens can. But if your point is that access to benefits should be more restricted to undocumented migrants allowed to work .... then, I agree.

I notice that some people here who have come legally resent bitterly that others may acheive the same rights having come illegally; but really their bitterness is I think based on the exorbitant fees, general bureaucracy, and disrespect that they encounter at all levels of society toward them.

That's very charitable of you, but I disagree. I face the same type of bureaucracy that native Brits do. Also, society treats me very well. People don't know my immigration status and they treat me with the respect and courtesy they extend to each other - I have no doubt British society treats most immigrants that way.

My call is that these precious darlings are selfish, sanctimonious, narcissistic, insular and insecure little individuals afraid that wider immigration devalues their "achievements" and their own "illustrious" progress towards legal stay and dilutes the exalted position they believe they possess within their communities back home.

Like Groucho Marx astutely observed, being a member of the club isn't good enough if the club is not exclusive enough.

Welcome to the boards

[olisun]

My call is that these precious darlings are selfish

Why not, people who work without the proper paper work are denying the same opportunity which a person with legal paper could have done.

So who is more selfish?

[jimquk]

Why not, people who work without the proper paper work are denying the same opportunity which a person with legal paper could have done.

So who is more selfish?

I suppose anyone who has a job is denying someone else the opportunity to do it.

But those who support continuing the status of illegality are saying that the state should deny others any chance of working.

It has been said that people must live with the consequences of "choosing" illegality. OK, but no-one would choose illegality if there was a viable legal route in front of them.

What people like me are saying is that both for humanitarian reasons and for the good of the country, there should be a way for people to become integrated into the country, by temporary work visas.

[avjones]

"As for people-smugglers, the simplest solution would be simply to sell work visas to all that want them. "

And if that was another 40 million people wanting them, what then?

[OL7MAX]

>>40 million.

Amanda, you surely just raise the price... or am I missing something?

At £2.50 a visa you'll have more than 40 million applicants. Raise it to a million quid and one of two of those applicants may find themselves a bit short.

If anyone thinks the UK "selling" visas is a bit down market and not far off third world corruption - I have news for you. It already happens, has been happening for years, and the price is a lot less than £1,000,000 if you want to buy yourself a "business" residence. There's attached small print about employing (I think) at least two UK staff etc. but nothing that a good lawyer cannot set you up with.

So, if you live anywhere else in the world, have a few hundred thousand to invest, fancy calling yourself a businessman, and get a good lawyer... welcome to the UK.

OL7MAX wrote:
Here we go again. I've pointed out in other threads that "illegal immigrant" is used for hundreds of thousands of people in this country who have done nothing illegal. But it's a good lynch mob call to arms and works to whip up public frenzy. Politicians use the term because the gullible - like you - fall for the misleading impression it creates.

avjones wrote:Of course many of them have done something illegal - check the various Immigration Acts!

I have checked all the Immigration Acts, I still can't find what I have done that is illegal. I can point out a few other cases of people who are undocumented through no fault of their own and through breaking no laws. As an immigration barrister I'm surprised you dispute that there are people who fit the current "illegal immigrant" definition but have never broken a law.

[jimquk]

What if it was forty million? Well, at say 10K a time, that would be 400 billion pounds. Remembering that all visas would be with no recourse to public funds, could be a good business for the UK!

[John]

What if it was forty million?

Are you seriously suggesting that a country of about 60 million people could accommodate another 40 million? Irrespective of the financial aspect it is simply not possible to accommodate anything like that number of extra people.

[olisun]

What if it was forty million? Well, at say 10K a time, that would be 400 billion pounds. Remembering that all visas would be with no recourse to public funds, could be a good business for the UK!

With all the money and they can build another big island to hold all the 40million immigrants out there...

[Rawling]

My call is that these precious darlings are selfish

Why not, people who work without the proper paper work are denying the same opportunity which a person with legal paper could have done.

So who is more selfish?

This is not strictly true. Immigrants tend to create more jobs. Therefore benefits the whole population. If undocumented workers were to be given amnesty that will not denying opportunities to any person who is here legally. In fact will create more opportunities for everybody. Through taxes which they going to pay, A lot of more money will be freed up which currently try to do impossible deporting nearly 1 million people.

[olisun]

Immigrants tend to create more jobs. Therefore benefits the whole population. If undocumented workers were to be given amnesty that will not denying opportunities to any person who is here legally. In fact will create more opportunities for everybody.

Would you please care to explain?

[jimquk]

I was not seriously suggesting that 40 million would seek to come; according to http://www.bbsnetting.com/bbsnet/home/dv.php 6.4 million people applied for the DV 2008 green card lottery for the US, even though the entry was free, and the US is a much more attractive prospect for most would-be migrants.

[sakura]

My call is that these precious darlings are selfish

Why not, people who work without the proper paper work are denying the same opportunity which a person with legal paper could have done.

So who is more selfish?

This is not strictly true. Immigrants tend to create more jobs. Therefore benefits the whole population. If undocumented workers were to be given amnesty that will not denying opportunities to any person who is here legally. In fact will create more opportunities for everybody. Through taxes which they going to pay, A lot of more money will be freed up which currently try to do impossible deporting nearly 1 million people.

That's very confusing.....immigrants don't create more jobs, business, investment, and expansion, and government expenditure does. That's why you need immigrants - more jobs due to a booming economy and declining population, not a booming economy because of immigrants.

Just because they don't use the money deporting immigrants doesn't mean more jobs would be created...they might actually have to lay off some enforcement workers if they give an amnesty, using your methodology.

[OL7MAX]

John, the poor chap is not the one who came up with the arbitary 40 million figure. Suffice to say that there's always a limit to the number of new migrants a country can take. There will be differing views on what number constitutes a reasonable limit.

I believe that given the right conditions, in the long term, it's not impossible for the UK to support an extra 40 million more than it does now. That would take the total to circa 100 million, about 30 million less than the slightly larger Japan.

immigrants don't create more jobs

An economist would disagree with you. Simply by virtue of living in a country they create a demand for more services. With so called "illegal immigrants" the government isn't funding their grocery purchases - they are doing it from money they've earned.

[Rawling]

Would you please care to explain?

The US has been a country which welcome immigrants fro centuries and its unemployment records have below most coutries which doesnt't accept migrants. This is for simple reason migrants sometimes create the whole new industries which didn't exist before. In the middle of 1990's Israel accept more than 700,000 within couples of years and the unemployment rate actually fall. UK have accept close to million people from Eastern Europe and the level of unemployment figure haven't changed signficantly.

[avjones]

"As an immigration barrister I'm surprised you dispute that there are people who fit the current "illegal immigrant" definition but have never broken a law."

Nothing like misquoting someone, setting up a straw man, and knocking it down. I didn't dispute that there are people who are illegal immigrants but have not broken the law. That's why I said, "many".

[avjones]

Selling work visas and raising the price wouldn't stop people smugglers, would it? If the price was higher for a legal visa than being smuggled, you would still get smugglers.

I don't understand, to be honest, why people who don't fit the immigration rules think they have a right to remain legally because they've managed to evade the Home Office so far.

[Docterror]

immigrants don't create more jobs

An economist would disagree with you. Simply by virtue of living in a country they create a demand for more services. With so called "illegal immigrants" the government isn't funding their grocery purchases - they are doing it from money they've earned.

Now, that is something I can't wrap my brain around. Hypothecially speaking, if we were to replace all the "illegal immigrants" with legal immigrants, how would it be better for the economy or the government to have the "illegal" ones rather than the legal ones?

[sakura]

immigrants don't create more jobs

An economist would disagree with you. Simply by virtue of living in a country they create a demand for more services. With so called "illegal immigrants" the government isn't funding their grocery purchases - they are doing it from money they've earned.

You misunderstood me - which economist would disagree with me? I referred to this

Immigrants tend to create more jobs. Therefore benefits the whole population. If undocumented workers were to be given amnesty that will not denying opportunities to any person who is here legally. In fact will create more opportunities for everybody. Through taxes which they going to pay, A lot of more money will be freed up which currently try to do impossible deporting nearly 1 million people.

which I read as arguing that immigration expands the economy (through job creation), when in fact it is business that creates jobs, which expands the economy and in turn requires (skilled) immigration. I mean I don't know how giving an amnesty would help create more jobs - it would give more to state coffers, but that doesn't necessarily lead to job creation. (If the US gave an amnesty, would it mean more jobs would be created?)

Of course if they were living in the country then services would expand to meet the demand. I don't dispute that - but my argument refers to Rawling's statement that an amnesty would help the job market.

[sakura]

John, the poor chap is not the one who came up with the arbitary 40 million figure. Suffice to say that there's always a limit to the number of new migrants a country can take. There will be differing views on what number constitutes a reasonable limit.

I believe that given the right conditions, in the long term, it's not impossible for the UK to support an extra 40 million more than it does now. That would take the total to circa 100 million, about 30 million less than the slightly larger Japan.

immigrants don't create more jobs

An economist would disagree with you. Simply by virtue of living in a country they create a demand for more services. With so called "illegal immigrants" the government isn't funding their grocery purchases - they are doing it from money they've earned.

Plus - if you look at Rawling's next post;

The US has been a country which welcome immigrants fro centuries and its unemployment records have below most coutries which doesnt't accept migrants. This is for simple reason migrants sometimes create the whole new industries which didn't exist before. In the middle of 1990's Israel accept more than 700,000 within couples of years and the unemployment rate actually fall. UK have accept close to million people from Eastern Europe and the level of unemployment figure haven't changed signficantly.

in my view, he (she?) is arguing that it is migrants that set up new businesses and that helps job creation. So, Germany's problem is that it doesn't have enough immigrants? If it wants its unemployment rate to fall. Or is this just a chicken-egg thing I'm reading: immigrants create jobs, or jobs create immigration? Again, this is from Rawling's arguments...

To Rawling: But Japan's unemployment rate is quite low and pre-1997 its economy was growing rapidly, and it hardly has had an immigration policy. Except for the Zainichi Koreans, but that is no where near the level of immigration the US or W. Europe has experienced. Therefore I think it might have something to do with Japan's (welfare) policies and its lifelong employment structure than with the country's immigration policy. I always took the view that immigration policies were set around demography and business cycles (i.e. investment/jobs).

But we're going way off topic so I'll leave it there until someone brings it back to the amnesty!

[OL7MAX]

it is business that creates jobs

Demand preceeds business. Where there is no demand there will be no businesses springing up. (And that is from someone who is a businessman himself.)

Hypothecially speaking, if we were to replace all the "illegal immigrants" with legal immigrants, how would it be better for the economy or the government to have the "illegal" ones rather than the legal ones?

The earlier point was that "immigrants don't create more jobs"... not "illegal immigrants don't create more jobs". My reply takes no account of legal vs illegal. I'm simply pointing out that more people in a location creates more local demand for goods and services. That's an indisputable fact and most seem to be in agreement on it.

I don't understand, to be honest, why people who don't fit the immigration rules think they have a right to remain legally because they've managed to evade the Home Office so far.

If they had a right to remain legally then why would anyone be arguing for/against the amnesty referred to in the OP? You've lost me.

[sakura]

it is business that creates jobs

Demand preceeds business. Where there is no demand there will be no businesses springing up. (And that is from someone who is a businessman himself.)

And is your business predicated on the number of immigrants or on a proposed amnesty? I put Rawling's point in bold, but here it is again: "If undocumented workers were to be given amnesty that will not denying opportunities to any person who is here legally. In fact will create more opportunities for everybody." So why the assumption that if an amnesty happens there will be more jobs? What business can be set up? Yeah if immigrants came to the UK then there's demand, but where is the demand from an amnesty from people already in the UK?

And as you can see in my first reply to you:

which I read as arguing that immigration expands the economy (through job creation), when in fact it is business that creates jobs, which expands the economy and in turn requires (skilled) immigration. I mean I don't know how giving an amnesty would help create more jobs - it would give more to state coffers, but that doesn't necessarily lead to job creation. (If the US gave an amnesty, would it mean more jobs would be created?)

So why would an amnesty be good for job-creation? Would(n't) it be bad for housing demand, education demand, too?