abc

[Jing Wu]

abc

[Marco 72]

The US is a totally different issues because a lot of these 'illegals' or 'overstayers' or whatever actually have US-citizen children who cannot be deported from their own country so that is why they are more likely to be allowed to stay. Here, meanwhile, not all of these people's kids are British (yet), even if they have 'ties' it is not 'strong' enough.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. Having US born children gives no advantages to illegal immigrants in the US. They can still be deported, even if the children are US citizens.

[olisun]

I have seen english people on benifit yet go to the bookie everyday.

That's not an excuse for you becoming an illegal immigrant or is it?

I have seen a employer bully a illegal immigrant in real ; I have seen the sham marriage and been asked to do the same...... I have seen the real dark side of this society, but I still believe the justice exist, it's just that the politicians didn't bother to search a proper one for us all.

Who is to be blamed for all this??? Do you mean people coming here illegally should be welcomed with a red carpet???

I think you missed the point. I was only trying to say that II have had a lot of tough time and hard life experience, it's time to realise that II are contributing to the society too if not more in porpotion, we deserve a better treatment just like everyone else who contribute to the society. After all I believe most of the II could become very good residents and contributors. No need to rely on benifit anyway.

You are very sharp by pin pointing the word Illegal Immigrant in your question. But if it's just for the sake of arguing over the words , I do not myself and I don't encourage anyone to join in.

There are two types of argument based on these two logics that I really think should be ignored:
1 " so why do you become II at the first place,that's your fault "
2 " Illegal means breaks the law, therefore they are wrong "



I noticed that there are people who see the point I was trying to make, and made some valueable suggestions. Thanks for that.

But the others, trying to just argue around this word "illegal immigrant" . I really think it's a waste of time. We all know what does it mean , but this two words do not make us lower than any of you.

I understand what you are trying to say... Legalising undocumented workers who have contributed to the system and are currently doing is a good idea BUT you are not seeing the negative impact it will have on the system.

More people will be encouraged to become "illegal" or undocumented as you call it, with the hope of an amnesty in the future.

[Jing Wu]

abc

[avjones]

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.

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

[Jing Wu]

abc

[UKbound]

Illegal immigrants don't have it easy. To constantly live in fear of deportation at any given moment must be very difficult. At the same time, their ability to make themselves "legal immigrants" is limited to none, as virtually no options exist.

Having travelled extensively to countries where poverty is rampant, I can't say that I blame them for trying to have a better life, even if it is illegal. To live in a place without food, or running water, or the mod cons is not easy either. In coming to the UK (or the US, Canada, Europe, etc), they're often making the decision that the opportunity to live a normal life here (even if it's illegal), is better with the risk of deportation than with where they lived before.

It's a tough problem, I'm not sure what the answer is. Amnesty (no matter how you call it), solves the problem for today's immigrants, but creates an incentive for others to come illegally in the future. Deportation of the hundreds of thousands (or more) just isn't realistic. Where does that leave us? probably somewhere in the middle.

[avjones]

If II have a legal status, they will stop doing illegal act.

Most of the IIs have to use a fake ID to find a job in order to survive, or they might just involve in illegal act themself because no legal business will employed them. It's a catch 22.

All we are asking is to give a permit to work here, we pay tax but we won't entitle any benifits, is it really a bad deal????

My personal views on any amnesty are that people should not benefit from coming here illegally, or overstaying - it's rewarding that decision. I don't think it's fair on those people who have decided to come here legally using the proper routes, and have gone to a great deal of trouble and expense, or have decided not to come at all because they cannot do so legally.

I think an amnesty would also encourage more people to attempt to come here illegally in the future, which enriches people smugglers and puts lives in danger.

[sakura]

The US is a totally different issues because a lot of these 'illegals' or 'overstayers' or whatever actually have US-citizen children who cannot be deported from their own country so that is why they are more likely to be allowed to stay. Here, meanwhile, not all of these people's kids are British (yet), even if they have 'ties' it is not 'strong' enough.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. Having US born children gives no advantages to illegal immigrants in the US. They can still be deported, even if the children are US citizens.

So you mean to tell me if someone has a child who is still under 16/18 and therefore still under the guardianship of the parents, the government will still deport the parents WITH the US citizen child(ren)? That is what I'm pointing out. I never said they WILL be allowed to stay. Bear in mind they are US citizens ONLY, not dual nationals or the like (most of them probably don't have dual citizenship). I have come across cases where, because they had US citizen children, the parents were not deported. You can't deport your own citizens if they only have that one citizenship (can you?). Well, China for one won't accept US citizen (born) Chinese and probably won't want to give passports/documents for them anyway.

[Jing Wu]

abc

[avjones]

I don't get the legimiate / illegitimate comparison at all - as in the UK both have equal rights of inheritance if a parent dies intestate.

It is a choice people make for themselves, to throw away the best part of their lives (as you put it). Not something that is imposed upon them.

[Jing Wu]

abc

[avjones]

I have given the matter a great deal of thought - it's what I spent my working life doing! I'm an immigration law barrister.

I don't think mine is a simplistic response, and you have ignored two points I made. The first is that it is unfair on those who have followed the rules, whether they come legally or decide not to come at all. Secondly, it encourages future illegal immigration, in my view, and therefore enriches people smugglers.

I don't regard it as just "your fault", but there is an element of that. If you chose to behave in a certain way, such as entering a country illegally or choosing to remain illegally, I don't see why the country whose laws you have broken has an obligation to remove the consequences of your choice.

[Jing Wu]

abc

[avjones]

I think we have to agree to disagree - I did feel earlier that your message was a bit patronising, as if I only opposed the amnesty because I'd not thoguht about it. And I didn't think that was correct.

I appreciate that you have given the matter a lot of thought, and respect your views, even though I don't agree with them.

I think politically an amnesty will not happen - the voting population would be against it for sure.

[Jing Wu]

abc

[olisun]

I think politically an amnesty will not happen - the voting population would be against it for sure.

Whether Gordon Brown is a mathematician or tax expert, we'll see.

Also according to this,

"66% of those polled believe that those who work and pay taxes should be allowed to stay. 67% said those who have been here for more than four years and who work should be allowed to stay. The same percentage believe asylum-seekers should be allowed to work.

Results are based on a telephone survey conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,004 British adults aged 18 interviewed 21st – 23rd April 2007. Full results and a PowerPoint analysis are available at http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_detai ... ?NewsId=69 ORB are members of the British Polling Council and abide by their Code of Conduct"

I believe you are amongst the 33%.

- Results are based on telephone survey conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,004 British adults aged 18

The above is from the link provided in the previous post

God knows when they did that survey and in which part of the country.

One will get a true picture if survey is carried out nationally something like the way the elections are conducted.... And it should NOT be a problem in terms of expenses considering this is a very delicate issue plaguing the country since many years.

[Jing Wu]

abc

[hammad]

jing wu i agree with u u are a big man
forget about these haters there opionion does count any way hopefully every thing will work out for illegals one day

[Rawling]

Good articles

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/ ... 39,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... nimm01.xml

[Rawling]

Holland offer amnesty to failed asylum seekers who have been in the country before 2001. As that is the only sensible solution. Most of these people have no where to return to. Uk really should do the same.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Dut ... 37985.html

[OL7MAX]

Nice catch, Rawling; well done, Holland!

[gordon]

I am deeply sympathetic to the plight and hardships of illegal immigrants and overstayers, and I certainly appreciate that they make a material contribution to the UK. It cannot be a comfortable life. But I don't think that such an argument is sufficient to argue for amnesty.

As a person who has undertaken the labyrithine process of immigration into the UK (via HSMP), I have to say that I cannot see the equity in giving amnesty to those currently without legal immigration status (and here I'm writing about economic migrants, not asylum seekers). Yes, the process of getting to the UK legally is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. But it is not clear that economic migrants illegally resident in the UK have 'earned the right' (as it were) to amnesty. It simply is not logical to make the argument that illegal immigrants or overstayers have followed some sort of parallel track such that, at the end of x number of years living under the radar, they have earned some regularised status. Can you honestly say that you, having circumvented the law, have a greater claim on regularlised status relative to someone like me, who has been waiting on the outside for the proverbial (legal) gates to open ? 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.

When economic migrants overstay or otherwise enter illegally, they are making a choice, and that choice involves setting aside the law of the country they have entered. 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.

G

[Wanderer]

I am deeply sympathetic to the plight and hardships of illegal immigrants and overstayers, and I certainly appreciate that they make a material contribution to the UK. It cannot be a comfortable life. But I don't think that such an argument is sufficient to argue for amnesty.

As a person who has undertaken the labyrithine process of immigration into the UK (via HSMP), I have to say that I cannot see the equity in giving amnesty to those currently without legal immigration status (and here I'm writing about economic migrants, not asylum seekers). Yes, the process of getting to the UK legally is difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. But it is not clear that economic migrants illegally resident in the UK have 'earned the right' (as it were) to amnesty. It simply is not logical to make the argument that illegal immigrants or overstayers have followed some sort of parallel track such that, at the end of x number of years living under the radar, they have earned some regularised status. Can you honestly say that you, having circumvented the law, have a greater claim on regularlised status relative to someone like me, who has been waiting on the outside for the proverbial (legal) gates to open ? 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.

When economic migrants overstay or otherwise enter illegally, they are making a choice, and that choice involves setting aside the law of the country they have entered. 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.

G

Well put mate, you're spot on.

And i wonder what will happen when the economy here collapses, there'll be a public backlash for sure.

[OL7MAX]

gordon, those are well argued points. The mistake that I frequently have to point out is that someone termed an "illegal immigrant" is not necessarily someone who has broken the law. The term is deceptive and used for a whole host of people from the wilful lawbreakers and border jumpers to completely law abiding people who are "undocumented" through no fault of their own. There are several threads here in which I gave examples of people who fall in the latter category so I won't go into several examples but I'll leave you with one: Children of asylum seekers who failed their asylum applications. As minors they committed no crime overstaying their parents' failed asylum application and now, at 25 or 30, don't even know they are "illegal". There are several tens of thousands in this particular category extending, by some estimates, into the six figures.

As a person who has undertaken the labyrithine process of immigration into the UK (via HSMP)

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?

Can you honestly say that you, having circumvented the law

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.

But I don't think that such an argument is sufficient to argue for amnesty.

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.