- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
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?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
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.Would it better serve Britain's interest to have 100k additional skilled workers rather than 100k unskilled undocumented ones ?
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.OL7MAX wrote: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?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
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).
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.Would it better serve Britain's interest to have 100k additional skilled workers rather than 100k unskilled undocumented ones ?
I would support a long term-permit rather than ILR...sakura wrote: 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 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).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.
OL7MAX wrote: 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.
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.olisun wrote: I would support a long term-permit rather than ILR...
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?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
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.... the message that unlawful acts have no sanctioned consequences
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.I certainly take the point that my opinion doesn't count
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.Your criticism of Jing Wu is a bit much
OL7MAX wrote:You compare me with Alan Sugar one more time and I'll thump you.
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.OL7MAX wrote: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.
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.Rawling wrote:These new even more restrictive measure will drive even more UM deep into underground.
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.OL7MAX wrote:Why do you believe this is not possible?You can't implement a tighter border control before trying to sort out the internal mess.
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.olisun wrote: 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.
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.Jing Wu wrote: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.
.