immigration amnesty

bleak_future · Post by **bleak_future** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:15 pm

Does anyone know whether its true that there is an amnesty for overstayers happening soon?

many thanks

Post by **Administrator** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:25 am

.

I've heard no news of such a thing.

If you have, could you please provide more detail ... such as from who / by who / when etc. etc.

Even wild rumors would help. I can begin searching and asking questions to see if there is any substance.

The Admin

Post by **John** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:48 am

bleak_future, in my opinion it is extremely unlikely that the UK Government would make such an announcement. Given the action it is taking to enforce the current laws, for example making it much tougher for "illegals" to work, it would be political suicide to back down and grant a general amnesty.

More likely, but still not guaranteed to happen, is to consider a general granting of applications that were made years ago and still not been rejected or considered. After all there are people out there that made visa applications 3 years, or 5 years, or more years ago, who have still not received an initial decision. There might be a "clearing of the old cases" ... many of which have been simply lost or buried in the depths of an IND office somewhere.

sakura · Post by **sakura** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:09 pm

Would it really make sense for an amnesty in the UK if there are already measures for people and their family to stay? I mean, of course it takes a lot longer, but it is still possible. i.e. registration of minors who have been here 7 years or so, long residency category, marriage, etc...all of which means most people will at some point be regularised, isn't it?

Plus, I don't think the majority of people would want or accept that, to be honest...

eso · Post by **eso** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:57 pm

as if one could be treated fairly when applying under certain rules .for instance all the people i have met applying under LRC have been refused after ....... well around 2 years of wait
my brother have been arrested on his wedding day ,
i have met someone in a detention centre ,who has been there for 38 months .he was 53 and the proud owner of 2 shirts and a pair of trousers
frankly i really get cheesed off by people who think that the rest of the immigrants community should have it a little "harder " than wished for
exactly why would you oppose to an amnesty ???? how could it bother you .
now pardon me if iam a bit blunt .but reading your post about that man who told you about his ways of getting ILR ,i mean it is wrong but why would you be infuriated to the point of thinking about grassing him up .what impact would it have on your life at all ?
if people had a fair treatment by HO and a timely one (would you accept that your life will be pending on a decision for 2 years or more )

sakura · Post by **sakura** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:01 pm

exactly why would you oppose to an amnesty ???? how could it bother you .
now pardon me if iam a bit blunt .but reading your post about that man who told you about his ways of getting ILR ,i mean it is wrong but why would you be infuriated to the point of thinking about grassing him up .what impact would it have on your life at all ?

I guess this is to me...

I am entitled to my own opinion. The OP asked if there would be an amnesty, and I argue that, unlike other countries, e.g. the US or (from what I know) Australia or Canada, the UK has various categories where people without legal residency can regularise, albeit after a long wait.
So, for example, if you are illegal but have children here, they can be registered because they have been here long enough to have an attachment to the UK. So the UK might not consider an amnesty with all these categories...plus- remember, why would they, when voters might revolt? That is the point...

And I'm sorry, but I don't think it does not "bother" me to ignore the fact that there are people inside the Home Office, who are engaged in criminal activities. What about the hundreds of honest applicants forced to wait and suffer whilst the HO tries to sort out all these scandals and deficiencies...and how do they do this? By putting up prices. Remember the asylum scandal, when it was found that an Immigration Officer was (can't remember) accepting applications if the women slept with him? So, what happened to the other asylum applicants? Doubtless it took longer to sort out their applications because they had to review the IO's past applications.

Anyway, if you think it doesn't concern anyone, that's fine, but hey, if they decide 14-yr categories are getting too complicated or abused and they decide to close it off for good...then it concerns everyone.

frankly i really get cheesed off by people who think that the rest of the immigrants community should have it a little "harder " than wished for

Where did I write anything like this? Judging by your previous posts, you seem cheesed off by everything...

eso · Post by **eso** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 pm

ya walad el tata el harkia

ajani · Post by **ajani** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:01 pm

Quote
ya walad el tata el harkia.

What is the meaning of this? Please post messages in English language.

jason25 · Post by **jason25** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:32 am

Sakura, eso is right by saying ya wlid elharkiya, in this matter of amnisty, i would also add: ya wlid essahara, lahass ezzbouba. but of course everybody has it own opinion on this.

Janit · Post by **Janit** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:25 am

Could the moderators please remind forum members that English should be used for posting information/comments.

Those of us whose first language is not English, know we would always get replies from the experienced members, whose knowledge transcends broken/limited efforts at the language. In other words, keep your common language for private emails to each other and let the rest of us use this Forum to get knowlegde to educate ourselves on how to deal with our "friends" at the Home Office. Thank you.

Dawie · Post by **Dawie** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:59 pm

Janit wrote: Could the moderators please remind forum members that English should be used for posting information/comments. Those of us whose first language is not English, know we would always get replies from the experienced members, whose knowledge transcends broken/limited efforts at the language. In other words, keep your common language for private emails to each other and let the rest of us use this Forum to get knowlegde to educate ourselves on how to deal with our "friends" at the Home Office. Thank you.

Have you considered the fact they they're taking the piss and you've fallen for it?

Janit · Post by **Janit** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:19 pm

I take this forum seriously as I have some outstanding, important issues for which I try to get tips to solve.

I was taught that it is rude speak to another person in your language when others in the group don't know what you are saying. If I am too sensitive about this type of behaviour, then so be it.

Thank you.

eso · Post by **eso** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:44 pm

you have issues with people writing in other languages .i admit it could be annoying and sometimes offensive since one cant understand what is being said ,fair enough
i also have issues (read my old post ) .
whilst this forum has proven to be a goldmine of informations .i have also noticed that it could harbour individuals with pretty negative innuendos concerning immigrants in general and "unlawfull migrants " specifically
although you will not see an all out assault on an individual asking for help .it would take someone with an IQ slightly above one from a capuccino machine to see that there are elements here against anyone who is illegal or in trouble with the HO
i have seen posters advising people to leave whilst their problems could be sorted
foreign national posters who oppose to the idea of an amnesty or reglarisation schemes (flippin ironic )
people talking down to you because you are an illegal etc etc

look simple game ,i ask a question and i expect an answer within the context
the guy started a post asking if someone heard about an amnesty ,answers should be from the YES group with some details

the way i see it ,the original poster is either directly concerned or maybe someone close to him /aquaintance is in a situation where an amnesty is good news and could be beneficial
yet you have someone coming along with the sole purpose of ruining what might be his only way out of troubles
if you dont have a direct and definite answer ,KINDLY refrain from giving discouraging ones

few months back i posted on this forum expecting valuable help ,instead i got a lecture on how to use the caps lock on my keyboard and netiquette ....from no less than the moderator
funny how one gets advice on proper use of computer keyboards when he is facing deportation

SAKURA .the HO clearly states that if you pay more you get processed quicker .so if one cant afford the premium than he should expect delays
is this fair ? do you really want us to believe that the backhanders are the one that are creating this huge backlog of a case decision

i have worked ,would you believe for UKPA .and i guess the HO is no exception ,if anything it would be 10 folds worse .
in a word, a riduclously inneficient workforce of paper pusher who are briefed and instructed primarely on refusal and induction of hardship to anyone that come their way

tasha75 · Post by **tasha75** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:36 pm

bleak_future wrote:Does anyone know whether its true that there is an amnesty for overstayers happening soon?

It doesn't seems so. But you might be interested in reading and participating in this campaign.

A campaign calling for an amnesty for irregular migrant workers has been launched.

'Strangers into Citizens' is a year-long campaign aimed at stimulating a public call for a government policy to introduce a one-off limited regularisation of the many thousands of people who have made new lives in the UK without having official status.
http://www.irr.org.uk/2007/january/ks000010.html

Also, a petition asking the Prime Minister to "give an amnesty to all Illegal immigrants" has just ended (on the 4th March 2007), signed by only 1004 people (I am not surprised as it wasn't well advertised)
The Prime Minister's response to it:

The Government has ruled out an amnesty and this remains our position. We believe an amnesty would undermine public confidence in the immigration system and there is no moral case for doing so.

Furthermore, at a time when IND is succeeding in removing more people last year than ever before, an amnesty would only counter these achievements by acting as a pull factor to the UK and weaken efforts to remove those who have not been granted permission to stay. It would also be unfair to those who have sought to enter and regularise their status in the UK legally though the appropriate routes.

As part of the IND review, IND has brought forward plans for fair but tough enforcement of the rules. The IND will not only strengthen its people but the tools they have to do the job. Asylum applications are down 74% from their peak in 2002. In 2005, the last year for which published figures for both asylum and non asylum removals are available more individuals were removed than ever before.

These achievements have required a lot of hard work from a lot of people and we will be pressing on, not going backwards. It is in this context, that there is no need for an amnesty, which we believe would only counter these achievements by acting as a pull factor to the UK.

The immediate focus of Government policy is outlined in the IND Review to develop migration routes where this is in the country's interests. The introduction of the new points-based system will open up legal migration routes, so that those who want to apply to come and work in the UK can do so, on the basis of informed choice and with access to the rights and freedoms available to other workers.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Amnesty/

Post by **JAJ** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:07 am

tasha75 wrote: The Government has ruled out an amnesty and this remains our position. We believe an amnesty would undermine public confidence in the immigration system and there is no moral case for doing so.

The only kind of "amnesty" that would be acceptable would be a scheme for overstayers to be granted financial assistance to return to their home country, with perhaps the incentive of a much shorter bar on re-entry to the UK through legal channels in future.

Otherwise the existing channels towards regularisation of status on a case by case basis are more than sufficient.

Christophe · Post by **Christophe** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:09 am

eso wrote:foreign national posters who oppose to the idea of an amnesty or reglarisation schemes (flippin ironic )

I really don't see why that is ironic. Presumably some foreign nationals would be in favour of an amnesty and some opposed, as with almost any other group of people.

eso wrote:people talking down to you because you are an illegal etc etc

But I agree with that - such behaviour is just rude and boorish, apart from anything else.

Dawie · Post by **Dawie** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:17 am

It often seems that those who are most against an immigration amnesty are legal immigrants who think that because they have had to jump through all the hoops, other immigrants should as well, and therefore illegal immigrants do not deserve an amnesty because they should have "done it properly" like they did.

While I can understand this line of thinking, I do not agree with it. It fails to take into consideration that illegal immigrants did not become illegal immigrants out of choice. They are victims of circumstance, be it for economic, political or whatever reasons.

The life of an illegal immigrant is not an easy one. Their illegality opens them up to abuse, exploitation and more. To take the simplistic view that they should just all "go back home" is to ignore the very real hardships that they suffer, not to mention the very real contribution that many many illegal immigrants make to the British economy.

Chances are the person who cleans your office every night is an illegal immigrant. The security guard who protects your office. The train driver who drives your train safely every day. All these hundreds of thousands of people do the thankless jobs that none of us in our ivory towers want to do.

Surely they deserve a chance to legalise their situations and live decent lives.

olisun · Post by **olisun** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:21 pm

Dawie wrote:Surely they deserve a chance to legalise their situations

That will push the demand for higher salaries which the majority of the employers do not want to pay...

This may or may not lead to employers hiring more illegall immigrants...

Dawie · Post by **Dawie** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:28 pm

olisun wrote:
Dawie wrote:Surely they deserve a chance to legalise their situations
That will push the demand for higher salaries which the majority of the employers do not want to pay...

This may or may not lead to employers hiring more illegall immigrants...

The problem is, as the Americans found to their detriment in the 1930s, as soon as you prohibit something, not only do you create a black market for, but you also lose control of it.

Prohibition created the mafia, and strict immigration policies have done nothing but create human traffickers and modern-day slave gangs. The one thing immigration laws haven't done is to prevent people from coming to the UK illegally.

This was true for alchohol in the past, and it's true for things like drugs and immigration today. Enforcing strict immigration laws while ignoring the things that cause people to migrate in the first place (like war, famine, economic hardship) is pointless.

Christophe · Post by **Christophe** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:44 pm

Dawie wrote:Enforcing strict immigration laws while ignoring the things that cause people to migrate in the first place (like war, famine, economic hardship) is pointless.

Not necessarily disagreeing with what you're saying, but it's worth pointing out that part of the reason for the present mess is that the immigration laws haven't been enforced strictly - or more accurately, haven't been enforced consistently; and of course they're still not being. The complaint that is often heard - that hard-working, tax-paying illegal immigrants are targeted by the authorities while, for example, criminals who are in the country illegally are not - is largely true. Similarly, those who apply for the correct visa for the purpose of their visit are often, it seems, subject to delays and other difficulties, while those who simply flout the system by overstaying or not declaring their intent in the first place have a much easier time of it.

I don't know what the answers are to these issues. (In part, it's a bit like the old joke about the man who was stopped in the street and asked for directions and who replied, "Well, to begin with, I wouldn't be starting from here if I were you.") It is, however, inevitable that there will be immigration controls of one sort or another for the foreseeable future. They need to be fair and to be enforced fairly and consistently: that aim seems to be a challenge that the Home Office has yet to meet, as far as I can see.

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

immigration amnesty

immigration amnesty

Re: immigration amnesty

Re: immigration amnesty