The Strangers into Citizenship campaign is calling for regularisation of some of the UK's illegal immigrants – a humane and practical move
On Monday, as London lies empty in the bank holiday sun, a hidden world will erupt. The capital's immigrant communities, together with members of parishes, schools and charities, MPs and trade unionists, will converge on Parliament Square.About 20,000 people will walk together to Trafalgar Square, holding up a bright orange banner that simply reads: ""Strangers into Citizens".
In the square, those gathered will hear a call for a measure that is practical, humane and of obvious benefit: a Spanish-style regularisation of a portion of the UK's irregular migrants, also known as "a pathway into citizenship" of the sort advocated by Barack Obama.
The idea is supported by people of all political colours: the Conservative mayor of London, the Liberal Democrats, a number of members of cabinet as well as policy institutes of the left, liberals and Conservatives. A one-off, selective regularisation would be simple to do, would pay for itself and the dividends would be great. Yet the very mention of it scares the government, who are anxious for you to know that they are tough on "illegal immigration" and worry that an "amnesty" would send the wrong message.
But let's be clear whom the Strangers into Citizens campaign – backed by Boris Johnson – believes should be regularised. A report out later this month commissioned from the London School of Economics by Johnson estimates there to be 750,000 "irregular migrants" in the UK. Most of these people entered legally, either through the asylum system or on some kind of visa; they would have then fallen into illegality when the immigration rules changed or when, after many years in limbo, their asylum claim failed. The Strangers into Citizens proposal is for a pathway into citizenship for those who have been in the UK for at least six years and who present employer and character references, a clean criminal record and proficiency in English, or have a strong humanitarian case. That would total, says the LSE, about 450,000 people.
All regularisations start from an admission that there is a mismatch between law and reality. According to the law, people who have no right to be here should go home. But people aren't like that. They make new lives, become part of families and communities. Most of those 450,000 are not going home, because their home has moved. The truth that all (including the Home Office) admit yet few are willing to face is this: a mass deportation is both impossible and morally unacceptable. That is why the government's is a bogus policy. The UK Border Agency has increased its forced removal rate to 60,000 per year, at a cost of £11,000 per removal. But it's a drop in the ocean. At this rate it will take 34 years and cost £9bn to remove everybody.
So the real alternative is some form of regularisation – or the status quo, in which a large part of the population lives in a shadow world, as sub-citizens, prone to exploitation, fearful of reporting crimes, undermining the minimum wage, unable to access rights and less likely to fulfil their obligations of paying taxes. A large population outside the law benefits no one.
Regularisation is the humane and practical solution. Combined with border-enforcement measures, such as those the government is bringing in at the moment, and measures to shrink the shadow economy, it helps to deter further illegal immigration. Such is the experience of Spain, which regularised 600,000 people in 2005 as part of a package of reforms which included tighter borders. Numbers entering Spain between 2001 and 2004 were considerably higher than those that have entered since. That's why, in the United States, regularisation is backed by those who favour more restrictive immigration measures. It enables immigration authorities to concentrate on those who intend to break the law rather than those whom the law is breaking.
Spain's regularisation – the fruit of consent between employers, unions and civil society in general – took three months and cost little. Immigrants are generally young, fit, and educated at another country's expense: they are not a burden on the benefits system.
What's left is politics, the nervousness of admitting that immigration policies have not succeeded, and the perception that regularisation in some way undermines legal immigration. But if the government really believed that, they wouldn't have granted leave to remain to thousands of asylum "legacy cases" this past year. The letters these people received informed them they could stay on the grounds of their "long association with the UK" – precisely the Strangers into Citizens argument. continues here
On Monday, as London lies empty in the bank holiday sun, a hidden world will erupt. The capital's immigrant communities, together with members of parishes, schools and charities, MPs and trade unionists, will converge on Parliament Square.About 20,000 people will walk together to Trafalgar Square, holding up a bright orange banner that simply reads: ""Strangers into Citizens".
In the square, those gathered will hear a call for a measure that is practical, humane and of obvious benefit: a Spanish-style regularisation of a portion of the UK's irregular migrants, also known as "a pathway into citizenship" of the sort advocated by Barack Obama.
The idea is supported by people of all political colours: the Conservative mayor of London, the Liberal Democrats, a number of members of cabinet as well as policy institutes of the left, liberals and Conservatives. A one-off, selective regularisation would be simple to do, would pay for itself and the dividends would be great. Yet the very mention of it scares the government, who are anxious for you to know that they are tough on "illegal immigration" and worry that an "amnesty" would send the wrong message.
But let's be clear whom the Strangers into Citizens campaign – backed by Boris Johnson – believes should be regularised. A report out later this month commissioned from the London School of Economics by Johnson estimates there to be 750,000 "irregular migrants" in the UK. Most of these people entered legally, either through the asylum system or on some kind of visa; they would have then fallen into illegality when the immigration rules changed or when, after many years in limbo, their asylum claim failed. The Strangers into Citizens proposal is for a pathway into citizenship for those who have been in the UK for at least six years and who present employer and character references, a clean criminal record and proficiency in English, or have a strong humanitarian case. That would total, says the LSE, about 450,000 people.
All regularisations start from an admission that there is a mismatch between law and reality. According to the law, people who have no right to be here should go home. But people aren't like that. They make new lives, become part of families and communities. Most of those 450,000 are not going home, because their home has moved. The truth that all (including the Home Office) admit yet few are willing to face is this: a mass deportation is both impossible and morally unacceptable. That is why the government's is a bogus policy. The UK Border Agency has increased its forced removal rate to 60,000 per year, at a cost of £11,000 per removal. But it's a drop in the ocean. At this rate it will take 34 years and cost £9bn to remove everybody.
So the real alternative is some form of regularisation – or the status quo, in which a large part of the population lives in a shadow world, as sub-citizens, prone to exploitation, fearful of reporting crimes, undermining the minimum wage, unable to access rights and less likely to fulfil their obligations of paying taxes. A large population outside the law benefits no one.
Regularisation is the humane and practical solution. Combined with border-enforcement measures, such as those the government is bringing in at the moment, and measures to shrink the shadow economy, it helps to deter further illegal immigration. Such is the experience of Spain, which regularised 600,000 people in 2005 as part of a package of reforms which included tighter borders. Numbers entering Spain between 2001 and 2004 were considerably higher than those that have entered since. That's why, in the United States, regularisation is backed by those who favour more restrictive immigration measures. It enables immigration authorities to concentrate on those who intend to break the law rather than those whom the law is breaking.
Spain's regularisation – the fruit of consent between employers, unions and civil society in general – took three months and cost little. Immigrants are generally young, fit, and educated at another country's expense: they are not a burden on the benefits system.
What's left is politics, the nervousness of admitting that immigration policies have not succeeded, and the perception that regularisation in some way undermines legal immigration. But if the government really believed that, they wouldn't have granted leave to remain to thousands of asylum "legacy cases" this past year. The letters these people received informed them they could stay on the grounds of their "long association with the UK" – precisely the Strangers into Citizens argument. continues here
![Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War](http://patbuchananbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/bk-pjb-chuw165.jpg "Churchill_Hitler_the_Unnecessary_War\")
Post a comment on AAWR
0 Responses to "Amnesty for illegal immigrants"Post a Comment
We welcome contributions from all sides of the debate, at AAWR comment is free, AAWR may edit and/or delete your comments if abusive, threatening, illegal or libellous according to our understanding of, no emails will be published. Your comments may be published on other nationalist media sites worldwide.