LibDem's amnesty on illegal immigrants

[CurlyhairedAssassin]

I might be being a bit dim here so perhaps someone can enlighten me, but how on earth would the LibDems identify those illegal immigrants who have been here 10 years? If they're here illegally what proof would they have to show they've been here that long?

Good to see even The Guardian likes the Lib Dems, because of the erosion of civil liberties.

We've coped well enough for 50+ years without the need for ID cards, and I'd hope we could go another 50 without them being mandatory!

in response to the poster who mentioned the analogy of having a burglar in your house and making sure they have enough to eat... well don't we do this with burglars in prison?!

(If burglars go to prison anymore, that is)

This is quite an interesting idea by the lib dems, i know boris has also mentioned an amnesty in london. personally i think its a good idea to get as many people as possible paying tax - we need the money, but i do wonder how many people would actually come forward, after all if you had managed to avoid paying tax for the last 10+ years why would you want to start now?

and we coped fine without them for a long time before that as well!

To know that you would not be expelled at some point, perhaps, nancy75. After all, an amnesty is a "last chance" with penalties for anyone who doesn't apply for it.

If someone has built their life around being here, have children in school or awaiting higher education, or just feel happy to live here (and if not happy, one can question why they stay!) then hopefully, they understand it will be a legitimate way to continue to be here without risk of deportation (in spite of length of time living here) they'd surely consider it carefully.

webdude, if someone has been here ilegally for that long the govt probably dont konw anything about them - the chance of them being caught is slim. afaik if you have children and have integrated into the community, not commited crimes then you would have a good chance of staying anyway.
i suppose it would depend on what the penalty for not declaring yourself at the amnesty was.

Thanks LF, I'd have been searching all night.

Section 442 says that the controls were stopped in two stages, in 1994 (for smaller ports to EU destinations) and scrapped completely in 1998.

I think it's a fantastic policy. If the alternatives are for someone to remain illegal all their lives with all that entails, or to be deported when they've built a life here, I know which I prefer.

Of course, you realise we're all a bunch of bigots even discussing this topic.

In theory I agree that it's better to just wipe the slate clean for those who've been herre a long time and then just start from square one with everyone else with proper, strict regulations in place.

But there are so many problems that haven't been addressed, aren't there? Presumably there are a fair number here illegally who aren't working at all - families of those working illegally. Suddenly they're all going to be entitled to benefits and proper housing and where is all this money going to come from? We don't even know HOW much money we're talking about so I don't understand how they can possibly budget for it.

And when it comes to housing, it's already been conceded by all the parties that there is a shortage of affordable housing. Clegg wants to stop the building of single-dwelling properties (would he have single 40 and 40 year olds house-sharing as if they were in an episode of This Life? ) Presumably his plan to build more family homes is taking into account social housing that will have to be provided for newly legitimised (is that a word?) illegal immigrants? Potentially it's a bottomless pit.

DH has also pointed out that it's an unfortunate and brushed-under-the-carpet fact that some of our farming production could not happen as things stand at the moment without illegal immigrants being paid low wages for picking cabbages etc. Suppliers would not make a profit without it due to the way they are shafted by the supermarkets. Would it put them out of business, or would it mean that the price of food to the customer goes up hugely to cover costs? The latter wouldn't be popular - what needs to happen is that the likes of Tesco finally change their tune and give farmers fair payment and decrease their OWN vastly inflated profits. (lovely idea but I can't see THAT happening.)

In an ideal word I'd agree with the amnesty just for the reason of reducing the problems of criminal gangmasters etc but it just hasn't been thought through, has it, and it's really worrying. I'll be voting for Cleggy but with a heavy heart because while the ideas are there, the solutions aren't.

This is just the headline policy, though, and will necessarily have been condensed in the manifesto etc. I haven't read the policy paper on this, but rest assured the Lib Dems will have gone into detail on how it would work effectively, and would do so again before implementation. Because they're like that (and all policy is voted on by conference, which encourages scrutiny and debate about whether section 3 part b is efficient etc.)

I don't think people realise the extent to which LD policy (and thinking) is oriented towards What Actually Works (and I don't mean "what works" in an ends-justify-the-means way, but what works effectively within liberal principles).

But it's not just wiping the slate clean for the ones who are here as they would then be allowed to bring in family members.

IMO they have already broken the law by being here illegally so they should be on the first boat out when caught.

The libs dems (as usual) haven't really costed this idea have they, in terms of people as well as money.

If they have a right to be here then they have a right to use the infrastructure, if they bring over family where are all these houses going to come from?

The lib dems admit they don't know how many people are here illegally and so we end up with a floating scale of between 600,000 and 2.000000, add to even the lowest figure a wife and child being allowed to join them nd your looking at 1.8million new people, without other immigrants who are still arriving (legally and illegally until the loopholes are closed) so you now have an extra 2.5 mil ( ?) people who need housing, NHS, schools, G.P's, jobs.

I's also like to know
a) how they are going to prove they have been here for 10 years (as illegals do not use the infrastructure )

b) how they are going to prove they have never done an illegal act (just being here is illegal) if they had been caught they would already have been detained.

c) what the lib dems fiscals are on the ammount of money giving this amnesty in terms of infrastructure would cost they country and if this is coming out of the 'savings' they have identified or would be added to the deficit.

Agree with Atlantis

I just don't agree with incentives to do the wrong thing. And the Lib Dem tests of community service and speaking English just aren't punitive enough.

At the same time, we do need to deal with the problem.

Maybe if they had to pay a special 65% tax rate or something as punishment (to compensate for all the tax we lost while they were here illegally) for 5 years or something it might be workable - but even then I am very queasy.

I agreed with Clegg when he said (about getting people off benefits and into work) that the incentives needed to be correctly aligned.

It is the same here. If you incentivize doing the wrong thing, you encourage it.

OFGS - who is saying they will be paying tax - and will the amount they pay in tax be outweighed by the amount they claim in benefits or the WFTC they get or the CTC or the family allowance??

Getting them to start paying tax is a great idea if they cannot claim for anything else - if not it is like pissing in a pot with a hole in it.

longfingernails, it does come down to finding a solution that works. (I don't think 65% tax would, though...)

"longfingernails, it does come down to finding a solution that works. "

There isn't a solution that works, as Madame said whichever way you look at it we will be paying them not the other way round.

I think lib dem voters assume illegals are all brain surgeons and would be paying 'taxes' when in fact they would more than likely be taken out of the tax bracket by the lib dems £10,000 policy.

Oh, I agree - no eligibility for benefits, definitely.

It just seems totally unfeasible to me. Most people who are here illegally would be on very low paying jobs anyway, as atlantis says...

WRT the benefits vs tax thing, perhaps it could be agreed that they are only entitles to any benefits after they have contributed tax regularly for a period of time?

Illegal immigrants can't be 'put on the first boat out' as the authorities have no idea who/where/how many there are. Surely facing a problem is better than ignoring it? I assume this will include women illegally trafficked here for sex trade? Wouldn't it be a good thing for everyone if the gangmasters were out of a job?

Just musing really.

Also, (because i'm getting angry now), why should you reward someone who came here illegally with an amnesty when more deserving people have done the right thing and queued to get in?

I would much rather that we send the illegals (who are here for economic, not persecution reasons ) home and allow people in who are being persecuted in their own countries in.

Vesela, if you were making the decision and you had an illegal immigrant who wanted to be here for financial gain, or a mother and her daughters from sierra leone who had been tortured and raped by rebels who would you allow to stay?

Because for every illegal you are giving a space too there is one less space for people who need sanctuary.

"I assume this will include women illegally trafficked here for sex trade? "

I think ou'll find most of those women want to go home.

Maybe they do, but if they feel that they could go to the authorities in the first place perhaps they would have a greater chance of doing so?

I am woefully uninformed on immigration issues, but the amnesty idea has just made me think about it more.

"
I am woefully uninformed on immigration issues"

As are many, myself included until I looked at it in depth, but personally I would rather give 2.000000 people who had humanitarian reasons for being here the chance to live here rather than 2,000000 who jumped the queue for financial gain.

It is probably against someone's human rights to not give them benfits that others are claiming - so you couldn't put an amount on how many years they had to contribute for - after all there are lots of people NEETS why are claiming but have never contributed.

You would have old Cherie banging on in court getting paid shit loads more money for their cause!

Atlanstis - there is a difference - economic migrants and asylum seekers - they can;t just all be classed as illegals. Sorry am agreeing with you but they are not one in the same and shouldn't be referred to as such.

Surely the people in the economic migrant bracket who are here working here illegally, (employed by unscrupulous employers) are in danger of losing their jobs if they declare themselves "legal" - their employer would be forced to pay them the minimum wage, or be forced to sack them or go out of business? Would some illegals choose to stay illegal just so they could keep their dodgy jobs, or would they be better off declaring themselves legal and claiming benefits? Surely the latter.....