Is there anyone out there who is anti tougher limits on immigration...

[GothAnneGeddes]

...or even anti limits on immigration at all?

I've had experiences with the system in this country (including the diabolical Certificate of Approval system) as Dh is from abroad. It's a tedious, expensive and quite frankly demeaning process.

In the UK, we regularly lock up families, including children in substandard prison accomodation, because they're viewed as 'illegal'.

In Arizona, a law has been passed so that anyone who even looks like they might be there illegally can be detained.

To me all this is wrong. Our nationalities are accidents of birth, yet the most vile, dehumanising terminology is frequently used to describe immigrants.

I know there are loads of fellow lefties here, I just wondered if others feel this way.

TheHeathenOfSuburbia

As a pretty libertarian conservative, I am generally quite pleased at the hybrid mini-manifesto. I would certainly have voted for this manifesto above either the Conservative or Lib Dems ones individualy.

However, as a democrat, I am a bit annoyed because no-one actually voted for this mishmash.

Locking up children is disgraceful and I am glad it will go. Luckily for you, you are now in bed with a party seen as "tough on immigration". That means such issues of basic humanity won't be a political problem, as they were for Labour. As they said, only Nixon could go to China...

As a footnote, I think you would admit that the locking up of asylum seekers' children did not feature in the election campaign!

The Lib Dem immigration policies that were actually put under the microscope were the regional points system and the earned amnesty for illegal immigrants.

me.

my bf is an immigration barrister, i know a lot about the law. it's an arse. and not only the kids in detention. tip of the iceberg.

also consider all the networks and heavy duty hard work it takes to try and support ayslum seekers trapped in the legal system who need to keep warm/watered/free from attack and calorie intake over 1500 a day with no benefit entitlement.

economic migration, well it doesn't drive an economy does it, but it does have a positive impact. even the lords were forced to accept that

i employ two legal immigrants currently. rock solid good work, flexible, funny, diligent, well educated and experienced, seasoned by their travels.

arse. i'm just going to say 'it's globalisatoin, innit' and get some sleep.

merryberry - my DH probably knows your BF - there aren't a whole load of immigration barristers around.

me.

So what are we going to do about the current illegals now? I hope they're still going to be allowed to legalise under the 14-year rule? (which as I understand it is court-made).

Mayberry + Iloveasylumseekers - Do your partners know of any good pressure/action groups to join?

Genuine asylum I have no problem with....it is essential.
However,i do worry about the pressures placed on our services (council housing,hospitals,doctors etc) by "legal" immigrants.
Tricky one but I do believe we need tighter controls....(so shoot me)

There's a facebook group -

Defend Asylum Seekers

• you could try clicking through and seeing what there is.

I'm anti limits. Also would support more pro-active support of asylum seekers. One of the lib dem policies I really liked. If there are less illegal immigrants they will be in the tax system too, it's a winner all round.

Genuine question: I understand that at present these asylum seeking families are all locked up together, right (not the kids separately from the parents - that would be just barbaric, please tell me that's not how it is???) So, if the children are not to be locked up with their parents any more, does this mean that all asylum seekers will be treated differently/better, or just the ones with children, or that children of asylum seekers will be taken into care while their parents remain locked up??? How is this to be resolved in practice?
Forgive me if I'm missing something

My view is that there is a vast difference between applications from various countries. People from Pakistan seem to be able to fraudulently obtain student visas very easily, whereas my friend's DH was refused a tourist visa to visit the UK on the basis that they didn't have enough evidence that he would return home - they have lived in his country for 5 years, married for 2, own a house and both work for a British company. There should be more parity in treatment of applicants and student visas should be more rigorously checked.

DH is non EU and we have had to undergo the horrifically expensive, stressful and demeaning process of obtaining Indefinite Leave to Remain. I believe the govt uses that process as a money spinner which is wrong. Once you have paid the fee to get your two years and evidenced that you are still married and supporting yourself two years later the ILR should be a formality - not £1k and 6 months wait.

I believe in Economic migration and expect that it naturally ebbs and flows depending on the economic situation of the host country. lots of people blamed E EU migrants for the recession - but they were just taking advantage of the economy's strength which is a good thing.

I believe in offering asylum, treating asylum seekers humanely, I do not believe in detaining asylum seekers indefinitely, preventing them from working or automatically presuming that they are lying.

One thing I do think we should have though is a rule that those who commit certain crimes (violent, sexual, burglary for eg) should have their residence revoked. When DH applied for residence we had to provide 3 months bank statements and tenancy agreements etc - personally I think applicants should have to do a PNC check at this point, and also if non-UK citizens get arrested for such a crime they should be flagged up to immigration who will act in the event of a conviction. Trouble is they would have to go to court to remove them which would be long and expensive.

torture survivors support

supporting shelter often supports asylum seekers.

volunteering at the refugee council as well as good pressure/information hub.

often though, support and help is very local, you'll find your local churches etc getting on with an inordinate amount of quiet practical action. though your council will often know who they are, if you want help finding them.

ilaseekers argh PANIC rl/mn worlds collide ;) yes they probably do

merryberry let's pretend it didn't happen

Medical Justice is an interesting organisation which campaigns for better rights for detainees.

An open door policy, on facebook? a right vote loser.

I believe in free markets no naturally I support free movement of labour.

Me. Considerably so, perhaps being the child of an immigrant. I think one of the more negative aspects of the Lib-Con coalition is that Clegg's entirely sensible illegal immigrant amnesty will be left behind. If 200,000 people are here illegally that must mean they are not claiming benefit, therefore they are working - why shouldn't we add 200,000 more taxpayers to the working populace?

What cracks me up is how often you hear from people who are hugely anti immigration and yet they live in areas where the ethnic population is near zero and they have probably no contact with anyone resembling an immigrant.

This might seem slightly extreme, but I do wonder where a nation with such an appalling history of pillaging and colonising other countries comes off telling people they can't come in. (Especially when they're people from countries we've already had a hand in ruining not even 100 years ago.) It didn't stop us running rampage through India, Africa, Australia and oh... the list goes on.

What an excellent thread - makes such a refreshing change from the usual negative stuff you often find when immigration is discussed!

LadyRabbit you are spot on - not only would they be paying taxes but legal status via an amnesty would protect them from exploitation not only from employers but by criminal gangs etc. It would make it easier/possible for them to travel (to visit family left behind for example), open a bank account, see a doctor if they are ill etc: all the basic stuff we take for granted!

The way the right wing press distorts the immigration debate in this country really depresses me.

There is an excellent short article here which is worth the read if you have a chance:
www.angrymob.uponnothing.co.uk/home/70-newspaper-lies/1269-immigration-and-social-cohesion

I just wish the pro-immigration argument was put forward more often...

I am so glad I found this thread! I have been having an ongoing discussion with my sister and her fiancee. They believe that the UK needs to toughen up the immigration policies and that we are letting in far too many people.
I looked up the immigration statistics and they make very surprising reading. The press totally hypes up the amount of immigration which really is negligable particularly when compared with the amount of emmigration from the UK.
People always need someone to blame for societies problems and I find this very sad.

Very glad to have found this thread here - I agree too!

In fact, I thin we should be proud that people want to come here!

I guess you can't just look at numbers; you need to look at who is coming and who is going. I also don't believe that immigration impact should be judged purely in financial terms.

As a believer in free markets, I also believe in free movement of labour. However, as a believer in free markets, I also believe in small state.

There's no point in arguing that you believe in free movement of labour and then complaining that

• Housing is too expensive
• NHS waiting lists are too long
• Your child cant get into their first school of choice.
• Wages are being depressed

Those will all be cyclical impacts of a free labour market.

Free movement of labour requires a free market to work -i.e. it works because labour naturally migrates where conditions are best/ demand for the skills are highest. However, this would imply free market worldwide, which is so far from being a reality I cant imagine it ever happening.eg having a minimum wage cant happen in a free market.