Immigration Advisory Service

IAS has for many years supported an earned regularisation route for those working illegally but each case needs to be examined on its merits. Since we took our stand there has been the major commitment to this made by Strangers Into Citizens (www.strangersintocitizens.org.uk), citizens’ assemblies, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Mayor of London, the former Conservative leader Iain Duncan-Smith MP, many Labour politicians, the Synod of the Church of England and many others. Perhaps most importantly, according to the opinion poll at the time of the first great rally to Trafalgar Square on 7 May 2007, 66% of the general public also share this view. That is a formidable lobby. The momentum is growing.

Despite all this the Government remains opposed to the idea. They fear that what would be seen as an amnesty would act as a “pull” factor to draw in other illegal migrants. Yet there has been no substantive evidence gathered to support this proposition. It is supposition. Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of English, Britain’s reputation for fairness and the diverse community which is the legacy of empire and Commonwealth are far greater incentives to come to the UK for those who actually have the choice. Moreover, the Government in the recent past granted what amounted to an amnesty to 30,000 asylum seekers who were waiting in the backlog of cases when it was 100,000 and, more recently, gave similar concessions to asylum seekers with young families. Following those exercises the number of asylum seekers actually went down! We do not believe that there is a connection either way.

Who are these illegal workers? Many are asylum seekers who cannot be returned home because their governments will not accept them and who have been made destitute by our Government’s policies (in order to discourage others) and have no choice but to work illegally in order to survive. It is unedifying to see a British Government dragged through the courts and found responsible for breaches of human rights which are more associated with tyrannical regimes. IAS comes across many overstayers who are ignorant of their immigration status or who have been misled by advisers into thinking that their position is being regularised. Some have remained to care for a sick relative or otherwise to help their families in the UK. Some are those who had a legitimate expectation of being able to extend their stay on the same terms as those on which they entered but the Government has changed the rules. This practice has been condemned by the Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Committee and, indeed, the Government has lost its case in the courts (HSMP Forum). Any Government should be entitled to change the rules in the light of changing economic circumstances but not for those already legitimately in the UK.

These are not all people who have deliberately and cynically evaded immigration control. The worst offenders, however, are likely to be the least detectable. Even Ann Widdecombe MP has complained that the Government pick on the “soft” targets when removing illegal migrants despite the declared policy of removing first those who cause most harm. Those complying with reporting restrictions are likely to find themselves on the next aeroplane out of the UK – all in order to meet the former Prime Minister’s pledge to remove more than those who make so-called unfounded claims (for which purpose the figures are fiddled and include those refused at ports of entry) and at a considerable cost to the taxpayer.

Worse still, in a field littered with examples of the law of unintended consequences, are the Government’s changes to the Immigration Rules last year which now mean that overstaying or breaching minor conditions of stay can result in being banned from returning to the UK for as much as ten years. This has the effect of locking into Britain those who might otherwise have left voluntarily only to return legitimately. IAS used to advise those who came to us who were here illegally that they should return to their country of origin and then apply to come back to the UK in a legitimate immigration category and that the fact that they had overstayed previously would not count against them unless it was material to their new application. We now have to advise those same people that they are going to be banned from returning to the UK – hardly an incentive to take our advice to behave in accordance with the immigration rules. They are now more likely to take their chances by remaining illegally.

Another argument used inaccurately by the Government and anti-immigration lobby against a regularisation programme is the evidence from regularisations carried out in Italy and Spain. A careful analysis of these does not prove that they have the effect of sucking in more illegal workers. Other factors, such as the vibrancy of their economies, have had an effect. In any event, the evidence is that the general public in these countries support such measures as has been shown in the UK.

The general public, once they know the issues, are not so easily beguiled by the Government’s arguments. They understand the difference between a general amnesty and an earned regularisation programme in which each person would have to show that they are making an economic contribution to the UK. They will understand how bringing illegal workers into legitimacy will not only prevent them being exploited by unscrupulous employers but also bring in more than £1 billion extra in presently unpaid taxes. Far from taking jobs from the indigenous population these people are already doing the jobs that many British people are unwilling or unable to do. If they all were to be removed there would be chaos.

Yet that is the answer of the UK Government to this problem – to detect and then remove them all. Increased resources have been given to the enforcement side of the UK Border Agency but it is still a hit and miss affair to detect illegal workers – many raids on restaurant and other establishments yield no finds yet cause great embarrassment. In any event, on the basis of the figures of the National Audit Office of at least £11,000 to remove an illegal migrant, the total figure for removal of even the modest assessment of the number of illegal migrants being some 500,000 would cost an astronomical sum which the Treasury does not have. Of the £2 billion expenditure of the UK Border Agency one quarter goes on asylum support. Over 7,000 individuals currently receive support under s.4 Immigration & Asylum Act 1999 on the basis that they have made further submissions on their asylum claim and support is therefore provided to avoid a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. If those asylum seekers were able to work and fend for themselves much of that money could be saved. It is basic economics which seems to have escaped the understanding of the Government – but in these times should we be surprised that commonsense does not prevail?