UK majority favours ‘pathway into citizenship’ for illegal immigrants
Strangers into Citizens | 25.04.2007 22:59 | Migration
Two out of three (66%) British people believe undocumented migrants who have been in the UK for more than four years and who work and pay taxes should be allowed to stay and not be called illegal. Two-thirds (67%) also believe asylum seekers should be allowed to work.
The findings come in an ORB poll commissioned by Strangers into Citizens, a broad-based campaign by the country’s largest alliance of civic institutions, the Citizen Organising Foundation.
The findings come in an ORB poll commissioned by Strangers into Citizens, a broad-based campaign by the country’s largest alliance of civic institutions, the Citizen Organising Foundation.
66% of those polled believe that those who work and pay taxes should be allowed to stay. 67% said those who have been here for more than four years and who work should be allowed to stay. The same percentage believe asylum-seekers should be allowed to work.
The poll showed that only 21% think the Government is doing a good job in handling immigration. It also showed that the British people favour a crackdown on benefit cheats, but view asylum seekers and overstayers favourably as long as they work and pay taxes.
Strangers into Citizens is calling for a pathway into citizenship – via a two-year work permit – for migrants who have been in the UK for more than four years. The campaign has the backing of leading church figures, as well as the Mayor of London, and some businesses and trade unions.
The campaign’s co-ordinator, Austen Ivereigh, said:
“What this poll shows is that British people welcome immigrants who work and who are part of society. That is precisely the case with long-term undocumented migrants, who have put down roots in Britain because they have found work and opportunity here.”
Naturalisation programmes have been carried out by a number of European countries. Since 1981 there have been more than 20 “regularisations” in France, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain. The largest and most recent was Spain’s in 2005, which regularised 700,000.
The Home Office estimates there are around 500,000 “illegal immigrants”, a combination of visa overstayers and refused asylum seekers, and admits it does not have the resources to deport them (current deportations run at 25,000 a year).
Strangers into Citizens has been highlighting the plight of what it calls the “shadow people”, who are condemned – often for years – to a limbo of fear and furtiveness. Most long-term overstayers work and pay taxes, using false IDs. Refused asylum seekers – many of whom are unwilling or unable to return – often face destitution because they are unable to work. A number of the stories have been collected on www.strangersintocitizens.org.uk.
The campaign is holding a National Day of Action and Celebration on 7 May, following a Mass at Westminster Cathedral celebrated by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and London’s other Catholic bishops. Among the speakers at a rally in Trafalgar Square will be Baroness Shirley Williams, Jack Dromey, deputy general-secretary of the TGWU, and the Anglican Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler.
Keith Best, chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service, said:
“This poll is a ringing endorsement of what IAS has recommended to Government over many years, namely that those who work illegally should be regularised in the interests of the British taxpayer (as it could add £1 billion to the Exchequer each year) and in their own interests as it lends dignity to be able to work. “
He added:
“Many asylum seekers and others come from a culture where there are no free handouts and they are used to working to provide for themselves and their families – it is a form of rehabilitation having escaped from appalling circumstances. All asylum seekers should be allowed to fend for themselves by working if possible – to refuse to let them do so is vindictive and leads to tensions in our society. We are delighted that two-thirds of the British public agree with IAS. The Government should wake up and realise that there is more support for social inclusion than for social exclusion.”
The poll results have also been welcomed by institutes which have argued for regularisation.
The Institute for Public Policy Research last year published a report arguing the case for the UK to regularise.
Jill Rutter, Senior Research Fellow on the Migration team at IPPR said:
“Politicians of all parties have always argued that negative public opinion stops them from regularising the status of long-term irregular migrants. The Strangers into Citizens Poll challenges this belief, and shows that the British public will accept an amnesty – as long as migrants pay taxes. Its now high time Government considers regularisation as the only economically viable policy option.”
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has also produced a policy paper arguing for regularisation. Habib Rahman, JCWI’s chief executive, said:
“This poll makes clear that just talking tough will not be enough to fob off the UK public on immigration. They want the political parties to get real and respond in a way that is workable and fair to migrants who are living as members of our society. We hope this will persuade politicians from across the spectrum to show leadership and at least re-open the debate on regularisation.”
Sandy Buchan, Chief Executive of Refugee Action, said:
"This poll shows that the government's position of not allowing asylum seekers to work is clearly unpopular with the public. Refugee Action believe that the government should grant a legal status with the right to work to refused asylum seekers who cannot return home. There is also no evidence that allowing permission to work will encourage abusive applications as the government seems to think."
Sandy Buchan, CEO, Refugee Action
NOTES FOR EDITORS
REGULARISATION
There are estimated to be 4.5 million irregular migrants living and working in European Union member states – about one per cent of the population. Most have overstayed their visas or fallen through the cracks of the asylum system, although some have entered illicitly. The growing trend of irregular migration has been driven by poverty, political instability and lack of opportunity in poor countries, combined with low birth-rates and demand for labour in the EU.
Since 1981 more than 20 regularisation programmes in France, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain and the UK have provided nearly 4m irregular migrants with either temporary or permanent living and working permits. Some have been exceptional humanitarian programmes, such as Britain’s “family amnesty” in 2003 which benefited 50,000 asylum seekers with children. Large-scale regularisations, such as Spain’s in 2005 (which benefited 700,000 people) have a short application window and a strict set of criteria. Strangers into Citizens is proposing an “earned regularisation” programme of the sort which offer provisional work permits to migrants who become permanent by having stable employment, passing language tests, etc.
Regularisations aim to reduce the size of the undocumented population and the underground economy, to increase tax and social security contributions, to improve the human rights and dignity of migrants, to strengthen the rule of law and national security, and to fulfill labour market needs. Regularisations have curbed employer exploitation while improving the upward mobility and social integration of migrants.
Critics of regularisation object that it “rewards” law-breaking and encourage further irregular migration. But migration experts assert that economic factors, not regularisation, are the primary pull factors in illegal immigration, and point to the equal increase in numbers of illegal immigrants in countries which have not had large-scale regularisations.
There are estimated to be 4.5 million irregular migrants living and working in European Union member states – about one per cent of the population. Most have overstayed their visas or fallen through the cracks of the asylum system,
POLL DETAILS
Results are based on a telephone survey conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,004 British adults aged 18
Interviews conducted 21st – 23rd April 2007
Data are weighted to reflect the age, gender and geographic profile of each country.
Full results and a PowerPoint analysis are available at www.opinion.co.uk/newsroom
ORB are members of the British Polling Council and abide by their Code of Conduct
The poll showed that only 21% think the Government is doing a good job in handling immigration. It also showed that the British people favour a crackdown on benefit cheats, but view asylum seekers and overstayers favourably as long as they work and pay taxes.
Strangers into Citizens is calling for a pathway into citizenship – via a two-year work permit – for migrants who have been in the UK for more than four years. The campaign has the backing of leading church figures, as well as the Mayor of London, and some businesses and trade unions.
The campaign’s co-ordinator, Austen Ivereigh, said:
“What this poll shows is that British people welcome immigrants who work and who are part of society. That is precisely the case with long-term undocumented migrants, who have put down roots in Britain because they have found work and opportunity here.”
Naturalisation programmes have been carried out by a number of European countries. Since 1981 there have been more than 20 “regularisations” in France, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain. The largest and most recent was Spain’s in 2005, which regularised 700,000.
The Home Office estimates there are around 500,000 “illegal immigrants”, a combination of visa overstayers and refused asylum seekers, and admits it does not have the resources to deport them (current deportations run at 25,000 a year).
Strangers into Citizens has been highlighting the plight of what it calls the “shadow people”, who are condemned – often for years – to a limbo of fear and furtiveness. Most long-term overstayers work and pay taxes, using false IDs. Refused asylum seekers – many of whom are unwilling or unable to return – often face destitution because they are unable to work. A number of the stories have been collected on www.strangersintocitizens.org.uk.
The campaign is holding a National Day of Action and Celebration on 7 May, following a Mass at Westminster Cathedral celebrated by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and London’s other Catholic bishops. Among the speakers at a rally in Trafalgar Square will be Baroness Shirley Williams, Jack Dromey, deputy general-secretary of the TGWU, and the Anglican Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler.
Keith Best, chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service, said:
“This poll is a ringing endorsement of what IAS has recommended to Government over many years, namely that those who work illegally should be regularised in the interests of the British taxpayer (as it could add £1 billion to the Exchequer each year) and in their own interests as it lends dignity to be able to work. “
He added:
“Many asylum seekers and others come from a culture where there are no free handouts and they are used to working to provide for themselves and their families – it is a form of rehabilitation having escaped from appalling circumstances. All asylum seekers should be allowed to fend for themselves by working if possible – to refuse to let them do so is vindictive and leads to tensions in our society. We are delighted that two-thirds of the British public agree with IAS. The Government should wake up and realise that there is more support for social inclusion than for social exclusion.”
The poll results have also been welcomed by institutes which have argued for regularisation.
The Institute for Public Policy Research last year published a report arguing the case for the UK to regularise.
Jill Rutter, Senior Research Fellow on the Migration team at IPPR said:
“Politicians of all parties have always argued that negative public opinion stops them from regularising the status of long-term irregular migrants. The Strangers into Citizens Poll challenges this belief, and shows that the British public will accept an amnesty – as long as migrants pay taxes. Its now high time Government considers regularisation as the only economically viable policy option.”
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has also produced a policy paper arguing for regularisation. Habib Rahman, JCWI’s chief executive, said:
“This poll makes clear that just talking tough will not be enough to fob off the UK public on immigration. They want the political parties to get real and respond in a way that is workable and fair to migrants who are living as members of our society. We hope this will persuade politicians from across the spectrum to show leadership and at least re-open the debate on regularisation.”
Sandy Buchan, Chief Executive of Refugee Action, said:
"This poll shows that the government's position of not allowing asylum seekers to work is clearly unpopular with the public. Refugee Action believe that the government should grant a legal status with the right to work to refused asylum seekers who cannot return home. There is also no evidence that allowing permission to work will encourage abusive applications as the government seems to think."
Sandy Buchan, CEO, Refugee Action
NOTES FOR EDITORS
REGULARISATION
There are estimated to be 4.5 million irregular migrants living and working in European Union member states – about one per cent of the population. Most have overstayed their visas or fallen through the cracks of the asylum system, although some have entered illicitly. The growing trend of irregular migration has been driven by poverty, political instability and lack of opportunity in poor countries, combined with low birth-rates and demand for labour in the EU.
Since 1981 more than 20 regularisation programmes in France, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain and the UK have provided nearly 4m irregular migrants with either temporary or permanent living and working permits. Some have been exceptional humanitarian programmes, such as Britain’s “family amnesty” in 2003 which benefited 50,000 asylum seekers with children. Large-scale regularisations, such as Spain’s in 2005 (which benefited 700,000 people) have a short application window and a strict set of criteria. Strangers into Citizens is proposing an “earned regularisation” programme of the sort which offer provisional work permits to migrants who become permanent by having stable employment, passing language tests, etc.
Regularisations aim to reduce the size of the undocumented population and the underground economy, to increase tax and social security contributions, to improve the human rights and dignity of migrants, to strengthen the rule of law and national security, and to fulfill labour market needs. Regularisations have curbed employer exploitation while improving the upward mobility and social integration of migrants.
Critics of regularisation object that it “rewards” law-breaking and encourage further irregular migration. But migration experts assert that economic factors, not regularisation, are the primary pull factors in illegal immigration, and point to the equal increase in numbers of illegal immigrants in countries which have not had large-scale regularisations.
There are estimated to be 4.5 million irregular migrants living and working in European Union member states – about one per cent of the population. Most have overstayed their visas or fallen through the cracks of the asylum system,
POLL DETAILS
Results are based on a telephone survey conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,004 British adults aged 18
Interviews conducted 21st – 23rd April 2007
Data are weighted to reflect the age, gender and geographic profile of each country.
Full results and a PowerPoint analysis are available at www.opinion.co.uk/newsroom
ORB are members of the British Polling Council and abide by their Code of Conduct
Strangers into Citizens
Homepage:
http://www.strangersintocitizens.org.uk
Comments
Hide the following 12 comments
Link to the poll results
25.04.2007 23:10
javi
demokracy in action
26.04.2007 06:55
I think the same effect may explain why mainstream UK politicians are much more right-wing on immigration than the general public is. They are pandering to a racist minority. David Blunkett, John Reid - these are supposedly socialists but they could be working directly for Nick Griffin.
It is a terrible indictment of 'democracy' but it isn't necessarily a reason not to vote. If you do vote, vote against the panderers.
Danny
NOT an indictment of "democracy"
26.04.2007 12:41
There is NO reason to suppose people/groups within the democracy will give equal weighting to all of the issues. Thus while to each group of people some issues are of great importance, other issues, while they might have a mild preference, are in comparison "don't care".
The described behavior is REASONABLE. A group of people will vote so as to support the issues that they care greatly about. They are free to use their vote power on other issues as they see fit. That obviously includes using it to bargain for mutual support with other groups of people who care greatly about some other issue.
The idea that voting should be on an issue by issue basis with no issue being allowed to be influenced by the outcomes of any other issues is a strange sort of democracy. Misses the point of what democracy really represents -- a "showing of hands" which side has more potential sword arms or a "voice vote" taking enthusiasm into account since a lesser side more committed might defeat a larger number that didn't care so much. In other words, a form of social negotiation where we use votes instead of actually coming to blows -- most of the time.
So yes -- the "gun folks" rerally care about their guns. That means they will vote against any politician favoring gun control -- and they won't forgive and forget and it doesn't matter how much this politician tries to pay them off with other issues because while they may have preferences on other issues, they don't really care that much about the outcomes there.
PLEASE -- if you feel something is wrong with this (democracy not working) explain WHY in terms OTHER than "I prefer gun control" or even "the majority prefers gun control". The point here is that while the latter might be true, they don't CARE enough about the gun control issue to sacrifice their say on other issues while the "gun people" do. In other words, please describe your vision of democracy that would work differently. But in doing this you are NOT allowed to suggest "we shall all agree about the weighting each issue deserves" ('cause we humans just aren't made that way)
Mike Novack
e-mail:
stepbystpefarm mtdata.com
120,000 spoiled ballot papers before we even vote
26.04.2007 14:08
That's a bit strident isn't it Mike ? If I were to suggest it would the NRA have me shot ?
I think some issues are important enough to justify a referendum on that single issue. Going to war would be a prime example for me. Since we have gun control in the UK that particular issue doesn't arise here. I'd rather not get too drawn too deeply on representative democracy and it's failings compared to participative democracy, simply as I'm an anarchist who is currently trying to persuade other anarchists to vote in a system I don't believe in simply to end the state - and so life is confusing enough. I'll ponder your points a week tommorow once I see if this election is being rigged.
"Hundreds of people could be prevented from voting in next week's election after delays in delivering postal ballot papers affected five councils. Printing and distribution problems affecting Edinburgh, Fife, Aberdeenshire, Highland and Moray councils means people who are working offshore, on holiday or business trips may not be able to vote on 3 May. A total of more than 120,000 have been affected. Highland Council has apologised to the 17,700 voters after difficulties with suppliers and Royal Mail delayed the papers being delivered until Wednesday."
Never mind the people who simply can't attend a polling booth.
Danny
Homepage:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1358074.0.0.php
We are all asylum seekers and slaves to the bosses.
26.04.2007 17:06
There is a strange confluence with big business strategy in the No Borders philosophy. Why else did big business lobby for no quotas on Romanian and Bulgarian accession?
Perhaps the justification for all this is that, apart from the obvious of keeping a lid on wage demands and downward pressure on wages, is that the white working class are increasingly deemed to be of less worth to the job market, since they are considered low skilled, lazy and moronic consumers of a short-attention span, quick gratification culture? This is largely true, I feel. But this is political, to keep the masses down of course (especially also through debt), and now, is being used to justify the extinguishing of any idea for an amnesty of asylum applicants, as a wedge is driven between both the white working class and immigrants, while the former are driven to genuine fear of competition of access to state services such as healthcare and resentment of the fact. Some of those decendants of the industrial revolution wage slaves and peasants chucked off the land have long been considered to have been put out to graze on the sink estates of Britain. Those decendants of those that died to demand Europe and the world from Nazi Germany didn't get a patch of territory to call their own.
And so, as gang masters exploit poor immigrant wage slaves in degrading and sometimes dangerous working conditions, the white working class lose their access to low-skilled jobs having been forced-fed a lifetime of low expectations, through years of inadequate skills training and a conspiracy of intellectual stagnation amplified by low educational achievement. They have been brought up ripe to be cannon fodder for a BNP movement. Only, some of the working class have long identified a different target for their venom - their sub exploiters - the middle classes. Only, now the middle-classes are under threat also from middle-class migrant labour.
This is not divide and rule; it is sub-divide and rule.
We are all asylum seekers and slaves to the bosses.
Marki
Big, excessive whoops
26.04.2007 17:28
marki
Big, excessive Whoops!
26.04.2007 17:45
marki
Marki
27.04.2007 09:15
Most immigrants to the UK are 'white', like Romanians and Bulgarians are. Many 'lazy' British working class are not white. You should get the colour out of your (excellent) class rhetoric. Try not to equate economic migrants with asylum seekers. And for the record, lots of Indians and Pakistanis and Africans have uncles and grandfathers who fought the Nazis too. When Britain 'stood alone', it stood with a commonwealth of nations behind it.
I'm only picking holes in your post to help you write better, because you came to the right conclusions in my arrogant opinion, please don't take offence. In any argument, it is worth looking where the money flows. And it isn't flowing towards me.
danny
What happened to following the law?
27.04.2007 12:30
The laws on the books forbid illegals in the country, any country.
You are not supposed to cross or remain in a country after a certain length of time.
HOW IS THIS MISUNDERSTOOD?
We have 12,000,000 illegals, perhaps 20,000,000 illegals in the United States!
In 1954, President Eisenhower had signed "Operations Wetback" that sent Mexicans totaling 1,200,000 back. 70% went of their own accord!
In 1986, AMNESTY was declared, did it work?
NO! It only make the problem worse!
Now we are being told that sending 12,000.000 illegals back to were they came from will not work. I fail to see the reason that it would not work. Fine employers $10,000.00 for each illegal in their employ! That would work! Transportation? Simply, point out the door and they will get back the way they came, via twenty in a van at $2000.00 per head! Many of the coyotes and mules that brought them here, would make more money taking them back!
And as far as anyone outside of the United States talking about OUR gun problem. Keep in mind there is 20,000 laws on the books supposely controlling guns.
Yet any mental defect can lie on the form of the purchase of the weapons.
The form is not checked for a person mental history, they simply check a box.
We have the 2nd amendment, that was written because of the, at the time, recent conflict with a foreign country, England! There was an United States Army made up of volunteers and consripts! England had a huge army by comparison and like Russia and Afganistan, the rebels beat back the bigger army. That is what the power of everyone knowing and willing to protect themselves against a larger force.
Please remember to not comment on our rights! You have your rights and your welcome to them.
Dennis Carr
e-mail:
dennisc443@aol.com
Is Dennis a native American ?
27.04.2007 15:18
I went to San Francisco when I was a teenager ( the locals never call it 'Cisco' but we did). It was a lovely city. The people were nice. There was wealth inequalites that were unimaginable at the time though. We were staying at my mates Aunties house. She had just moved there from Canada. She had just moved there from Scotland. The three of us visited the biggest shoping mall I'd ever seen. It had a skating rink inside. On the skating rink was a beautiful girl of hispanic descent, about 6 or 7 years old, skating brilliantly. We were in awe. Our hostess, still not an American herself, looked at her and sneered down her nose, 'Bloody immigrants'.
I've got a lot of gripes with the US state, but the one thing I did admire about it, the policy that contributed most to it's success, was it's open immigration policy. If you have forsaken the 'huddled masses you should return the Statue of Liberty to Paris, you have it under false pretences.
Denny?
Thanx Danny
28.04.2007 13:25
Marki
Poverty twice as likely for minority ethnic groups
30.04.2007 09:12
The research highlights the differences between minority ethnic groups with 65% of Bangladeshis living in poverty compared to 55% of Pakistanis, 45% of Black Africans and 30% of Indians and Black Caribbeans. Over half of Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black African children in the UK are growing up in poverty with a staggering 70% of Bangladeshi children growing up poor.
The research shows that people from minority ethnic groups who have higher educational achievements do not receive the same rewards as those from white British backgrounds with similar qualifications. A wide range of factors are shown to affect different groups and the research highlights how the Government needs to consider and implement more targeted policies.
JRF Director Julia Unwin said: “Although the past decade has seen some improvements, there are still some very serious problems which remain unsolved. This research shows how policies need to address the different situation of each group and be followed through on a practical level. We need an urgent rethink from Government and employers so that minority ethnic groups do not miss out on opportunities in the workplace and higher educational attainment is properly recognised.”
The reports show that:
* only 20% of Bangladeshis, 30% of Pakistanis and 40% of Black Africans of working age are in full time work (compared to over 50% of white British people of working age);
* even with a degree, Pakistani and Bangladeshi men are less likely to be employed than someone white with the same qualifications;
* despite a rapid growth in Pakistani and Bangladeshi women going to university, they suffer high unemployment and are much less likely than Indian or white British women to be in professional or managerial jobs;
* the problem is not confined to first generation immigrants: British born people from minority ethnic backgrounds, especially Indian, Black, Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups are less likely to get jobs than their white equivalents;
* while poverty levels among white British people are the same whether they live in London or elsewhere, rates among minority ethnic groups are far worse for those living in London.
Danny
Homepage:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/pressroom/releases/300407.asp