Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why the government is wrong to refuse an amnesty for illegal immigrants

An amnesty for Britain's illegal migrants has been championed by both the left and right – it's time David Cameron stopped ignoring the pragmatic and moral policy proposal.

The incomprehensible sight of a three-year-old boy washed ashore onto a beach in Turkey has belatedly led Britain to stop ignoring the refugee crisis. Yet there is another issue that cowardly British politicians ignore: the presence of over half a million illegal immigrants in the UK today.

Few of these arrived on trucks from Calais. Most illegal migrants came to the UK legally to work, but remained after their visas expired. Children of illegal migrants are here illegally too, even if they have spent every day of their lives in the UK.

The upshot is simple. There are “two categories of people in our great city, one group who live normally and another who live in the shadows unable to contribute fully to the rest of society", as Boris Johnson observed in 2009. Two years ago, he said it was “completely crazy” not to introduce an amnesty.

Indeed it is. Ridding the country of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants would involved dragging children out of classrooms, sending many back to crisis-ridden countries where their lives would be imperilled and cost billions of pounds that the country cannot afford. Sensibly, the government is not even trying to do this. As Johnson noted two years ago: "We effectively have it [amnesty], if you've been here for more than 12 years I'm afraid the authorities are no longer prepared to pursue you, they give up."

So we already have an amnesty by another name. But because politicians are afraid to admit as much, the government is unable to benefit financially.

British taxpapers are the losers. Illegal migrants use public services but barely contribute towards them: they don't pay income tax. Introducing an amnesty would, according to a comprehensive study by the LSE in 2009, bring in a net £3bn a year to the British economy, which is why the Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi also advocates an amnesty.

To quell the shrieks of an amnesty being soft on immigration, the money raised could be used to ramp up border security; the sort of trade-off that briefly held the promise of leading to comprehensive immigration reform in the United States.

An amnesty would particularly benefit Britons in low-skilled work. It does not matter how much George Osborne trumpets his "Living Wage" while illegal migrants can be paid below the minimum wage and undercut the rest of the workforce.

But the case for an amnesty extends beyond economics. It is also be a humane thing to do. “Irregular status means vulnerability to exploitation and destitution, creating a situation in which these immigrants are more likely to be pushed into the black economy,” says Don Flynn, the Director of Migrants Rights Network. In extreme cases illegal migrants can slip into sexual exploitation and forced labour.

An amnesty would end the fear illegal immigrants face of being deported and would stop the perverse punishment of children for their parents coming to Britain illegally.

Yet not only has David Cameron described the idea of an amnesty as “terrible”, but his government has also moved even further away from one. Until 2012, illegal immigrants who had lived in the UK for 14 years could apply for indefinite leave to remain in the country; now the threshold, only applicable in “exceptional circumstances”, has been extended to 20 years.

A Home Office spokesperson lays out the government's latest approach to illegal migrants, which is far from an amnesty:

"We welcome those who wish to make a life in the UK, work hard and make a contribution – but those who come or stay here illegally are harming everyone else who plays by the rules.

"Our forthcoming Immigration Bill will create a new offence of illegal working and extend our deport-first-appeal-later approach to make it even easier to remove people who have no right to be in the UK."

It is laudable that David Lammy, a Labour candidate for London mayor, has advocated an amnesty for the 300,000 illegal migrants in the capital, joining Johnson in recognising the common sense of an amnesty for illegal migrants. But their views count for little while the mayor lacks power over visas in the capital and the government’s intransigence on the issue remains.

Britain’s apparent wish to treat desperate refugees more humanely is welcome and overdue. Yet extending more humanity to the 500,000 illegal migrants already in Britain is also long overdue. Even on crude financial grounds, Britain would benefit. 

Tim Wigmore is a contributing writer to the New Statesman and the author of Second XI: Cricket In Its Outposts.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.