Turn on thread page Beta

Should we grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in the UK? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in the UK?
    Yes
    15
    27.27%
    No
    38
    69.09%
    No comment/Don't know
    2
    3.64%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    Not necessarily. A lot of immigrants, especially young ones, return back home wealthier and with more expiereince. This has been the case with a lot of Polish folk so far. Plus, places like poland has about 7 or 8% unemployment anyway, so there is spare capacity as it is. The spare capacity leaving might make jobs more competative and take people off Polish benefit schemes.
    Half have decided to stay and these are people from a country that is in an economic boom thanks to EU aid. Imagine what others will do.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Half have decided to stay and these are people from a country that is in an economic boom thanks to EU aid. Imagine what others will do.
    What do you mean imagine? You’ve just implied the other half haven’t. Also, it’s arguably a good thing they're in a boom due to aid given in the long term it will offer another developed trading partner. I sometimes view EU aid as a sort of Marshall Aid programme.

    I’m too crap at Google to re-find the article I found this off Howard, just find some BBC news articles or interviews with polish folk where they're asked what they’re doing if you’re arsed. If anecdotal evidence means anything, the 6 Polish mates my dad is currently working with in Jaguar have been working there for about 3 years and are leaving to go back to live in Poland at the end of this year. They worked all the overtime they could, saved as much as they could and shared two houses between them in order to mitigate outlay.

    You can look at that two ways. It bolsters the Polish economy which is beneficial to us trade wise in the long run when they return with loads of cash. In the short run however, they've not really spent much in our domestic economy and so we haven’t got much of a multiplier effect from their spending. That said, Jaguar's average productivity rates must have been dragged up because they apparently worked like machines.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    What do you mean imagine? You’ve just implied the other half haven’t. Also, it’s arguably a good thing they're in a boom due to aid given in the long term it will offer another developed trading partner. I sometimes view EU aid as a sort of Marshall Aid programme.

    I’m too crap at Google to re-find the article I found this off Howard, just find some BBC news articles or interviews with polish folk where they're asked what they’re doing if you’re arsed. If anecdotal evidence means anything, the 6 Polish mates my dad is currently working with in Jaguar have been working there for about 3 years and are leaving to go back to live in Poland at the end of this year. They worked all the overtime they could, saved as much as they could and shared two houses between them in order to mitigate outlay.

    You can look at that two ways. It bolsters the Polish economy which is beneficial to us trade wise in the long run when they return with loads of cash. In the short run however, they've not really spent much in our domestic economy and so we haven’t got much of a multiplier effect from their spending. That said, Jaguar's average productivity rates must have been dragged up because they apparently worked like machines.
    No. anecdotal evidence really doesn't mean much. My wife's Polish and has just spent a month in her home town of Slupsk - she says its deserted because everybody is in England. We could trade anecdotes all day.

    However, far more importantly than any of that, what I'd like to know is how we came to be speaking about Poles when this thread is on the subject of illegal immigrants. What do Poles have to do with this?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    However, far more importantly than any of that, what I'd like to know is how we came to be speaking about Poles when this thread is on the subject of illegal immigrants. What do Poles have to do with this?
    Aren't they the highest levels of immigrants in Britain these days? I too have anecdotal evidence, no figures unfortunately.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soc)
    Aren't they the highest levels of immigrants in Britain these days? I too have anecdotal evidence, no figures unfortunately.
    Perhaps his point is that Poles generally aren't illegal immigrants as they can now move here legally in large numbers without the barriers that non-EU citizens have that cause them to immigrate illegally?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I think it was more due to the conventional economic arguments for immigration.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soc)
    Aren't they the highest levels of immigrants in Britain these days? I too have anecdotal evidence, no figures unfortunately.
    I'm sure they are. I just don't know what that has to do with granting an amnesty to illegal immigrants.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    I think it was more due to the conventional economic arguments for immigration.
    I see this as a matter of upholding the law of the country, not economics.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    what, the law that cant be enforced yet?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    what, the law that cant be enforced yet?
    Government inability to police its own laws is hardly a very good reason to repeal those laws.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We should not grant amnesty to any illegal immigrants. If people are here illegally and without good reason they should be deported. If people want to come to the UK they should do it within the framework of the law. Granting an amnesty would only encourage more people to come into the UK illegally with the hope of being granted an amnesty.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Government inability to police its own laws is hardly a very good reason to repeal those laws.
    Whose saying repeal them? It’s a case of accepting they haven’t worked thus far, cutting your losses, taking the associated economic benefit, and ensuring they do work in the future.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I see this as a matter of upholding the law of the country, not economics.
    The law is irrelevant. I never understood this "we need to enforce the law!" nonsense.

    The law can be wrong, as it was in the time of alcohol prohibition or Jim Crow. Bad laws should not be enforced but ignored.

    As for illegal immigration? The solution is to make it legal - and get rid of any law that forbids entry into this country.

    In this country, all we really need to do is maybe a brief criminal background check to ensure that the person entering the country is not either a wanted criminal abroad nor someone who has committed a serious offense either here or abroad.

    The other requirement is that they don't get a penny in tax-funded welfare or benefits.

    I list these two requirements because those are the requirements I would want if I decided to go to live and work abroad.

    Beyond those two requirements, we should let anybody in. If too many people come to Britain, then some will go away again. The employment and housing markets keep the number of people who can physically live and work here a a certain rate.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tommorris)
    The law is irrelevant. I never understood this "we need to enforce the law!" nonsense.

    The law can be wrong, as it was in the time of alcohol prohibition or Jim Crow. Bad laws should not be enforced but ignored.

    As for illegal immigration? The solution is to make it legal - and get rid of any law that forbids entry into this country.

    In this country, all we really need to do is maybe a brief criminal background check to ensure that the person entering the country is not either a wanted criminal abroad nor someone who has committed a serious offense either here or abroad.

    The other requirement is that they don't get a penny in tax-funded welfare or benefits.

    I list these two requirements because those are the requirements I would want if I decided to go to live and work abroad.

    Beyond those two requirements, we should let anybody in. If too many people come to Britain, then some will go away again. The employment and housing markets keep the number of people who can physically live and work here a a certain rate.
    But who will go away? You allow unfettered immigration to Britain and you'll probably end up doubling Britain's population within a few years. And most of the people who'd come would be used to surviving on a relatively low income. Then you combine that with the fact that Britain has a huge welfare state, which would suddenly need to double in size, and even if taxes were doubled, services, especially the NHS, can't be expanded that rapidly. This would force out the Brits who don't want to tolerate massive unemployment and enormous housing/rent prices. The market adjusts in the long term; before the long-term comes, Britain's economy would be thoroughly wrecked.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    how comprehensive is Japan's welfare system?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Then you combine that with the fact that Britain has a huge welfare state, which would suddenly need to double in size, and even if taxes were doubled, services, especially the NHS, can't be expanded that rapidly.
    You evidently didn't read my post. I stated that anyone coming in to this country should expect no welfare, no benefits, no NHS, no nothing. This would keep out anyone who does not want to work. Maybe one thing they could do is ensure that anyone coming in puts into escrow enough money to pay for a trip back to their originating country, so that if they don't make it in the UK, they can always return home. This is only how I would want to be treated if I were to emigrate to another country (the United States is a possibility for me).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tommorris)
    The law is irrelevant. I never understood this "we need to enforce the law!" nonsense.

    The law can be wrong, as it was in the time of alcohol prohibition or Jim Crow. Bad laws should not be enforced but ignored.
    I disagree. Bad laws should be repealed.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    how comprehensive is Japan's welfare system?
    I think Japan is more about corporatism, where the employer is expected to provide life-time benefits, though that's changing a bit. Regardless, Japan doesn't really allow any immigration.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tommorris)
    You evidently didn't read my post. I stated that anyone coming in to this country should expect no welfare, no benefits, no NHS, no nothing. This would keep out anyone who does not want to work. Maybe one thing they could do is ensure that anyone coming in puts into escrow enough money to pay for a trip back to their originating country, so that if they don't make it in the UK, they can always return home. This is only how I would want to be treated if I were to emigrate to another country (the United States is a possibility for me).
    So their children wouldn't be able to use schools, they wouldn't be able to use the NHS, the cops wouldn't be needed to protect them (or protect against them), the courts won't have their workload increased, the roads wouldn't become more busy, rent costs wouldn't skyrocket, etc.?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I think Japan is more about corporatism, where the employer is expected to provide life-time benefits, though that's changing a bit. Regardless, Japan doesn't really allow any immigration.
    But it does have a population over double our size (127.5m), and a very old one at that (i.e. assosiated extra health care and pensions ect) packed into a surface area less than Britain’s and manages. I’m not saying by any means cut the laws, that's crazy, but I think when considering the strain on the health service you could argue at least some of the immigrants are going to end up being doctors/nurses, especially if its currently understaffed or morale is bad and so, given the NHS is reflective of society, it will change as society does.

    However, there are the arguments about housing or the tubes in London, which obviously aren’t quite so flexible to demand and would suffer more (are suffering already) from increased population.

    I don’t think anyone who has said they should just be legalised has also suggested repealing immigration laws here though, unless there’s been the odd overly idealistic internationalist who needs a slap with the reality fish. The current problem is just hard evidence that dire our controls are – as you and I pointed out we’re an island as well FFS - at the moment. But given its going to cost less to legalise them than to deport everyone of them, and also given not everyone would have to be deported anyway upon investigation, we may as well just take the largely positive multiplier affect and get on with sorting the controls henceforth.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.