Home Office:
Has the new asylum model improved the Home Office process?
Dawn raids and detention
Legal Services:
Is the legal system stretched to the limit?
Giving evidence
Profiles:
Asylum seeker stories
Feature:
Should there be an amnesty for long term illegal migrants?
Should there be an amnesty for over 600,000 long-term irregular migrants?
The debate over whether or not there should be a one off amnesty for over 600,000 long term illegal migrants continues to rage on after the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, renewed his appeal earlier this month.
Who is eligible for the proposed amnesty?
Strangers into Citizens is a national campaign lobbying for the amnesty to effectively free the hundreds of thousands of backlogged cases still stuck in the system.
The group insist that all of the estimated 600,000+ irregular migrants would not be eligible for the amnesty, which would begin with the grant of Indefinite Leave to Remain with a pathway to Citizenship.
Spokesperson Jonny Scott describes the criteria in which people would have to fulfil:
 |
 |
 |
 |
|---|---|---|---|
Mr Scott also admits that it would be very difficult to ascertain what percentage of them would be refused asylum seekers.
However, he argues that regardless of the number of refused asylum seekers still here in Britain, they should not be given priority when it comes to awarding citizenship in an amnesty.
“The amnesty should be applied for all people who fall under the criteria of citizenship, rather than under the criteria of how or why they came, or how or why they managed to remain here.
“If they can prove their worth and abide by those conditions, it is only fair that the playing field should be level,” he said.
'Condoning illegality'?
Others are against the plan for an amnesty, saying that it would only increase the amount of people who sought to come here under illegal terms.
Recently retired immigration judge Jeremy Varcoe is against an amnesty for those reasons.
“I am against an amnesty for the very simple reason that although it looks neat and tidy, it does act as an incentive for people to stay underground and perhaps to remain here illegally,” he said.
Although Mr Varcoe openly admits that the decisions of some immigration judges “don’t always get it right”, he denies that an amnesty would be a second chance for those whom justice was not served.
“The amnesty would be saying that even if they think the decision they were given was wrong and because they have decided to stay here illegally rather than going home as they should have done, they should be getting a second chance. No, I don’t see it as another chance, I see it as condoning illegality,” he added.
Is it the only practical solution?
Julian Prior from the Centre for Social Justice admits that there is a danger of an amnesty undermining the credibility of the whole system, but it could be the only practical solution.
“To look at doing an amnesty without solving some of the problems which create a backlog, it is putting the cart before the horse. I think we need to solve some of those problems first. It is a hugely difficult and complicated issue,” he said.
Mr Prior chaired a report last December on the need for a restoration of trust back into the UK asylum system.
Although the Centre is not calling for an immediate amnesty, he admits that it may be the only viable option to save some people who are currently destitute.
“At some point, pragmatically we need to look at releasing so many people from an underground world and such poverty and destitution, that it is the most humane and practical solution,” he said.
Home Office response
The Home Office object to any calls for an amnesty.
A UK Border Agency spokesperson said:
"There will be no amnesty, those here illegally should go home.
"We have a proud tradition of offering sanctuary to those who truly need our help, but to grant an amnesty would create a significant pull factor to the UK and would undermine the asylum system as a whole."