Clegg

[Agelastus]

Is (illegal) immigration really such a problem in Britain, or is it just a scapegoat because the City has run your economy into the ground?

Speaking as someone who actually lives in an area where immigration should be a problem, it's not. Opinions may differ where people live where they don't ever see a dark face.

The amusing thing is that the majority of complaints I've heard in daily life about immigration are complaints about the number of Poles over here. "Darkies" don't get a mention.

And you're right; immigration is nowhere near as big a problem as it is made out. That doesn't mean you should reward criminality with amnesty, though.

[Josquius]

Is (illegal) immigration really such a problem in Britain, or is it just a scapegoat because the City has run your economy into the ground?

Neither.
Its not much of a problem and the bitching about it goes back to even when the times were good and we absolutely needed the immigrants to make up for labour shortages.
Its just the thing that the conservative press, and ignorant folk in general, really like to bitch about. It lets them be against 'those people' without actually being racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever else can't be done these days.

[Sheilbh]

Speaking as someone who actually lives in an area where immigration should be a problem, it's not. Opinions may differ where people live where they don't ever see a dark face.

Same.  Areas that poll immigration as a major issue tend to have least issues (and most of the anti-immigration stuff is to do with Poles because they've gone everywhere - ironically that's legal immigration), in London as a whole for example the issues that poll as most important are the economy and the NHS. 

I heard from my parents that according to the Dorset Echo it's immigration and, weirdly, tramps - though the Dorset Echo has issues with them.  I once saw a front page that was a picture of a tramp with the headline DEAL WITH THEM.

Personally I think the Lib Dem immigration policy is one of their most attractive ones.  It seems to me entirely humane and sensible.

[Palisadoes]

I really don't see how it would make things worse.
People already risk life and limb to get here at all costs. You can't really encourage them to come anymore than they already are.
Also I can find nothing about the US or Spanish amnesties  being particularly (well...except in the case of Spain having them pretty regularly. That seems daft) bad and making things worse.

Illegal migration to Spain rose 15 times after it's amnesties (6 in 20 years, IIRC), and whilst the estimates of illegal immigration into the USA did drop immediately following their amnesty, this is the anomaly (the 6 amnesties in Spain - which gets most of it's illegal immigrant via it's ports as we do - yielded an increase in illegal immigrants due to successive amnesties). This at least represents the danger of a setting precedent on such matters.

The amnesty idea to me sounds like a far from perfect solution but at least Clegg is proposing a different approach. Yelling at the problem until it goes away doesn't work utterly. This is untried in the UK and the past experience of the other amnesties abroad is there to be built in.

I would rather not try it here myself. I am unconvinced with the successes of tried amnesties, and to me it is rewarding criminal behaviour with citizenship.

What I could see this doing is sorting out the desirable, decent illegals who aren't doing any harm to the country from those who we really should be seeking to deport at all costs.

Setting a precedent is a dangerous thing, however (as noted with the case of Spanish amnesties).

Rather than just picking at this idea and saying 'it wouldnt work!' why not suggest something which would work instead?

More checks at our borders, perhaps?

Overall though immigration isn't really such a issue for me. Its greatly exagerated a problem in the media and we've got more pressing concerns- ones which good solutions (rather than least bad solutions) can be found for.

For me it is not a direct issue either. However, I recognise it as something with long-term consequences, as well as short-term problems given our economy at the moment (specifically: lack of jobs and unemployment).

The conditional amnesty portions of the IRCA are viewed as successful in the US.  That probably counts as "making the problem worse" to those who want very much to believe that all amnesties are unsuccessful, but to those of us without that axe to grind, it doesn't count as making things worse.

I wouldn't say I have an axe to grind with this issue, just that I do not believe in allowing an amnesty for people who have broken the law.

What makes immigration numbers "worse" is economic success.  The number of immigrants entering the US remained steady until that fucker Bill Clinton embarked the US on a program of steady economic growth, and then illegal immigration became, as you put it, "more worse."

Firstly, I'd like to reiterate the fact that not all immigration is necessarily bad. In your first sentence here you seem to imply that my stated opinion is that large numbers of immigrants (note: not the illegals specifically) is bad. As I say, it is not necessarily the case that large migration into the country is bad, just that illegal immigration should not be encouraged.

Secondly, and to answer your point, it is quite obvious that economic factors do play a large role on determining whether one wishes to emigrate. However, that does not mean that we should encourage illegal immigration into our countries by setting a precedent that we will just hold an amnesty after a few years so we can get them on our books.

[garbon]

I like a policy of fake amnesty whereby those who show up to be registered are secretly deported.

[Palisadoes]

I like a policy of fake amnesty whereby those who show up to be registered are secretly deported.

The government would get shafted by some civil rights group, no doubt.

[Sheilbh]

Amnesty's an inaccurate term.  As you indicate it's a one off.  Their policy is that if you've got a clean rap, speak English and have stayed for more than 10 years then you should be able to earn citizenship. 

[Palisadoes]

Amnesty's an inaccurate term.  As you indicate it's a one off.  Their policy is that if you've got a clean rap, speak English and have stayed for more than 10 years then you should be able to earn citizenship.

It has been accepted by the Liberal Democrats themselves that this could still leave a large portion (IIRC it is reckoned between 10-15%, which would be 100,000-150,000 people) of illegal immigrants not coming forward for this amnesty due to such conditions. I guess it's just down to opinion whether or not this is the lesser of two evils, though I remain unconvinces that it is an effective long-term solution to such a problem.

[Gups]

Just put £100 on Labour to win the largest number of seats at Betfaitr at 11/2. Can't believe that the odds are so long when virtually every opinion poll is pointing to that result. Even 3/1 would have been very decent.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Agree that those are very fine odds; I guess that punters are reasoning the labour won't be able to get their vote out on the day.

[Alatriste]

Illegal migration to Spain rose 15 times after it’s amnesties (6 in 20 years, IIRC), and whilst the estimates of illegal immigration into the USA did drop immediately following their amnesty, this is the anomaly (the 6 amnesties in Spain - which gets most of it's illegal immigrant via it's ports as we do - yielded an increase in illegal immigrants due to successive amnesties). This at least represents the danger of a setting precedent on such matters.

Six amnesties? Source, please.

And, by the way, correlation doesn't prove causation... Many years ago one of my teachers showed us a very pretty graphic to make us understand this. Number of natives in Mexico, number of cows, and time from the Conquest 1521-1600.

Guess what? Apparently, cows eat natives. Or perhaps colonists introduced cows in the fields because smallpox had killed the natives. Or perhaps they just saw cows would prosper in the plains of northern Mexico and that had nothing to do with natives...

[alfred russel]

Intrade odds on winning the election: Conservatives 82%, Labor 15%, Lib Dems 5%. (these are based on last traded amounts so they don't add to 100%)

[jimmy olsen]

A recent Guardian poll has the Lib-Dems winning seats primarily at Labour's expense.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/28/liberal-democrats-labour-marginals-poll

[HisMajestyBOB]

Just put £100 on Labour to win the largest number of seats at Betfaitr at 11/2. Can't believe that the odds are so long when virtually every opinion poll is pointing to that result. Even 3/1 would have been very decent.

Couldn't Labour come in third with like 25%, but still end up with the most seats?

[Josquius]

Intrade odds on winning the election: Conservatives 82%, Labor 15%, Lib Dems 5%. (these are based on last traded amounts so they don't add to 100%)

This is who will win it if anyone wins it right?
As I'd have thought a hung parliament would be 70% or something.