Montgomerie described how he was "instinctively against" regularisation until he read an article by Anthony Browne, Boris's policy man.
Browne set out the three options very clearly: We can oversee a massive deportation of illegal immigrants but "no country that sees itself as civilised wants to send immigration officials into schools, yanking distraught children away from their distressed classmates." There is also the stubborn fact that Britain has a very poor record at deporting large numbers. An estimated two-thirds of illegal immigrants have been here for more than five years. Do we really believe that that is going to change? We can accept the status quo where immigrants and their children live in a limbo land - half in the economy and half out. Or third we can offer immigrants an 'earned regularisation' if they haven't committed crimes.
[snip]
I only support an amnesty as part of a comprehensive immigration policy. It will only work if we have effective border controls and, in a ideal world, that would mean a new deal with the EU so that Britain has full control of the numbers of people entering our country.
Both the Conservative and Labour frontbenches oppose an amnesty (the Liberal Democrats are supportive) but I've come to see earned regularisation as a humane policy. Today's LSE report suggests that it is economically beneficial too.
No comments:
Post a Comment