Monday, 15 June 2009

Research helps

Rahila Gupta of Southall Black Sisters writes in the Guardian's Comment is Free section in favour of regularisation -- but she worries about SiC's proposal:
[H]ow can potential beneficiaries of the amnesty present employer references? When employers are being fined for employing migrants without papers, which employer is going to put his or her neck on the line to give a reference for someone who was employed "illegally"? The real danger of a conditional amnesty, reasonable though it appears, is that it will bring hopefuls out into the open and those who do not qualify will be deported.
Shame Gupta hadn't read Austen Ivereigh's piece in the Morning Star before writing hers. He answered the question of whether those applying would be guaranteed protection from deportation.

The answer is yes. The Home Office would announce a new regulation - no new legislation is needed - with the criteria. Anyone resident for more than four years who entered the country legally could apply for the two-year work permit with a commitment that, if they continue to fulfil the criteria at the end of those two years, they would be given leave to remain. The two-year work permit would free people from unscrupulous employers as a first step. It would also enable churches, mosques and unions to assist those migrants in learning English, helping them to integrate as legal citizens and providing the positive references at the end of the process.
Austen's article also answers her other objections: that the timescale is arbitrary, and that applicants would be unable to present employer references. Shame she didn't read it.

1 comment:

  1. I have blogged in favour of earned regularisation on my cleaning industry blog. Best of Luck