UK's top Conservative blogger backs SiC

I've only just been alerted to this post of 16 June by Tim Montgomerie at the much-read conservativehome site. His backing for Strangers into Citizens adds another significant voice to the growing chorus of support in the Conservative Party, along with Boris Johnson, John Bercow, Anthony Browne, Philip Blond, etc.

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.

MayorWatch

Some quotes being carried at MayorWatch in response to the LSE report:

London Assembly Chair Darren Johnson AM said the report “lends further economic weight to the argument in favour of regularising the status of hundreds of thousands of Londoners who are already making a significant contribution to the capital’s wealth.”

Mr Johnson added: “In the midst of a recession it would be tantamount to negligence to ignore the potential to add £3 billion per annum to UK GDP by introducing a limited and earned amnesty for hard working migrants who demonstrate a commitment to contributing fully to our society.”

In a statement issued on Monday, the Mayor [also called Johnson] said the report “has introduced some long overdue facts, hard evidence and academic rigour into a debate which has far too often been dominated by myth, anecdote and hearsay.”

“So far from a financial burden, as some suggest, this new research has found an amnesty could be worth up to £3 billion a year to the country’s economy.”

“The study also demolishes the argument that an amnesty would inevitably lead to increased migration to the UK and identifies effective border controls as the vital factor in controlling and deterring illegal immigration.”

The Londonist

The web-based newspaper summarises the report.

There are an estimated 618,000 illegal immigrants in the UK, 442,000 of whom live in London. Under the proposed scheme, immigrants who've been in Britain for five years and have no serious criminal record would become legal citizens as part of a one-off amnesty. The people who do the figures on these things reckon about two-thirds of the total would be eligible.

And just to really stick the boot of common sense and decency into those who declare the UK is "full", the legal immigrants would be paying around £846m a year in taxes, as opposed to the short-term costs of £410m a year to the public purse. Longer term, economists think costs would be around £1bn a year but annual GDP would be boosted by £3bn. Surely that's good financial planning in anyone's books?

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.

The Vibe

Supportive and thoughtful post at www.the-vibe.co.uk -- "politics for the digital generation" -- which considers the "claim that an amnesty will attract floods of immigrants (a moot point if simply for its ridiculous impracticality) who will somehow ‘poison’ our culture".

What culture? Anyone else who attended the march will attest to the fact that just standing in that crowd full of people different to you in every way imaginable, yet rallying for the same cause, was the best way of expressing our sense of Britishness. By embracing the benefits of globalisation, we must also accept the responsibilities that come with it and the principles of free circulation that it necessitates.

Amen.

City Mayors

Two suprises here: a) an international think tank for urban affairs called City Mayors, which "encourages city leaders from across the world to develop innovative and sustainable solutions to long-standing urban problems such as housing, transport, education and employment". b) a very fine discussion of SiC. Money quote:

A one-off amnesty will not satisfy all pro-immigration campaigners, who range from pro-globalisation commentator and economist Philippe LeGrain through to the far left anti-globalisation ‘No Borders’ campaigners. But it does represent a pragmatic step to restore dignity to an invisible but beneficial underclass that provide the backbone of many parts of the economy and allow them to make a fuller contribution as citizens of their adopted land, rather than a bank of easily expendable labourers.

A blog about a blog about a blog

Lefty Catholic Red Maria -- who was there -- reviews the diverse reactions in the socialist blogosphere.

Time Out

Zak Brophy blogs on 4 May in London's much-read mag.

'We have to befriend them, and we have to risk sometimes,' said Angela, an elderly, white, Anglican lady at the march. 'If you’re kind to somebody, it brings out kindness.' As she joined the thousands in singing 'God Save The Queen' she stood arm in arm with some newly made friends from Ghana. The song, flag and symbols of British patriotism – all too often hijacked by the far right – were being reclaimed by the multiethnic communities of modern Britain

4 May fab pics No. 10: Elsie

Check out Elsie's pics from the link on the title.

I attended the rally and my journey started off at the Methodist Central Hall in Westminister for a church service with various leaders of the cloth, which later lead to the march all the way down to Trafalgar Square passing Downing Street on the way.

For me it was an very inspirational day.

Ekklesia

Fine summary at Ekklesia, which seeks to bring the Christian voice into the public square. Best of all, it contains a quote from Bishop Tom Butler - -pictured here with Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor at SiC 2007 - who preached at the 4 May Anglican service at St Margaret's, Westminster Abbey.

"What is being called for is no idealistic or wild-eyed demand that all barriers should go down. It is simply recognising that those who have been here for four years or more should be given the opportunity to show that they can be productive and useful citizens," he said.

The bishop added: "This is a call to bring hundreds of thousands of irregular migrants out of the shadows and after a two year probation period, give them leave to remain.

'We were there': the Salvation Army

Graeme Smith, a Salvation Army leader from Godalming, Surrey, was there.

There were around 80 people connected to The Salvation Army marching amongst the marchers and several people spoke to those around me saying how good it was to see the Army supporting them in this campaign. This is, of course, part of our heritage that we’ve forgotten so it’s great to see the Army out there where it really matters supporting some of the most marginalised people in our society! Let’s hope we keep it up and if anything increase our support for this and other campaigns that are about lifting the mantle of oppression from the lives of individuals and communities.

(Photo: Adam Scott)

'We were there': the Socialist (II)

Liam's blog is admiring, despite his "strong instinct to run away very quickly from large groups of people carrying union jacks". Money quote:

For my money this demo is the highlight of the political calendar. Once a year the voiceless and invisible hyper-exploited workers of London take to the streets and make themselves heard. They are a multitude drawn from every corner of the planet and maybe, just maybe, they are starting to get a sense of their power and numbers.

Room for vigorous disagreement

No one doubts this is an issue about which people are not backward in coming forward with their opinions. Even following this small news item on BBC online -- inadequate in many respects: doesn't name the COF, doesn't name the campaign, and doesn't allow us or anyone else to respond to MigrationWatch's nonsense -- comes a river of comments.

Austen's Guardian online piece on Sunday, meanwhile, attracted a stupendous 288 responses before the comments were closed.

'We were there' (1): the disgruntled left

Oh dear. Not everyone who came on Monday was impressed. Turns out we were 'infiltrated' by some ideologically committed people who held a counter-demonstration. Reports the author of this post at something called 'The Commune':

An alternative rally was held on the steps at the back of Trafalgar Square, with several dozen people listening to militant speeches by activists such as the Mitie/Willis cleaners and a speaker from the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees. The Coordinadora had produced a Spanish-language leaflet “Amnesty for some, or papers for all?”, criticising the tepid politics of London Citizens and its claim that some immigration controls are “necessary”.

"Several dozen", eh? Not enough for anyone to notice -- apart from the several dozen, of course -- but just enough to make it hard for some people to hear some of the speeches. Presumably that's how some people think you change the world?

According to 'Commune', London Citizens "have an extremely conservative stance similar to that of Mayor Boris Johnson".

Hence the backing from the Morning Star, of course!