'Scaremongering' on amnesty for illegals?

The claim
“I don’t want you to be misled by David Cameron. I’m not advocating an amnesty.”
Nick Clegg, Leaders’ debate, 29 April 2010
“Nick has talked, not tonight, but has talked about 600,000 people having this amnesty, being able to stay. And they would be able to bring over a relative each, so that’s 1.2m potentially.”
David Cameron, Leaders’ debate, 29 April 2010
The background
Both Cameron and Gordon Brown were last night keen to highlight supposed Lib Dem plans for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. The Tory leader even suggested the emotive policy would mean up to 1.2m people getting UK citizenship. But does Clegg want an amnesty, and will it lead to more than a million people turning British?
The analysis
The source of the claims that Clegg wants to give 600,000 illegal immigrants an amnesty dates back to some comments by the then Lib Dem home affairs spokesman in 2007, when Clegg said: “Perhaps most controversially in our proposals, also establishing a selective amnesty, a route to earned legalisation, for the up to 600,000 people who have been living in our country invisibly, illegally…”
A pretty clear intention in 2007 then, but the language used in the Lib Dems manifesto three years later is different.
The word amnesty is carefully avoided. It states that the party will: “Let law-abiding families earn citizenship. We will allow people who have been in Britain without the correct papers for ten years, but speak English, have a clean record and want to live here long-term to earn their citizenship. This route to citizenship will not apply to people arriving after 2010.”
Further Lib Dem policy documents show that such people would first have to apply for a two-year work permit, and then after these two probationary years of working and paying tax, be able to apply for citizenship. But they would also have to pay a fine or face community service for the years they’d spent here illegally.
So if the word amnesty conjures up images of illegal immigrants merely having to queue up and be given a British passport, it would be somewhat unrealistic, as the Lib Dems have spelled out some strict criteria for would-be applicants.
However, the policy remains that under these plans, in contrast to those of Labour and the Tories, an illegal immigrant could become a UK citizen.
But how many could do this?
The Lib Dems told FactCheck that the 600,000 total used by Clegg in 2007 was now out of date, and moreover, that since the abolition of exit checks no-one really knows how many illegal immigrants there are in the UK.
Yet FactCheck recalled Clegg telling his counterparts in the leaders debate last week – on the subject of illegal immigrants – that: “You can’t deport 900,000 people. You don’t know where they live.” So he clearly feels the total is closer to 1m now, rather than 600,000.
Whatever the total, the Lib Dems told FactCheck that only a “small percentage” of illegal immigrants would actually qualify for UK citizenship under their “tough qualifying criteria”. They said that because they do not know how many illegal immigrants are here, they can’t put a figure on what this “small percentage” would be.
They added: “The Labour and Tory approach to illegal immigrants already in the UK amounts to little more than the spurious claim that they will find and deport them…of course, as we find illegal workers we will deport them, but we make no wild claims about huge numbers that we will deport. That would be utterly unrealistic.”
So on the 1.2m total cited by Cameron, the Home Office rules do state that British citizens do have a right to bring partners and children to this country.
Therefore the basic maths that every one of the supposed 600,000 illegal immigrants first mentioned by Clegg in 2007 could bring someone else into the country is technically true, meaning up to 1.2m. But that assumes the Lib Dems are going to give 600,000 people an amnesty, which they say they are not.
The verdict
The Tories and Labour call it an “amnesty for illegal immigrants”, the Lib Dems call it an “earned route to citizenship” with “tough qualifying criteria” that will lead to only a “small percentage” getting British citizenship. It boils down to how you define an amnesty.
It’s worth noting that the Lib Dem rhetoric on this subject is certainly more conservative (with a small ‘c’) than when Nick Clegg was talking about the on Brighton sea front in 2007.
And how many will get citizenship? The reality is that until an amnesty, or earned route to citizenship, is offered – the Lib Dems don’t know how many people would come forward and meet their strict rules, because they say no-one knows how many illegal immigrants are really here.
While Cameron’s criticism that up to 1.2m immigrants will be turning British seems to be a big exaggerated, even though it is drawn from a figure (600,000) once used by Clegg. The Lib Dems have called Cameron’s claim scare-mongering, as their rules will impose strict limits.


There are 13 comments on this post
To me an amnesty is a more or less unconditional offer – we have had gun amnesties and knife amnesties for example, when anyone can hand in a weapon, no questions asked. An amnesty for illegal immigrants would mean saying that, perhaps for a limited period, anyone who comes forward and makes themselves known will not be prosecuted, and can regularise their position.
The Lib Dem position seems much more limited, a kind of statute of limitations. As I understand it they are saying “If you have managed to stay for ten years without getting picked up, you are integrated into society, speak the language, are ready to contribute to society as a tax payer, and willing to serve some kind of period of community service, then you can earn the right of citizenship”. The offer is clearly conditional, presumably would not include exemption from prosecution for any other offenses committed during the period, and includes an element of reparation for the offense in the form of the requirement for community service.
It seems unlikely that huge numbers would take this up but it seems plausible to suggest that those who did might be welcome additions to mainstream society.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Up to” is a word frequently ignored in advertising, statistics, etc.
Likewise this article. Clegg: “Up to 600,000″ could mean half a dozen!
We have no idea – and you are being disingenuous.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Cathy,
You don’t seem to have done much homework on this – the guardian covered it far better a week ago (I humbly suggest you read the article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/23/nick-clegg-immigration-amnesties for a quick introduction to the topic)
Surely you have to compare this to the (now relaxed) existing 14 year amnesty rather than falsely comparing it to a situation that doesn’t exist?
The existing (20 year old) “14 year amnesty” has already been loosened enough that (http://www.ukzambians.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2034&Itemid=122) more people would qualify for that after 14 years than under the “earned citizenship amnesty”.
The liberal democrat “earned citizenship” would most likely merely mean illegal immigrants become legitimate sooner rather than in greater numbers, as it would be a choice between waiting a couple more years or meeting the criteria set out by the lib dems.
Perhaps you should have another go at this one?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Just trying to clarify – in 2007 the claim was to offer selective amnesty, so not all 600,000.
Another thing that struck me about this on the debate – if Lib Dems are only offering amnesty to those who entered over 10 years ago surely it is unlikely that all of those would bring family into UK after all that time and it is also likely that many entered country illegally with family anyway. So there does seem to be a large element of scaremongering going on
Like or Dislike:
0
0
This analysis is useful:
http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/immigration-debate-crippled-lack-accurate-data
The last paragraph of it is key:
“When such a scheme was applied to Mexican illegals in the US in the 1980s, three quarters of the applications were found to be fraudulent. And what subsequently occurred was another wave of immigration from Mexico. A total of 2.6 million illegals were granted amnesty in 1986: by 2000 there were an estimated 9.3m illegal immigrants in the US, many of whom had come to join family members legalised by the amnesty. Spain and Italy have also granted amnesties, but still have many new arrivals.”
Like or Dislike:
0
0
talking about scaremongering…
you can’t even compare the US borders with UK borders.. there are some places in US that Mexicans can walk in.. not only that but is a much bigger fronter area.
also, Spain and Italy are much closer from Africa.. and that is where most of their immigrants come from.
so, you are basically comparing completely different scenarios.. very misleading comment.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
A very useful clarification of this emotive subject. The figures of illegals can be anything Cameroan and Brown want it to be to play the race card under the cover of being tough on immigration. Even if there are perhaps 600,000 illegals (which seems to be a guesstimate) those who fit the Lib-dem criteria could be very low. Good to see Diane Aboot agreeing with the Lib-dem one off amnesty for settled, law abiding Illegals as sensible prelude to better overall controls. Shameful to hear BBC media journos uncritical use of DC’s scare-mongering figures while doing nothing to push him on his own plans to deal with this issue or provide figures for his tough talking ‘immigration cap.’
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Mr. Gordon Brown granted amnesty to 14 years stayed illegals. mr. Nick Clegg has declared to grant amnesty to 10 years stayed illegals with the condition that they should b able to speak English with clean criminal record. Nothing is wrong in it. Why we should allow these immigrants to live here since years enjoying Tax-Free income when we can collect tax from them by granting them amnesty.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
not only that, but I’m sure that this people are so eager to have their situation regularised I’m sure they would be willing to even pay a £ 5k to have this weight lifted of their shoulders.
many people might think that the undocumented immigrants want to be in this situation, but they don’t… but obvioysly for many of them going back is not an option.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
By definition illegal immigrants are NOT ‘law abiding’, they have knowingly entered and used the facilities of a country without paying tax for years on end – how is that ‘law abiding’? Those receiving amnesty can then bring spouses and children over legally, not good news for our overcrowded and overstretched country. It sends out completeely the wrong message.
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I don’t know you, but I’m sure you don’t even know a single immigrant.. yet you are very quick to judge… when you say: ” they have knowingly entered and used the facilities of a country without paying tax for years on end”.. lets break down this “claim”:
..”they have knowingly entered”…
many of this people which nowdays are undocumented, once had a visa but for many changes and dificulties imposed by the government ended up overstaing their visas, others were runing away from persecution and hunger.
lets remember we are still talking about people, and the most hard working people i ever met were immigrants.
…”used the facilities of a country”…
again, you can’t claim such a thing if you don’t know this people… but the experience I have is those immigrants we are talking about are usually between 18 – 30 years old.. they are not at young age, therefore they don’t go to school.. at this age they are still healthy so they don’t use much the health service… so I cant understand what services you are talking about.. as everything else is paid or otherwise only provided to people that have documents..
…”without paying tax for years on end”… Taxes are everywere.. you can be “undocumented” but still have to pay council tax, vat is built into every product purchased, water, electricity, gas, food none of this is free.. so I don’t kow what you are going on about..
if you are so worried with the message you are sending out, then you should start by treating people with a little more dignity at the end of the day.. you have done nothing to deserve being here.. you were just fortunate enough to be born here (I assume).
if you think that this country is overcrowded and overstretched, spend 1 year in Japan (by the way, second biggest economy in the world)… and only then compare it with uk… you might find out that there are much better things to do apart from complaining about immigrants.
Like or Dislike:
0
1
My perspective on an amnesty for illegal immigrants is like drawing an analogy with technology. We have to move with the times, technology and automation distorts the labour market and so does out sourcing and immigration. We could remove a lot of wasteful bureaucracy and give an amnesty for the illegal immigrants that are here and earn their citizenship and are tested for aids, hepatitis c and syphilis and all the strict right wing criteria etc. I would prefer that than keep these people in the darkness and shadowy black economy. Pete Miller from Bristol
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I was an illegal immigrant for 10 years and I wish those of you talking about immigrants as if they were sub human criminals would trade places with them for just a week to see the driving force that pushes them to leave their country of origin to try and make a living in another. Living in a country where hardwork and education gave no rewards, acquiring a master’s degree as I did did not ensure I did not live a life of constant struggle, a life where affording two meals a day was considered a luxury. I was therefore glad when I was given a visitor’s visa to come to the U.K, and decided the moment I got here to make a living here whatever it took. (at least I could clean after people’s mess and afford to buy a pint of fresh milk everyday).
And who says illegal immigrants don”t pay taxes? For ten years, I used my friend’s national insurance card to do one cleaning job after the other and as i could never call the inland revenue to sort out my taxes, I was put on a br tax code for 10 years which, FYI, was 40% of my gross pittance of £200 a week. Those 10 years of my life were unbearably frightning but nothing could be worse than going back to my previous life. Thank God I finally married a british citizen and eventually became british. I now have a good paid job and have never in my 20 years in the U.K, claimed any form of benefit.
Are you saying a person in the situation I was in deserves less than a benefit sponger who by sheer luck was born to a British citizen? One thing we should all know is that we don’t choose where we are born.
Of course I am against lazy immigrants coming here and taking advantage of the system or the arrogant ones who try to impose their culture on everyone but if they are ready to assimilate into the british society, work hard and help build the economy, why not give them them a chance?
Like or Dislike:
0
1