« Tax bombshell alert | Main | Ken Clarke reiterates his desire to remain on the backbenches »


I'm instinctively against an amnesty (as is Boris according to the report of this story on the BBC site) on the grounds that it only encourages more illegals to turn up. His arguments do have some validity though, in that inviting illegals to leave the "black economy" will boost tax revenues etc. and that it won't simply be a blanket amnesty - there will have to have been here for a certain length of time, undertaken certain citizency tests and meet certain financial criteria

Of course this means that anyone who doesn't (or won't) meet the criteria will continue to live in London illegally, so we have to wonder whether or not it's worth it

Boris wants a proper analysis. Who in their right mind can be against that? This issue has been ignored and swept under the carpet by the Labour Government.

We cannot ignore these people. Lawbreakers they may be but many will have families, started here, many will be held to ransom by modern day slave masters.

Well Done Boris for thinking outside the box. This, in my mind, sits well with the Ian Duncan Smith reports!

If only the leadership of the party had such minds.

This is a very bad idea. An illegal immigrant has broken the law and should in no way be rewarded. It is like rewarding a blackmailer by paying the ransom. We have to punish those who break the law. We should round up illegal immigrants and send them to somewhere they don't want to go, unless they tell us where they came from in which they can go back. For those that don't we could find remote deserted places to set up camps.

An amnesty would simply re-inforce the idea that we are a soft touch, and encourage even more to come here.

Boris is London Mayor, he lives in London, I don't.

Thought the piffy and honest response from CCHQ was good and clearly set out a dividing line between them and Boris on this.
Poor C4, their most unlikely hero yet, and they couldn't even turn the CCHQ response into anything other than a damp squib difference of opinion.
Like Ken Livingston, Boris has to be a bit of a maverick and not be seen as joined at the hip with his party.

*Piffy*??! should have been pithy! doh!

I wish the countries I would rather live in than the UK were as easy to move to as the UK.

Mad as a box of frogs!

expect NU_Lab to hit 40% soon,

and to think all those in the suburbs getting home early to vote for him, pity he did't say this before he go elected.

was heffer right when he said don't vote boris ?

Great timing. We're entering a recession, unemployment will soar and legal residents are worried about their jobs and homes. At this very moment, unforced by any one, Boris decides it's a good idea to suggest legitimisation of (probably) a large chunk of illegal immigrants. I wonder how many seats that is going to lose us in the next election.

Let Boris do his analysis - the answer may not be what he wants.

A couple of points. First he assumes that legitimising illegal immigrants will lead to an increase in tax take. How does he know? Contrary to what many people believe about "joined-up Government" it is quite possible that many of these illegal immigrants are already paying tax. The Inland Revenue has always had a remit to maximise tax take and has nothing to do with immigration status. It will issue a national insurance number to any one working here - without checking residence status. So it is quite possible for an illegal immigrant to be on PAYE. Again the end of year return P35 does not require employers to certify that people on the payroll are legally here. Obviously there will be others who work in the black economy. But if those workers were legitimised and employers forced to operate PAYE including employers' NI contributions, many of the jobs would disappear as uneconomic.

Will the study consider the extra costs of housing,health, policing, transport services that the 400,000 cause? Ultimately a reduction of even 100,000 illegals in London, would pro tanto make big savings in planned programmes such as housing.

Boris says expulsion is difficult and expensive. But that's only because we've made it so, with the introduction of the HRA, multiple judicial review applications and a sheer lack of backbone in the Home Office. If it wanted to, a government could have a firm but humane ten-year programme of deporting illegal immigrants. And while individual deportation cases can cost thousands, the savings in not having to provide free health services, subsidised council housing etc would far outweigh those costs.

Ultimately it's a question of whether any one would be hard-headed enough to take the above line. As a society we've become rather sentimental and most politicians are frightened of taking a tough stance. On the other hand there is also a huge constituency out there that is fed-up with the failure to tackle illegal immigration.

Question: In a recession that may well turn into a slump, will a liberal policy or a tough policy on illegal immigration have greater resonance with the voters? Answers on postcards to City Hall and CCHQ, please.

I wonder if Conservatives, when voting for Boris Johnson were really expecting a Mayor standing under the Conservative banner would be pursuing this amnesty, and as part of the Cameron project, is this a warning to all of us to beware if we ever consider giving Cameron our support at the ballot box, for you may think we are voting Conservative but what you will be getting is the Blue Labour party.

"Boris says expulsion is difficult and expensive. But that's only because we've made it so"

Yes, our soft headed politicians, in the legislation they have enacted, have managed to incentivise illegals to come here and stay. What is needed is to reverse those incentives, apart from ditching the HRA and 1951 asylum seekers Convention, is to push up the fines for hiring an illegal to at least to the average salary, and this fine to fall on anybody taking a material benefit from the employment of the illegal, and an illegal if caught to have their assets seized as the proceeds of crime. So you close off employment of illegals, and you incentivise illegals to get out with their money before its taken off them.

The so called tax revenue benefits of an amnesty do not stand up to scrutiny. Most illegals are low paid and once granted work permits/citizenship will be entitled to the full range of benefits, housing etc. Once legalised will bring over dependants and the cost of all this will cancel out any tax they pay.

This is how Boris repays all the suburban and working class voters who turned out in record numbers to elect him to office. I am disgusted and won't be voting for him again.

Does anyone know of a single case where a mass expulsion has happened? Preferably one you'd like to use as a model for Tory policy. This is out of curiosity.

I would suggest that Boris gets on with the job of being Mayor of London, and leaves to the government the things that are the prerogative of government. He could even profitably spend a little time negotiating with Jacqui Smith their respective roles in the selection of a Commissioner of Police to succeed the Zanulab mouthpiece who is on the point of leaving.

Morris Hickey: Do you then disagree with the amnesty then? I didn't get all of your post.
I think it's a stupendous idea as there's no chance whatsoever of chasing all the illegals anyway.

What do you expect from the Conservative court jester? The man who wanted Portillo as leader and nuclear weapons for Iran.

Another Tory dud on par with with Hendry, Yeo, Gummer, May, Goldsmith, Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all the rest of the Cameroonatics.

Who said turkeys don't vote for Christmas?

Come back Michael Foot - all is forgiven.

I have already had angry e-mails from residents opposed to any amnesty for illegal immigrants.

It is foolish for Boris to call for an amnesty, even if he doesn't have the power to enforce it. Even Livingstone never openly proposed this.

Yes I do. Amnesties in all criminal situations are unfair on those who abide by the law. In the case of illegal immigrants, when they are discovered the Home Office should throw them out as soon as they can arrange travel. And those who have come here illegally from another EU country should be returned to that country.

Let's put up the "closed" sign at the ports and airports. This government, even on the basis of its own figures, is allowing net immigration equivalent to a whole large sized town every year. No wonder we've got crises in health, housing, education, and employment. That's why we're broke.

Well done to Boris. A healthy economy requires a free market - free movement of capital, goods and labour.

Well you could put "closed for business" on airports and ports but what about those that are already here? It's hopless. They'll all stay, so boris is right this time.

The NHS will very sadly have to have a freeze on spending for 5 or 6 years at least. Even I think theres no money.

Terrible. Borders on treason.

Capital punishment should be used in that case.

Only an immigrant like Boris would understand what the other immigrants in London want. Please don't argue that Boris is not an immigrant. He may well have English/ British connections, but we must understand that His ancestors came to this Country from other Countries as immigrants.

Of course the Anglo-Saxons did not come here as immigrants, they invaded this Country. There is no one in this Country can argue that they are the indigenous People of this Country. A fact which most People do not want to accept.

This does not mean immigration is a problem. It is a serious issue and we must deal with it with common sense. Immigration can be good and bad. Amnesty for those who have made positive contributions to Britain (I am not talking about foreign donations to a party)is not a bad thing. Amnesty for every one is dangerous and also sends out a wrong message.

I am generally against an amnesty for illegal immigrants. I don't believe in rewarding illegality and, where it has been tried elsewhere, it has led to more people chancing their luck.

However, do listen to the interview. Boris is not suggesting a general amnesty: he refers to a 'substantial period of time, certainly more than five years' of residency and refers to illegals 'earning' the right to remain here by showing they are useful to society.

And Another wave of voters move to the BNP...

It's clear from the question the answer that Boris wants.

The question that the people want politicians to answer is "How do we remove people who shouldn't be here expeditiously and humanely?".

I don't expect any politician from the main parties to address that question - so much for democracy

If I felt certain that the research into the advantages and disadvantages of an amnesty was going to be completely impartial I would, perhaps, be less horrified than I am by this report. The problem is that it seems, judging from the tone of his comments, that Boris has already made up his mind in favour of an amnesty.

There is also the fundamental issue of who decides who should be allowed into this country. Currently it is the triads and other people traffickers who decide, according to the profit thay can make from the trade in humans. The law abiding may not be allowed in and so we risk establishing a system whereby there is an inbuilt advantage to those who break the law.

"Of course the Anglo-Saxons did not come here as immigrants, they invaded this Country. There is no one in this Country can argue that they are the indigenous People of this Country. A fact which most People do not want to accept."

Patrick - glad to see you've now accepted that the Anglo-Saxons were invaders, not immigrants.

However, in the case of being an indigenous people, if you follow the time line of any nation back far enough, then you reach a point where they had yet to inhabit their homeland - e.g. the Maoris migrated to New Zealand only around the 12th century. Does this mean that they're not indigenous? Tell that to a Maori and let me know how that works out.

The conclusion of this reductio ad absurdum is that there are NO indigenous people on the planet - a clearly extreme proposition.

Given that the descendents of the Anglo-Saxons (and the Celts before them) have made these isles their home for a millennia and a half, I think that's quite sufficient for us to class ourselves as native peoples (though I'm 50% descended from immigrant stock myself, and thus am only 50% indigenous!).

Please also consider this - if you live in a country in which you have no ancestral roots and yet go around telling the locals that they cannot class themselves as indigenous peoples, despite being here for 1,500 years plus, they may get offended.

If I were ever to move to Sri Lanka, I'd like to think that I would have the good grace not to tell the Tamils that they can't be classed as native peoples because there was probably another tribe living in their land before them.

I am not a tory party animal (although a member) -- the tories and I just seem to share many principals.

I welcome full and proper analysis/discussion.

I don't think having a london centric view is sensible -- this is a national issue.

I don't beleive an amnesty can be the right thing, but am willing to be proved wrong - if further illegal immigration can be blocked, and the current illegals can be vetted, and pay all their back taxes and are willing to 'earn' british nationality (which would be forefit if they failed to report any other illegals that they come accross) - then just maybe there would be something to consider.

You cannot possibly have "good" and"bad" illegal immigrants. This country has become a soft touch and if firm action is not taken to stop this abuse it can only get worse. Once people know that if you come here illegally you will be deported it will stop.

Even if mass deportation is not going to happen, why would one wish to allow them an amnesty? That would give them access to social security benefits, public services, and entitle them to bring in other family members in due course.

But above all, it would just encourage more illegal immigration.

"Of course the Anglo-Saxons did not come here as immigrants, they invaded this Country."

Patrick Ratnaraja neither could anyone in India claim they are indigenous to the land that India occupies, the Dravidians might clam they were some of the first, but the majority Indo Aryans 'invaded' the land much later, and the same can be said of any country in the world. The Turks didn't move into the Anatolian peninsular until 800AD, but would you say they have no rights to determine what happens in Turkey? I would doubt it.

The fact is migrations of peoples have happened through out time, and no one peoples can claim to be indigenous to that land, what they can claim is to be indigenous to that Country, for a Country is the product of the culture, social, and political values of a peoples, their civilisation, and in that Anglo Saxons have every right to claim to be indigenous to this country, for it was their values, their culture, their civilisation, that created this political entity of a country!

The question you have to ask yourself is what is your motive to try and racistly seek to deny these peoples of their heritage when you wouldn't with any other peoples?

One way and another the BNP has had a good week.

Nope it has not been swept under the rug. The government will not and has not protected the citizens. And the corporations love the cheap slave labor force. 80% of Americans do not want amnesty. The other 20% have something to gain from wanting amnesty; such as: the government helping corporations for money. It is the rich elitist and the poor third world countries going to turn America and other countries into poorer than third world. On the way to the New World Order...WATCH OUT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.

This is a horrific idea because there are far too many immigrants for the public services and even more so our natural environment to sustain. I for one do not want the population of this country to soar to absolutely ridiculous levels.

I prefer immigrants who come and do a hard day's work to welfare state beneficiaries who sit around complaining about them. But in reality, both should be discouraged due to severely limited space.

Additionally, the work of "digesting" immigrants hasn't even begun in many cases. Those who are here to stay should be encouraged to learn English and integrate, it is ludicrous to do otherwise. We cannot do this with unlimited numbers entering.

Let's have a points-based system. I know excellent people who were deported who should still be here. I also know people, native and immigrant alike, who will never contribute anything to society and should not be in receipt of our money and other forms of "help".

Sheer lunacy from Boris the buffoon. It will encourage yet more illegal immigration. The BNP will be delighted.
Cameron of course is too frightened ever to mention the subject of immigration because the BBC would call him nasty if he did. What a coward!
It seems as if the the lunatics are well and truly in control of the British asylum.

Very poor decision from Boris. If this is what he believes then he should have campaigned opn this issue and made an Amnesty an election pledge.
I'm glad the mainstream Conservative party has diassociated itself from this.

Boris said what?

Has he lost all sence!

I had Boris down as a real Tory, seems that having been got at by London's PC machine he is now a pinko. Shame on you Boris say its not so.

Thought Boris would get attacked by the racist people who pollute this site. The trouble with many on this site its not really about numbers its about race.
People look around and they don`t see immigrants they see too many black and brown faces. What people don`t recognise is that half those who they say are immigrants are as British as any white person.
Well done Boris. Keep up the good work.Your making a far better Mayor for all Londoners than I thought you would. When his finished running London he wants to get himself back in the house and make a run for leader. Make a great Prime Minister!!!

Its got llittle to do with colur Jack its got a lot more to do with law. These people mostly in recent years it has to be said from eastern europe, get into this nation by the back door and are a strain on our services. Not only that they take up jobs that could and should be filled by the British paid a minimum wage. They should not be here at all.

Re Post of Jack stone | November 22, 2008 at 19:40

Jack, behave yourself and stop calling every on a racist just be cause they don't agree with the Court Jester.

Have you read today what Bleary Hazel, the minister for something or other has to say about the BNP - as reported in the Telegraph and Guardian?

She states that all the mainstream parties have let the working class ( the working class now includes impecunious bankers) down by ignoring them and basically making them feel third class citizens in their own country and thus they turn to the BNP. However, you could never call Hairy Bleary a racist - because she never had the courage to mentioned the word immigration in the reports of hers that I read. (It, apparently was all down to Liverpool being beaten last week by Tottenham.)

Have a word with the man from Berkshire (or is Thames - upon - somewhere) Jack and tell him that for some of us immigration/EU is the number one problem and not Liverpool losing to whoever.

As I thought - no example of a succesful mass expulsion. The choice is an amnesty or continued illegality. Either are arguable, but the mass expulsion will not be attempted, and isn't possible.

It should be Resident Leftie.Illegality is always wrong,don't you agree?

Its obviously a Cameron decision to have the immigration amnesty in the news and led by dotty Boris.Cameron just doesn't have the kahonies to make such an announcement as this even though he agrees with the whole thing 100%,as do our political partners,the LibDems and Labour.
We must break out of this tripartite arrangement,or die with them.

"but the mass expulsion will not be attempted, and isn't possible."

Well of course not , our useless British establishemtn can't be bothered to get off their back sides to tackle the problem, but we don't need to expell these people, what we have to do is reverse the incentives that have drawn these people here, and just like they got here, under their own steam, then we can create the situation to incentivise them to leave under their own steam.

First we have to rid our selves of the HRA and 1951 asylum seekers convention.

Next we have to massively increase the fine for employing any illegal, at a minimum it has to be set at the average salary level £25k, and this fine payable by anyone taking a material benefit from the employment of illegals, i.e from the Gang master all the way up to the supermarket, so if you can only get £10k out of the Gang master, you carry on up the food chain until the fine is paid.

Next, the fine should act as a bounty, so anything that remains of the cash having deported the illegal goes to the person who has informed the authorities.

Finnally as an illegal is here as a result of breaking our immigration laws, anything he has earned whilst being here can be considered the proceeds of crime, so any illegal caught will run the risk of having all his ill gotten gains seized.

So you make deporting illegals profitable, to the state and to the person informing the authorities, and you incentivise illegals to get the hell out, taking their gains, while the going is good.

This is what turns most ordinary people off politics. People in London never voted for this, the vast majority of the country never asked for mass immigration never voted for it just had it imposed on them. They would like to see mass immigration stop. If I had a pound for every time people who are not racist said they were concerned about mass immigration on the dorstep I would be a millionaire.

It is not racist to think your hospitals are streatched to think roads are overcrowded, to think we don't have enough housing in this country to think we can't keep picking up the benefit bill for other countries problems. People see other countries France Germany and think we are a soft touch and they are right this is a small island and there is nothing racist to say we cannot take any more.

Politicians are there to represent those that voted for them Boris and the rest of you remember that you shouldn't get elected and all of a sudden come out with these ideas that you never presented to them.

We have mass immigration in the UK becuase we are considered a soft touch no other country hands out housing and benefits to people as soon as they arrive. You can make our borders far more secure but people will still come other countries such as France are full of people making their way to the UK. You ever tried to ask yourself why they don't settle in France becaue life for them in France is not easy in the UK it is easier than it is for those already here.

An amnesty for illegal immigrations would send the totally wrong signal. If this is adopted as party policy this is the day I tear up my membership and never vote for the party again.

"As I thought - no example of a successful mass expulsion. The choice is an amnesty or continued illegality. Either are arguable, but the mass expulsion will not be attempted, and isn't possible."

I have only one thing to say:

State of Emergency !

Anything is possible if the will of the people is to allow it. Expulsions are possible with some organization. Of course this means rounding up and that is always a difficult and messy, trick to do. It would mean a very different Britain and isn’t that what the real mandate of change means. However outside of a state of emergency you are right, this would be very difficult to achieve.

I can't moan.. because I can't help with the current situation on my own. It's just getting worse.

Boris is doing something, rather than nothing (and moan). I understand it's an EARNED AMNESTY so let's not shift away from this. I hope it is also POINTS SYSTEM so only those who can inject, pay taxes, buy a house, buy from shops and save some clinging jobs. Besides, there are jobs available, only if you search for it and not wait to come to you.

To those who are against this... Can you think of a way how YOU can help with the situation?

Bring in a robust system for getting illegals out as quickly and cheaply as possible would be a start Richard.

"To those who are against this... Can you think of a way how YOU can help with the situation?"

Yes Richard say we no longer offer benefits and free housing to those that have not been resident here for x number of years. Then watch as the ones that are here hopping for something like an amnesty rush to leave and the numbers coming drop dramaticaly.

Asylum needs to be rethought - it might have made sense to clearly communicate to those under socialist opression behind the iron curtain that we would welcome them if they escaped -- but with the collapse of the soviet empire, it is no longer clear what we are supposed to be providing asylum from, nor why.

With all the 'automatic extradition' policies currently in place it seems that the UK no longer even provides 'asylum' to its natives.

Nearly all the mayor contenders used amnesty as part of their campaing strategies including B. Johnson and the man must not be prosecuted for being a man of his words now that he is planning to bring to fulfilment the promise he made during his campaing. So he should be encouraged rather than be discouraged.Whether legal, illegal, black,white or brown we are all citizens of the world. Carry on Boris!

Nearlly all the mayor contenders used amnesty as part of their campaing strategies including the mayor elected and voters were fully aware of it before heading to the polling station to cast their vote for him and he must not be prosecuted for being a man of his words now that he is planning to bring to fulfilment part of his electioneering campaing. As a result,he should be encouraged rather than being discouraged.Carry on Boris!

J. Roland find the speech he made during the election where he said this.

Love this we are all citizens of the world rubbish, well let everyone go to a part of the world that isn't as crowded as this small island and can afford to pay benefits and free housing for the hundreds of thousands that have arrived here since 1997.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker