What chance for a UK amnesty for 'illegal' workers?

What chance for a UK amnesty for 'illegal' workers?

• Pitfalls of the Spouse Visa

• AA immigration case ruling explained

• New changes to UK immigration rules

• UK extends ILR qualifying period

• Of dodgy bus passes, amnesties and a looming judgment

• When is 'indefinite leave to remain' not permanent?

• Key developments in UK immigration law in 2005

• UK leave to remain for children, spouses

• Legal advice as good as facts presented

• The incestral visa

• The minister of religion visa

• Justice Mungwira and judicial independence

• Taffy Nyawanza: Immigration options for victims of domestic violence

• Taffy Nywanza: Implications of UK asylum decison

• Taffy Nyawanza: The right to family life

• Taffy Nyawanza: New UK changes to managed migration

• Taffy Nyawanza: UK immigration rules on marriage, domestic servants

• Taffy Nyawanza: Switching from work permit to indefinite stay

• Taffy Nyawanza: Immigration and you

• Taffy Nyawanza: Makosi and the real Big Brother

By Lloyd Msipa

PRESSURE seems to be mounting on the new Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, to seriously consider backing an amnesty for those working in the United Kingdom illegally.

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has advocated that Jacqui Smith, the new Home Secretary, back the recommendations put forward that include the ‘regularisation’ of all foreign nationals that are in the United Kingdom without any sort of status, Zimbabweans included.

The IPPR is of the opinion that if successful, this plan of regularising almost half a million foreign nationals currently living here illegally would be a great advantage to Britain as these people will be paying taxes.

The IPPR is of the opinion that it would be cheaper to let them stay than the government going through the considerable expense of trying to deport them.

Should the illegal aliens be deported, the IPPR sees the British economy shrinking almost straight away and we would notice the change in unclean offices, dirty streets and under staffed pubs and clubs.

Danny Siskandarajah, head of Migration and Equalities at the IPPR states that “…we have a choice: make people live in the shadows, exploited and fearful for the future; or bring them into the mainstream (economy) to pay taxes and live an honest life.”

Adding to the demands are pressure groups like the ‘Strangers into Citizens Campaign’ group backed by various church organisations and trade unions.

They are also calling for the government to seriously consider regularising migrants who have lived and worked in the UK for four or more years by granting them a two-year work permit. At the end of the two-year work permit, subject to employer and character references, they should be given the right to settle permanently.

Those here illegally are encouraged to contact their Member of Parliament and ask him or her if they have signed the Early Day Motion (EDM) 1371. This is a House of Commons proposal calling for the regularisation of foreign nationals living here ‘illegally’ and who for various reasons do not want to go back to their countries of origin.

What are the issues militating against this amnesty?

Well, we have had the government making piecemeal concessions as exemplified by the legacy cases in Scotland and elsewhere. In this instance, the Home Office says that those here illegally should prove that they, as a result of the time spent here, are now so integrated into their respective communities such that it would be unreasonable to uproot them.

The question to be answered then, in the legacy cases, was whether deporting an individual would not only affect them but the community as well? For example, an “illegal” immigrant who is now part of a family would likely benefit from the concessions advanced under the “legacy cases”.

The question in everybody’s mind is will these concessions extend to failed asylum seekers currently irking a living in the United Kingdom by hook or crook, the so called “illegal” workers as it were? My opinion is this is highly unlikely to happen. The reasons for this are many.

The most problematic of reasons lies with the provisions of the Human Rights Act as incorporated into UK law in 1998. Let’s say, for example, the Home Secretary decides to let all the failed asylum seekers from Zimbabwe stay, and grants them some form of humanitarian protection. Under normal circumstances, a person recognised as a refugee is granted limited leave to remain or enter for five years. After five years, there will be an opportunity for that person to apply for indefinite leave to remain subject to review from the Home Office.

He or she can apply for a travel document and will be allowed family reunion with their wife/husband and any children who are below the age of eighteen. If a person is granted humanitarian protection, they will be granted limited leave to remain for five years. After five years, there will be any opportunity to apply for indefinite leave to remain subject to review by the Home Office. A person granted Humanitarian protection can also apply for family reunion with his/her wife/husband and children below the age of eighteen.

The family reunion aspect incorporated in these rules is the direct impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated in UK law. Hence the politics of the country make it highly improbable that the Home Office may grant some sort of humanitarian protection to Zimbabweans currently in fear of returning home.

The reason being it will not be politically expedient for the government to go down a path that will result in the figures they are trying to reduce triple or even quadruple as those granted status bring in their families.

Another form of status discretionary leave normally granted for a short time makes use of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Under this system, a person is normally granted three years initially, either under Article 3 or 8. Under this category, family reunion is not automatic. A person may be granted discretionary leave for two years, for example on medical grounds.

So any leave to remain granted whether in a temporary capacity or otherwise has the Human Rights Act to contend with. The courts are inundated with cases of persons initially given temporary leave to remain. At the end of their leave, the Human Rights Act has become a vehicle to extend one’s stay indefinitely.

I do not foresee the British government taking that chance with the current half a million-failed asylum seekers. For Zimbabwe and the odd 15000 to 20000 failed asylum seekers, we await the decision in HS (Zimbabwe) 2007 to define the way forward. So until next week, we bide our time.

Lloyd Msipa is an immigration lawyer and writes from London. He can be contacted on 07877839019 or e-mail: lmsipalaw@virtalukandco.com

Disclaimer: This article only provides general information and guidance on immigration law.. The specific facts that apply to your matter may make the outcome different than would be anticipated by you. The writer will not accept any liability for any claims or inconvenience as a result of the use of this information
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS