Crosswords0 min ago
Immigrants
What is the difference between the governments terms
1. An amnesty
2. Leave to remain
Currently many immigrants are put under the second category but is there any difference?
1. An amnesty
2. Leave to remain
Currently many immigrants are put under the second category but is there any difference?
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
rov1200
Good question.
From Wikipedia:
Leave to remain
The Leave to Remain is the legal status of a person issued by a government office of internal affairs to one who is not yet a citizen.
In most stable countries, Indefinite leave to remain (as is known in the UK) is granted to these foreign citizens after a specified period spent within its borders.
This is usually the final step towards naturalization which in turn leads to full citizenship.
A Leave to Remain need not be indefinite.
Amnesty
I couldn't find a definition of what this might be, but recently there was a debate started by Boris Johnson where he proposed an amnesty on illegal immigrants, who were able to support themselves and had been here for five years or more.
From www.londonist.com:
A sign of our twisted political times, perhaps, that our Tory mayor endorses an amnesty for illegal immigrants while the Labour government opposes it.
According to Boris Johnson, an amnesty for the estimated 725,000 illegals in the country would be "morally right", but the government, concerned about growing xenophobia and an impassioned (if often incompetent) effort by the BNP to sow discord, claims it would represent a "pull factor".
According to an LSE study, amnesty based on five years continuous residency could add 450,000 to the legal workforce, a group which Boris rightly points out we'd be better off taxing than spending millions of pounds to deport.
Yet with the economic crisis in full swing, and neither main party in support, it's a hard idea to sell.
Good question.
From Wikipedia:
Leave to remain
The Leave to Remain is the legal status of a person issued by a government office of internal affairs to one who is not yet a citizen.
In most stable countries, Indefinite leave to remain (as is known in the UK) is granted to these foreign citizens after a specified period spent within its borders.
This is usually the final step towards naturalization which in turn leads to full citizenship.
A Leave to Remain need not be indefinite.
Amnesty
I couldn't find a definition of what this might be, but recently there was a debate started by Boris Johnson where he proposed an amnesty on illegal immigrants, who were able to support themselves and had been here for five years or more.
From www.londonist.com:
A sign of our twisted political times, perhaps, that our Tory mayor endorses an amnesty for illegal immigrants while the Labour government opposes it.
According to Boris Johnson, an amnesty for the estimated 725,000 illegals in the country would be "morally right", but the government, concerned about growing xenophobia and an impassioned (if often incompetent) effort by the BNP to sow discord, claims it would represent a "pull factor".
According to an LSE study, amnesty based on five years continuous residency could add 450,000 to the legal workforce, a group which Boris rightly points out we'd be better off taxing than spending millions of pounds to deport.
Yet with the economic crisis in full swing, and neither main party in support, it's a hard idea to sell.
Thanks for that very thorough answer. There is a TV program on tonight and will be interesting to watch it. Also in todays newspapers the subject is being aired fully.
Knowing how this government works by shifting problems under the carpet I thought they were using the 'leave to remain' instead of 'an amnesty' as they know the publics hatred of this term.
Knowing how this government works by shifting problems under the carpet I thought they were using the 'leave to remain' instead of 'an amnesty' as they know the publics hatred of this term.
In most stable countries, Indefinite leave to remain (as is known in the UK) is granted to these foreign citizens after a specified period spent within its borders.
There should be no indefinite leave granted.
If a person claims political asylum, they should have their case looked into, and if their application is refused then they should be deported forthwith.
Or if a student for example is in the country to study, or a worker admitted to do a specific job, then when these tasks have been completed, these foreign nationals should also be sent back home.
There should also be no amnesty either for illegal immigrants, who have in fact committed a crime, so when caught they should be punished and then deported.
There should be no indefinite leave granted.
If a person claims political asylum, they should have their case looked into, and if their application is refused then they should be deported forthwith.
Or if a student for example is in the country to study, or a worker admitted to do a specific job, then when these tasks have been completed, these foreign nationals should also be sent back home.
There should also be no amnesty either for illegal immigrants, who have in fact committed a crime, so when caught they should be punished and then deported.
Quite agree, oldgit.
And the decisions should be taken quickly (preferably within 24 hours of arrival) so that those concerned do not have the opportunity to start jobs, families, new lives and the multitude of other things which, having got their feet under the table, makes it so much harder for them to be deported.
If there are not enough Immigration Service staff to do this more should be recruited as a matter of urgency. The savings would be enormous.
And the decisions should be taken quickly (preferably within 24 hours of arrival) so that those concerned do not have the opportunity to start jobs, families, new lives and the multitude of other things which, having got their feet under the table, makes it so much harder for them to be deported.
If there are not enough Immigration Service staff to do this more should be recruited as a matter of urgency. The savings would be enormous.
Do not lose sight of the fact that there are tens of thousands of non-British citizens in this country who live and work here, and hence have a Leave to Remain stamp or equivalent in their passport. Some apply for and are granted a fixed period, some have Indefinite Leave to Remain. This excludes EU citizens who of course have no need for such a stamp. Many non-British citizens pay handsomely a fee for acquiring such a stamp via their application form.
What you are probably referring to, Rov, is asylum seekers, who, if their application is approved, will typically be granted Indefinite Leave to Remain. This is nothing to do with amnesty.
What you are probably referring to, Rov, is asylum seekers, who, if their application is approved, will typically be granted Indefinite Leave to Remain. This is nothing to do with amnesty.
Yes, mate, quite agree with your qualification.
There should be a way to differentiate between those given permission to stay here for legitimate reasons such as those you cite, and those here - possibly illegally, possibly not - whose status has not been properly investigated and formalised.
The current system, where those arriving sans papiers are simply given travel directions to Lunar House, Croydon, and the address of the Social Services Department in the area they wish to settle is unsatisfactory. It is unfair on them as they face possibly years of uncertainty fearing a knock on the door or a raid on the kitchen where they work clandestinely, and it is unfair to the population who are legally settled here.
Such people should be detained upon arrival and their status determined quickly. If they have no papers they should be returned to the country they last left forthwith as it is a lapse of security in that country that allowed them to arrive here.
Those who bleat about the practical difficulties such a scheme would pose are worrying unnecessarily. Some rearrangements would be needed so that immigration control is at individual air bridges at airports, or berths at ports, but it is not impossible.
Armies of people are employed in the UK rounding up illegals. You see it on the TV �fly on the wall� programmes. What you don�t see is that after they have been detained for a short while most of the hapless wretches are released back into the community for the whole circus to be repeated (possibly) at some time in the future, simply because there is no mechanism to deal with them quickly enough.
The �Yuman Rites� lobby think it is quite in order for this psychological torture to continue for years, but not in order to deal with the cases quickly and fairly.
It is a scandal of which everybody concerned should be ashamed.
There should be a way to differentiate between those given permission to stay here for legitimate reasons such as those you cite, and those here - possibly illegally, possibly not - whose status has not been properly investigated and formalised.
The current system, where those arriving sans papiers are simply given travel directions to Lunar House, Croydon, and the address of the Social Services Department in the area they wish to settle is unsatisfactory. It is unfair on them as they face possibly years of uncertainty fearing a knock on the door or a raid on the kitchen where they work clandestinely, and it is unfair to the population who are legally settled here.
Such people should be detained upon arrival and their status determined quickly. If they have no papers they should be returned to the country they last left forthwith as it is a lapse of security in that country that allowed them to arrive here.
Those who bleat about the practical difficulties such a scheme would pose are worrying unnecessarily. Some rearrangements would be needed so that immigration control is at individual air bridges at airports, or berths at ports, but it is not impossible.
Armies of people are employed in the UK rounding up illegals. You see it on the TV �fly on the wall� programmes. What you don�t see is that after they have been detained for a short while most of the hapless wretches are released back into the community for the whole circus to be repeated (possibly) at some time in the future, simply because there is no mechanism to deal with them quickly enough.
The �Yuman Rites� lobby think it is quite in order for this psychological torture to continue for years, but not in order to deal with the cases quickly and fairly.
It is a scandal of which everybody concerned should be ashamed.
1 to 6 of 6
