The immigration policy motion has passed conference unamended. An attempt to remove the section re-establishing border controls failed, after Simon Hughes and others argued it was needed to protect the vulnerable and trafficked. Notably, former McCann family advisor and Lib Dem 2005 candidate Justine McGuinness argued against the omission on the basis of child protection.
A closer vote was held on removing the 10-year condition of the migranty amnesty. Andrew Hudson in Walthamstow argued that a one-off amnesty would not end problems in the sector anyway, and that the bar was too high. Others thought it was too long and wanted in deleted in favour of four or five years.
Despite the seperate votes on these sections, there was clearly strong support for the thrust of the motion. Speaking in favour of it, Saj Karim MEP recalled presenting his parliamentary passport at Leeds-Bradford airport and being asked by an immigration official ‘are you claiming asylum?’. The proud Lancastrian hesitated before declining the Yorkshireman’s offer.
Dr Julie Smith from Cambridge argued that labour migration was good for Britain and had been ignored by the Conservatives and Labour. Simon Hughes concluded his summing up with the proud boast that it was a topic “no other party would have dared debate”.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Street surgeries tonight #dundeewestend
12 opening scenes from Malcolm in the Middle
Reform drop council by-election candidate Irene Davidson
Greg Hyde
Lyell Yardarms
Mick Scholes
Dominic
16 Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6999611.stm
You know that we’ve touched a nerve with the other parties when they accuse us of “living in a fantasy world”.
Trying to duck the hard questions about immigration will eventually come back to bite both Labour and the Tories – are we now the only major party taking this seriously?
The motion says Britain has benefited ‘enormously ‘from immigration.Yet all the evidence is that the wages of labour competing with immigrants is depressed-supply and demand- and the benefits go to capital. Its certainly a peculiar Lib Dem policy to penalize the poor.
all the evidence is
It is? Care to cite a source? Even the Migration Watch study didn’t find that unless I’m very much mistaken, and they were trying to look for negatives. Migration Watch in fact found that we all benefit, and the economy is better off.
They tried to spin it differently, but their own study said otherwise.
Keeping costs down helps us all, in many ways. Especially given that there’s still an excess demand for people willing to take lower end jobs.
Give us a link to an authorative study with “all the evidence”? Please?
Our party is too out of touch. People here legally have told me how they are incredulous how we let in so many people illegally. Further, i have met people who have left this country rather than stay illegally – they had no desire to criminalise themselves, even though they could do so easily. We encourage criminals to come here and keep the honest out.
This policy can will only encourage people to come here – Britain is notorious as a ‘soft touch’.
As for helping the economy, is it not the case that some concils don’t have enough enough money for services due to newcomers? How is it they are not paying council tax?
And the rate of immigration is unprecedent; my local areas have seen huge change in the last few years. Not that many party members see this, of course. We are far too middle class and avoid such areas – unless canvassing for votes.
“As for helping the economy, is it not the case that some concils don’t have enough enough money for services due to newcomers? How is it they are not paying council tax?”
Lots are living in rented accomodation where the Council Tax bill will go to the landlord. In any case Council Tax is only a small proportion of total council spending.
Yawn Sid. Why is it that I doubt you’re really a Lib Dem? Perhaps it’s because you’re espousing nonsense and myth about immigration . . .
Just to quote the party press release on the immigration paper – do you object to any of these, Sid?
(a) Improving border controls with the introduction of a National Border Force and reintroducing exit checks at all ports
(b) Increasing the price of work permits paid by businesses to employ immigrant workers and using the money to re-train British workers in sectors affected by immigration
(c) Opening a pathway of earned citizenship – subject to a series of tests such as English language and public interest – for people who have lived in Britain unauthorised for at least ten years
Grammar police
Yawn. Why is I suspect your experience with immigrants is limited?
I object to c. People who are here illegally have already broken the law, and clearly have no respect for this country. Pity about those honest ones whom you are treating with contempt. And I have met a few.
oh – i’ve been a lib dem for over a decade. that’s how I know members avoid immigrants like the plague, whilst passing stupid resolutions which legal immigrants shake their head at.
But sure – you keep saying it’s all “nonsense and myth”. Keep watching our poll ratings go down.
Hywel
– Quite true, very much the point.
The Bank of England (and others) have commented that immigration has allowed interest rates to be lower than otherwise.
http://www.in2perspective.com/nr/2006/04/-migrants-to-reduce-interest-rates-by-1-.jsp;jsessionid=3EDF72CE626478450A60840F0882AF6F
Do those who are anti-immigrant want higher interest rates?
Aside from your nonsense about “being a member for a decade. That’s how I know members avoid immigrants like the plague” (we can all play that game, I’ve been a member for nearly a decade and know plenty of members who don’t avoid immigrants), I’ll ask again, do you disagree with:
(a) Improving border controls with the introduction of a National Border Force and reintroducing exit checks at all ports
(b) Increasing the price of work permits paid by businesses to employ immigrant workers and using the money to re-train British workers in sectors affected by immigration
(c) Opening a pathway of earned citizenship – subject to a series of tests such as English language and public interest – for people who have lived in Britain unauthorised for at least ten years.
—————————–
I suspect you only really object to (c) – if so, you’re deliberately taking a very narrow view of what the policy is. I suspect so you can just rant.
No one is saying that people should be allowed to enter the country illegally – indeed the policy would help stop people entering the country that way. And it would help to ensure that a number of those people who had entered the country illegally made a contribution to society by bringing them back into the system – accepting that it’s not that easy to track such people down once they’re here.
Grammar police
My apologies, i thought my singling out c made my views on a and b clear – no problem with them.
A policy to grant citizenship to people here illegally will simply encourage more.
Tim:
Interest- that depends – where your money is! It’s pretty demeaning argument for immigration though.
However, I think the comments today by the Police on not having resources blows the economic argument out of the water. If it was such a benefit, it would all be paid for via council tax, taxes etc.
“You know that we’ve touched a nerve with the other parties when they accuse us of “living in a fantasy world”.”
hahahaha, the libdems will NEVER be in power. This single motion has just lost you all the support you gained through insisting on a EU referendum. You are so out of touch it’s nuts.
Anonymous at 13; we’ve never let being popular get in the way of being right!! ;o)
It’s as easy as a, b, c
(a) Improving border controls with the introduction of a National Border Force and reintroducing exit checks at all ports
(b) Increasing the price of work permits paid by businesses to employ immigrant workers and using the money to re-train British workers in sectors affected by immigration
(c ) Opening a pathway of earned citizenship – subject to a series of tests such as English language and public interest – for people who have lived in Britain unauthorised for at least ten years.
(a) actually makes it harder for illegal immigrants to enter the country, (b) seems to vaguely discourage giving jobs to skilled immigrants, and if not, would help sectors of our workforce retrain and (c )is to bring into the system the best people who’re currently here illegally, so that they contribute something back through taxes etc. Sid – an earned amnesty needn’t encourage more people to come – it doesn’t in other places, and all three steps need to be seen as part of a whole package. It would be harder to get into the country!!
I wonder how much of a link there is between the right-wing media sensationalism about “soft-touch Britain”, and the perception of would-be illegal immigrants? It would be ironic if, in their panic to proclaim Britain was going to the dogs because of all the “foreign scroungers”, the gutter media was actually encouraging people to come . . .
The issue of immigration is not as clear cut as some would have us believe. the lives of so many people, immigrants & their british born families live in sheer desperation at times, not knowing when they will be separated, when the knock on the door will come etc. My own situation is dire. My husband has recently been refused his application to remain; we have booked our tickets to return to jamaica in the hope that we can apply for a settlement visa for him to return. We have no idea what to do when we get there. Where do we go? how long will it take, how much will it cost/ we are entering this crisis blind and we are extremely worried. I have scoured the internet to find the answers, raed all the notices about change and potential change but still we are no wiser. Is there anyone out there that can help us???????????????
I agree with Josephine Gbadamosi. All the mongs who read the Daily Heil and complain about immigration should try meeting a few immigrants and see what a desperate plight they are in because of all the restrictions the government places on them. If they want to learn English and get jobs to better their lot… none of that is f—ing “allowed” by Brown and co.
I have a colleague whose intelligence and articulacy puts many British-born people to shame. I’d swap her for 1000 BNP voters 🙂