Following the UK general election on 6 May 2010, the UK Border Agency website has undergone some changes.

All news stories published before April 2010 have been removed from this website, as has information about our strategies and aims under the previous government. This content can be viewed on the UK government web archive.

Information and guidance for applicants and others is still available on this website.

Source: UK Border Agency

www.immigrationmatters.co.uk

The Conservative leader took over the top job after the resignation of Gordon Brown last night following the breakdown of talks between Labour and the Liberals in a last ditched attempt to cobble together an alliance to keep him in power.

Mr Cameron, at 43 the youngest PM for 200 years, entered 10 Downing Street after travelling to Buckingham Palace to formally accept the Queen’s request to form the next government.

He said he aimed to form a “proper and full coalition” with the Lib Dems to provide “strong, stable government”.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will be deputy prime minister in the new government with other key cabinet positions going to Lib Dem MP’s as part of the deal which put Cameron into number 10.

In a speech outside his new Downing Street home, Mr Cameron said he and Mr Clegg would “put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and the national interest”. Source: BBC.

No Liberal amnesty as Tory ’immigration cap’ to go ahead

Nick Clegg’s Lib Dems may have influenced Conservative policy on key issues such as taxation and electoral reform, but early reports suggest that he has compromised on his immigration policies and will not stand in the way of David Cameron’s plans to restrict immigration.

The BBC’s Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg said that the Lib Dems have agreed to a cap on non-EU immigration and will almost certainly drop their policy to grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants.

However, in a surprise move the Lib Dems could be given up to 20 government jobs.

Unconfirmed BBC reports last night indicated that Liberal Democrat’s Chris Hulme may have been given the job of Home Secretary, an important senior ministerial position in the Home Office controlling areas such as the police, border security and controls and immigration (the UK Border Agency is a part of the Home Office).

But later this morning it was officially announced that Conservative MP Theresa May is to become the new Home Secretary, as well as Minister for Women and Equality.

William Hague has been appointed Foreign Secretary and former chancellor of the exchequer Ken Clark is to become the Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor. 

More appointments will be announced later today when the first full meeting of the coalition cabinet is expected to take place.

See also:

What does a hung Parliament mean for migrants?

Conservative policy on immigration – what can we expect from the election favourites?

www.immigrationmatters.co.uk

There are 650 seats contested at a General Election, the lion’s share of which have gone to either the Labour or Conservative parties for the last hundred years or so.

To win an election outright and form a Government alone, a party must gain at least 326 seats. But David Cameron’s Conservatives came agonisingly close with 306 seats (one more expected in a yet to be decided seat), with Labour gaining 258 and the Liberal Democrats 57. Other smaller parties gained 28 seats between them.

With the absence of single a party with an overall majority, as has been the case with Governments since Margaret Thatcher’s landslide in 1979, it will be more difficult for a Con-Lib or for that matter a Lab-Lib coalition Government to railroad anti-immigration policy onto the statutes. 

The two main party leaders, David Cameron or Gordon Brown, will have to form an alliance with the next largest party, Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats to put together a coalition government with a working majority.

With the Liberals holding the balance of power a coalition Government may be forced to take a more balanced approach to immigration.

Conservatives are traditionally tough on immigration and Labour has been desperately trying to ‘out-tough’ even the most hard-line Tories in a bid to win favour with an increasingly disgruntled electorate.

Nick Clegg’s insistence that an amnesty would be a sensible solution to the sticky question of what to do about the estimated 750,000 illegal immigrants in the UK may have cost his party votes – they won fewer seats in this election than in 2005. They are, however, the only party willing to face the facts that unless radical action is taken it will be virtually impossible to follow through on Labour and Conservative plans to find and deport 750,000 people.

General Election 2010 Results

See also:

UK to have a hung parliament

Hung Parliament: Brown and Cameron woo Lib Dems to form UK Government

UK to have a hung parliament – Liberals could influence immigration policy

There is a business case for UK amnesty, says London Parliamentary candidate

Conservative policy on immigration – what can we expect from the election favourites?

www.immigrationmatters.co.uk

Conservative leader David Cameron has reached out to the Liberal Democrats in an effort to form a government – after yesterday’s UK general election resulted in the first hung parliament since 1974.

UK to have a hung parliament – Liberals could influence immigration policy

With most seats declared in the UK General Election, it looks certain that the leading party, David Cameron’s Conservatives, will not win enough seats to gain an overall majority and form a government.

There is a business case for UK amnesty, says London Parliamentary candidate

Gene Alcantara, Independent Parliamentary Candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn, believes there is a real business case for a form of amnesty or regularisation programme for the estimated 750,000 illegal immigrants currently in the UK.

Conservative policy on immigration – what can we expect from the election favourites?

Although some of the polls are predicting an outright overall majority, when the British people cast their vote on 6 May, it is probably David Cameron’s Conservative party which will form the next Government. So what can we expect from David Cameron on immigration?

Parties clash over immigration in UK Election battle

Immigration continues to play a key role in the UK election debate as the main parties try to ‘out tough’ each other to win votes. But many of the services which we take for granted would grind to a halt without migrant workers.

Sorting out the UK immigration issues

The Times reports the economic hot topics in the general election have been the budget deficit and immigration. What are the economics of immigration? Britain has large inflows and outflows of people each year, and inflows have exceeded those leaving for some time. Thus the population is rising, with net immigration, rather than births and deaths, being the reason. This looks set to continue.

Tier 4 students switch to Tier 2 working visa before new rules hit

Filipina student, who came to the UK on a student visa, successfully obtains a 5 year Tier 2 working visa, which includes her husband as her dependant.

The leading Conservative party need to win at least 326 seats to form the next Government, but look set to gain around 308 seats according to exit polls.

It now looks certain that Britain will have a ‘hung’ parliament with no party gaining enough seats to hold a majority. 

This means that the two main party leaders, David Cameron or Labour’s current Prime Minister Gordon Brown, will have to make a pact with the next largest party, Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats to form a coalition government with a working majority.

In this case Nick Clegg, who favours an amnesty for illegal migrants and regional based migration, will have influence over government policy on a range of issues including immigration and electoral reform. For the first time since 1974 no one party will have a free reign or absolute power to change laws.

Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and former Immigration Minister Tony McNulty lost their seats following last year’s expenses scandal.

See also:

Parties clash over immigration in UK Election battle

Eastern European migration to the UK: full facts revealed

Gordon Brown calls pensioner questioning his immigration policies a ‘bigoted woman’

Nick Clegg defends amnesty policy

Clegg’s amnesty policy challenged in election TV debate

Liberal Democrat want amnesty for illegal immigrants, but will it work?

Immigration question kicks off TV election debate

www.immigrationmatters.co.uk

Gene has contributed the following article.

Immigration finally became an open subject of debate following the Labour Prime Minister’s dreadful mistake of calling an elderly white woman in Rochdale a “bigot”.  Now even the white population hopefully realises what the Labour Party and its government think of their feelings and their views, that is, very little and with condescension.  Interestingly Mrs Duffy was talking about Eastern European immigration, which is completely legal and about which the country can do nothing about as the UK is part of what is called the European Economic Area.  I am more concerned with the question of illegal immigration, and I put forward the argument that there is a business case for an amnesty.

“Amnesty” has become a hot word for the General Election 2010.  The Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg have espoused it, and it is enshrined in their manifesto.  They say they would allow illegal immigrants who have been in Britain for 10 years to “earn” British citizenship.  Apparently they want to give an amnesty to some 600,000 illegal immigrants in the UK.  David Cameron of the Conservative Party pounced on this in their last of 3 debates, accusing Mr Clegg of encouraging more illegal immigration by handing citizenship to more than 600,000 people, who will each bring one dependant each, making a total of 1,200,000 allowed in as a result.

But before anybody jumps up and down, it has to be remembered that it was the Conservative Mayor, Boris Johnson, who opened up a long-overdue but vital debate on illegal immigrants.  And even the Speaker of the House of Commons, another Conservative, supports the idea.

“Where people have been here a long time and have no prospect of being able to be sent back then an amnesty could be considered so that they can pay taxes and legally contribute to the British economy.”

- Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, London Mayoral Assembly, 2008

“Strangers Into Citizens has made a compelling case for a one-off regularisation for irregular migrants on humanitarian, economic, fiscal and administrative grounds. I hope that we can work together to build a fair and transparent immigration system.”

- John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons

The Labour Government had in fact introduced some forms of amnesty over the years, which they called by other names, presumably to avoid any backlash.  Back in 1998 they allowed a Concession for thousands of migrant domestic workers brought here by their employers to enable them to change employers, escape from slavery conditions, gain residence and eventually British citizenship.  More recently in 2007 they introduced the Asylum Case Resolution Scheme to deal with a massive backlog of hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers.  And of course we must keep in mind their open door policy enabled thousands more people, many potential illegal immigrants, to come in the last year alone. 

Those who lambasted the London Mayor went on about irresponsibility and naivety but seemed to be missing an important point:  that there is in fact a business case for the regularisation of illegal immigrants.  There are of course many humanitarian and economic reasons why people choose to come to the UK and become illegal, rather than stay where they were.  But let us not get emotional about the issue, and look at it as a business proposition.

The incoming Government now needs revenue more than ever, as a result of the various actions taken by the previous Labour Government to deal with the credit crunch, and if they ever hope to repay some of the debt they are piling on the British public.  Regularisation of unauthorized immigrants could actually provide an important additional source of funds.  Granting an amnesty now would bring in valuable income to the Treasury of almost £16.2bn at least over the next five years, and it would create a lot of goodwill in all communities. 

An amnesty would provide for regularisation of illegal migrants but we must not necessarily favour them over legal migrants, which means allowing them at least to be treated similarly say to the now defunct ‘Work Permit’ holders.  I know that many of those already in the country are probably already gainfully if illegally employed (for how else would they survive?).  I know this from my work as an immigration adviser/caseworker.  They might as well be made to pay taxes and National Insurance on their income.
They would not be given any extra privileges, which would simply upset those who came here legally.  They would be granted initially only a one year visa which they will need to renew every year up to five years during which time they would need to become productive members of society, and then gain indefinite leave to remain (ILR) or permanent residence (PR) at the end of that period (but bear in mind the UK Border Agency wants to lengthen the period before ILR or PR could be earned).  They would of course need to pass Life in the UK Test to gain ILR/PR, failing which they would only be granted annual extensions.  While they are on their amnesty years, they would not be entitled to any public benefits (again similar to those on legal annual renewals).  After one more year on ILR/PR (ie a total of 6 years legally working), they would then have earned the right to apply for British citizenship and all that that entails.

My projections (see table below) are based on the figures bandied about of 1,100,000 illegal immigrants in the UK (The Sun, 26/04/2010).  We could use the current personal UK Border Agency ILR/PR fee of £840 and the annual £475 for personal renewals, and say double these for amnesty applicants because they are a special case (of course it could even be higher as a punitive measure).  The UKBA could charge an initial £1,680 per person to start an application, bringing in over £1.68bn in the first year.  Annual renewals for a further four years with a more expensive final application in Year 5 would bring in annual revenues of £950m+.  This would equate in total to more than £6.2bn over the 5 year period.

We could assume then that the ‘amnestinians’ would start paying for NI and tax as soon as they are regularised and using an estimate of £2,000 per person this would bring in revenue of £2bn a year, or £10bn over the 5 years.   The expected fees, NI and tax paid by the amnestinians would actually bring in potential revenues to the nation’s coffers to the tune of over £16.2bn.  To this total could of course then be added the resultant massive savings in police/UKBA time and other direct expenses such as plane fares.  The National Audit Office estimated each forced removal cost on average of £11,000 which when multiplied by 1.1m would equal to £11bn in potential costs if all illegal aliens were deported. 

1,100,000 is a huge number.  It could be dealt with as a separate ten-year project to allow monitoring of the projected income, and all expenditures for the regularisation (eg staffing, office costs etc)  and to fight illegal entry at our borders could be charged to the project.  I suggest that at the end of the period, there would be a massive ‘profit’ which would prove the business case.

Staffing of the project would of course be the biggest cost.  If we spent just one day per amnestinian, it would require over 5,500 new staff to deal with all the applications in one year.  This also however means positive job creations for those in the UK who are legally allowed to work.  At £24k per staff member, that would cost £132m, plus the cost of housing the project.  The initial processing could of course be spread over 3 years or longer to reduce the pressure on the project, but it will need to show a steady upward trend in productivity.

More recently the government seemed intent and focussed on stopping illegal migration by deporting those they have already let in to the country, at huge expense.  But isn’t a more effective strategy to prevent people from coming into the country in the first place?  The government should not be terrorising those already in Britain, but instead they should be focussing their efforts on strengthening the role of  Entry Clearance Officers as the first line of defence against potential illegal migrants, as well as fortifying our borders, beginning with the French side of things, and intensifying our efforts against traffickers and the like.  In my work I meet genuine and legitimate migrants, but I have also met people who arrived in Britain unofficially, or with false passports, or who came as tourists but with no intention of going back. 

It should of course be made very clear by the incoming Government that this is the only amnesty they will ever provide, and that following regularisation of the current illegal immigrants the rules would get even tougher to prevent a repeat of this long-standing predicament.  A review could then be undertaken in 10 years time to evaluate how successful the scheme has been, and assess the way forward. 

Regularising 1,100,000 illegal migrants would also pay dividends for the Government that grants it.  The Labour Government is not too keen on this as they appear to be on the way out, but an incoming Conservative Government should take note.  The Libdems obviously are very aware of the political profit.  A lot of cultures believe in what is called “debt of gratitude” and no doubt this gratitude would manifest itself straightaway in better community relations, and in votes come next election time.  If the goodwill created by amnesty does not persuade, then the potential monetary savings and benefits surely demonstrates that there is indeed a business case for regularisation.  Until we do it, we would not really know.

Gene Alcantara

[Gene Alcantara is an OISC-registered Immigration Caseworker with Bison UK www.recruitnurse.com , and used to work as an Organisation & Management Consultant for the British Council.  He is running as an Independent Parliamentary Candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn.] – http://genealcantara.com

Related articles:

Conservative policy on Immigration – what can we expect from the election favourites?

Parties clash over immigration in UK Election battle

Eastern European migration to the UK: full facts revealed

Gordon Brown calls pensioner questioning his immigration policies a ‘bigoted woman’

Nick Clegg defends amnesty policy

Clegg’s amnesty policy challenged in election TV debate

Liberal Democrat want amnesty for illegal immigrants, but will it work?

Immigration question kicks off TV election debate

Katrina Legarda endorses parliamentary candidate immigration adviser Gene Alcantara

www.immigrationmatters.co.uk

Top Filipina Lawyer Katrina Legarda endorses Gene Alcantara, an Immigration Adviser who is running for Parliament in the UK General Election on 6 May.

Gene, a British Filipino who lives in London with his Wife and Daughter, is running as an independent candidate.

Gene has been a tireless champion of diversity and migrant rights for many years and now wants represent an authentic voice in any language. Gene speaks English, Filipino, Russian, Spanish and Polish.

He is up against the big party machines and will need all the support he can get. 

The full list of candidates are: 

www.immigrationmatters.co.uk

As Labour’s share of the overall vote slumped to an all time low, leaving them in third place behind UKIP (Untied Kingdom Independence Party), smaller parties like the Greens, UKIP and BNP were the beneficiaries. 

BNP leader, Nick Griffin was elected for the North West region while Andrew Brons picked up another BNP seat in Yorkshire and Humber, where it won 10% of the vote. 

Mr Griffin told the BBC that the BNP was not racist and had no problem with immigrants here legally and “contributing”, but gained votes from other parties because it “spoke openly about the problem of immigration.” 

Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman described the BNP result as “terrible”. 

Mr Griffin was elected to the European Parliament even though the BNP polled fewer votes in the region than it had in 2004 – but the slump in Labour support meant its share of the vote increased. 

Under the ‘proportional representation’ system used in the European elections, this meant that although the BNP came fifth in the vote in the region the party won a seat. 

Mr Griffin told the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme: 

“There’s a huge amount of racism in this country, overwhelmingly it is directed towards the indigenous British majority, which is one reason we’ve done so well in these elections.” 

He said “the indigenous majority [were] the second-class citizens in every possible sphere, not as a consequence of the immigrants themselves, but because our ruling elite has made them second-class citizens.” 

“The Labour Party, the Lib Dems and the Tories, by leaving the door to Britain open, has forced people to turn to a party which speaks openly about the problem of immigration and says that while there might be a few good things about it there’s also a lot of bad things.” 

The BNP won more than 120,139 votes in the Yorkshire region, slightly less than in 2004, but enough to take one of the six seats on offer in the region. 

The BNP targeted the North West during the campaign, having had earlier success in local council elections where the party won one of its three English county council seats in Burnley in Thursday’s elections.

The Conservatives were the main winners on the night taking a 27% share of the vote an 25 MEP seats (up 1). 

UKIP gained one seat and 16.5% of the vote beating Labour into third place with only 15.7% of the national vote. 

Despite the expenses scandal and expected backlash against the main parties, independent candidates and smaller parties did not gain any seats and in the main had disappointing results. 

Of the migrant candidates fighting seats in London, only Sri Lankan Tamil candidate, Jan Jananayagam, came close to gaining a seat, with just over 50,000 votes – more than the heavily backed Jury team and almost as many as the Christian Party-Christian Peoples Alliance. 

Gene Alcantara, the Filipino British Independent got just under 2000 votes, but was disappointed that more people from his own 250,000 strong Filipino community did not turn out to support him. 

Other independent candidates targeting migrant communities, such as Haroon Saad and Sohale Rahman, also suffered from voter apathy.

For full results see the BBC website.

Immigration Matters Comment

Whilst the BNP have no realistic chance of gaining power in the UK, the results do indicate that the British people are concerned about immigration, as well as the growth of European legislation and the Lisbon Treaty.

UKIP, standing on similar anti Europe and immigration policies pulled in 2.5 million votes.

Gordon Brown looks all but finished after these disastrous results. Tonight, the battered Prime Minister addressed his party in Parliament and early signs are that he has managed to hang on and rally MP’s support.

Labour have traditionally favoured a positive immigration policy and have recently introduced a points based system for migration.

David Cameron’s Conservative Party look certain to win the next general election, which could see a cap imposed on immigration and a general hardening of immigration policy.

If you need any immigration advice or help with Sponsorship or Work Permits, Visa or an appeal against a refusal please email:

info@immigrationmatters.co.uk or visit www.immigrationmatters.co.uk

Gene Alcantara, Independent MEP Candidate for London, discusses how London’s ethnic minorities can bring about a change in British politics.

European elections take place 4 June 2009.

www.genealcantara.com

www.immigrationmatters.co.uk

If you need any immigration advice or help with Sponsorship or Work Permits, Visa or an appeal against a refusal please email:

info@immigrationmatters.co.uk or visit www.immigrationmatters.co.uk

The BBC reports that the Communities Secretary and Minister of the State, Hazel Blears has sensationally resigned from Gordon Brown’s cabinet, increasing pressure on UK Prime Minister to step down. 

Her departure is the second top-level resignation on the eve of the European and English local elections. 

It led to stormy Commons scenes as Mr Brown denied his government was in “meltdown” and rejected calls for an immediate general election. 

Health Secretary Alan Johnson has been forced to issue a denial that he is ready to take over amid reports of a backbench plot - in political speak terms a sure sign that he about to do just that. 

Mr Johnson told the BBC: 

“He is doing the job and there is absolutely no one who could do that job better.” 

The BBC reports that is has seen a proposed letter from one Labour MP calling on Mr Brown to step down.

Never one to shy away from ‘kicking a man when he’s down’, Tory leader David Cameron said the Prime Minister was “in denial” and the communities secretary resigning on the eve of local government elections was a “direct challenge to his authority”. 

He said Mr Brown’s team was now “deserting him”, the government was “collapsing” and he urged the prime minister to “get down to the Palace, ask for a dissolution, call an election”. 

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg joined the growing calls for a general election: 

“It’s a tragedy that exactly at the time when people need help, need action, the country doesn’t have a government, it has a void. Labour is finished.” 

Ms Blears has been under fire over her expenses claims despite repaying £13,000 to the Inland Revenue, following allegations she avoided paying capital gains tax on a property sale. 

The Salford MP denied doing anything wrong but although Mr Brown described her claims as “totally unacceptable”, he did not take any further action against Ms Blears. 

Last month she launched what was seen as a thinly-veiled attack on Mr Brown in a newspaper article, criticising the government’s “lamentable” failure to get its message across. 

In an apparent jibe at the PM’s much-mocked appearance on You Tube, she said: 

“YouTube if you want to. But it’s no substitute for knocking on doors or setting up a stall in the town centre.” 

She was tipped for the axe in the forthcoming reshuffle, but has stolen the initiative from Mr Brown. 

Home Secretary (Home Office) Jacqui Smith, who also faced expenses criticism and went public on Tuesday with her decision to stand down, said she backed Mr Brown and denied Ms Blears was deliberately trying to undermine him. 

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson described the move as: 

“Deliberate, calculated and with intent. That is the only possible interpretation of Hazel Blears’ decision to resign today.” 

The European and Local elections take place in a few hours and Ms Blears timing can only be seen as a direct and planned attack on Gordon Brown’s leadership. 

Labour is running at their lowest popularity level in the polls since polls began, and are expecting nothing short of a disastrous result in tomorrow’s election. 

Meanwhile the smaller parties and independent MEP candidates are being overlooked by the media in a European Parliamentary election which has been overshadowed by the MP’s expenses scandal.

Five London independent MEP candidates, all from ethnic minority backgrounds, were ignored by the mainstream press and the BBC this week at their ‘no press’ press conference.  

Gene Alcantara, Haroon Saad, Sohale Rahman, Steven Cheung and Jan Jananayagam hope to buck the trend against independents as voters desert the main parties.

If you need any immigration advice or help with Sponsorship or Work Permits, Visa or an appeal against a refusal please email:

info@immigrationmatters.co.uk or visit www.immigrationmatters.co.uk