kowenicki said: Carl2291 said: I saw that too kowen. How dare a racist party have Sikh's voting for them! I'm sure you know... but guess who is at the top of the seikh's most hated people. muslims.  despise each other.

Yeaaah i know, i lived in Bradford for close to 13 years lol.

Still... It's funny to see though 

kowenicki said: Carl2291 said: kowenicki said: Carl2291 said: I saw that too kowen. How dare a racist party have Sikh's voting for them! I'm sure you know... but guess who is at the top of the seikh's most hated people. muslims.  despise each other.  Yeaaah i know, i lived in Bradford for close to 13 years lol. Still... It's funny to see though  I lived in Bingley for 2 years....

Never really been to Bingley.

As bad as Bradford is?

kowenicki said: FootballFan said: Ok fine nobody comment on how funny it is! Quite funny... although a little bit one sided. On a more amazing note.... I have just seen the BNP election broadcast.. WOW!!! hey... at least they are honest! lol. oh... and they had a bloody seikh speaking up for them....  o.O Priceless.

Yeah I saw it to. I don't think it's that they are a particularly racist party but just more of a islamophobic one. Hence why they have support (apparently) from 1,000 Sikhs and Hindus presumably most of them aren't white.

I think one of the conditions of the amnesty is that they have to work and pay taxes.

You've raised some good points there and I'll have a go at trying to tackle them. Apologies for the long reply but it's a fairly complicated issue (and you've forced me to do some reading)!

I guess just to add to your first point this is very difficcult as no one really has a clue about the number of people who would eventually benefit from this scheme due to lack of definitive numbers of illegal immigrants, not knowing how many of them will qualify (speak english, >10 years ect) and whether spouses/families will be allowed to then come to the country.

It might help to breifly look at the other options to an amnesty to put any costs into perspective. If we try to find and deport the illegal immigrants living in Britain then according to a leading think tank (albeit a centre-left one), IPPR, it will take us 20 years and cost £5Bn (based on 500,000 immigrants) so certainly not a cheap option.

I would disagree with your claim that illegal immigrants cost the state nothing (even if we were to drop any attempts and associated costs with to find and deport them). These immigrants could end up involved in crime and there are the obvious costs involved with that. In fact, if they are here illegally they must rely on either charity or crime (whether it's active crime or illegal employment) in order to survive. Therefore I would argue that there are significant costs involved with the 'do nothing' approach, although admittedly I couldn't guess a figure.

If the amnesty were to go ahead then those eligible would be allowed to work and therefore help to generate wealth and pay taxes contributing to the economy. As you point out this will likely generate a cost for the state upfront but I suppose the idea is that long term it will reduce costs and generate wealth/taxes.

On the point of legal workers losing their job or being denied a job vacancy, there have a number of studies which have shown that this type of amnesty actually increase the labour demand due to factors icluding employers unwilling to pay higher wages for legalised workers and a high demand for irregular work.

It has also been suggested that by reducing the underground economy through an amnesty you will in fact reduce one of the causes of illegal immigration (the underground economy is thought to be a cause rather than effect of illegal immigration). Obviously it's not quite that simple as an amnesty would open up new legal family ties and networks as well as perhaps encourage other family members/friends to come illegally and so potentially could further increase undocumented immigration (as has been found in studies from the US, although there is a lack of data for the EU on the issue).

One of the sources I used which links to others (a good read if you're interested)

http://www.immigrationmatters.co.uk/4321.html

@Kowenicki

You pointed out some issue that need to be carefully looked into regarding the Lib Dem proposal but would you not agree that the Tory plan of an immigration cap is an unnecessarily restrictive policy that could potentially harm business and damage universities both financially and academically? I'm not arguing that immigration should be uncontrolled but a definitive cap seems to be a headline grabber rather than a well thought out policy to me. The points system could be amended as required to control the flow of immigration on a flexible level, both in terms of absolute numbers and required skills.

kowenicki said: @crazyhorse I prefer a points system based on need if I am honest. I dont favour an amnesty though. I am undecided about a cap... but as you say a points system is effectively a cap... as the criteria can be moved and toughened/weakened as the demand for labout/skills in certain fields moves. Australian policy on immigration is tough and often criticised by human rights groups.... must be effective then. btw I had a lib dem canvasser at my door the other day... useless. I asked the above question... to her too, no response.. didnt have a clue. Asked about defence and unilateralism... no clue. asked about the EU and its common fiscal policy (currency and interest rates) and did she think it worked... I dont think she understood the question. unreal.

I had the same problem with a "Green" person the other day. I couldn't believe it!

What I mean is I don't think they have to go on benefits because they have to work and pay taxes to become legal.  I'm really bad at explaining myself, heres an article which explains it better http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/lib-dems-illegal-immigration-amnesty.html 

Having said this though I don't know where all these people are going to get jobs. 

kowenicki said: @crazyhorse I prefer a points system based on need if I am honest. I dont favour an amnesty though. I am undecided about a cap... but as you say a points system is effectively a cap... as the criteria can be moved and toughened/weakened as the demand for labout/skills in certain fields moves. Australian policy on immigration is tough and often criticised by human rights groups.... must be effective then. btw I had a lib dem canvasser at my door the other day... useless. I asked the above question... to her too, no response.. didnt have a clue. Asked about defence and unilateralism... no clue. asked about the EU and its common fiscal policy (currency and interest rates) and did she think it worked... I dont think she understood the question. unreal.

Definately the best solution in my opinion. I guess one positive with a cap is that is 'commits' the government (if such a thing can actually happen) to keeping immigration levels at a certain limit. Although if managed properly (yeah, yeah I know ) a non-cap, points based system would act the same way and in a more flexible manor.

I'm undecided on the amnesty, originally thought it was a good idea but now not so sure. Although after reading up a little I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as some in the media would have us believe. Would consider myself fairly neutral on the policy now.

Haha, I wonder how many canvassers of any parties know their policies very well. To be honest, I think it is a real concern with some Lib Dems candidates. As they're a much smaller party than the other 2 and yet still field a candidate in every constituency there will inevitiably be some who are comparatively much weaker than their opponents (luckily our Lib Dem is pretty good )

final debate is on Thursday on the Economy, should be interesting, from what I know of there policies, I like the Lib Dems ideas on the economy best and the Conservatives least, Labour are meh, for me, they are all too capitalist...

gotta laugh at the hypocracy of Cameron, has a go at other parties for fearmongering and then spends the next week doing nothing but fearmonger on a hung parliament, pathetic and transparent.