Leading article: An amnesty would be sensible
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A report from the Commons Home Affairs select committee suggests that there has been a "silent amnesty" to reduce the backlog of cases of refugees whose status has been left unresolved for years. Since 2006, when the Labour Home Secretary John Reid declared that the UK Border Agency was "not fit for purpose" that much maligned organisation has been working its way through 450,000 unresolved cases.
Just over 161,000 were told they could stay, 38,000 were deported, and 129,000 cases were classed as "errors". The statistic that drew the greatest condemnation from MPs is that 74,500 cases remained on file because officials do not where the people involved are. They may be in the UK, or they may have left, or died. The figure of 161,000 was considered by the MPs to be so high that it amounted to an amnesty, even if that word was never uttered by those responsible.
The supposed reason for avoiding the word is that it would be an invitation to people all over the world to flood into the UK, as if people suffering persecution from the world's nastier dictatorships are assiduous of the words used by Home Office ministers. The true reason is that it would take a very bold politician to risk the outcry that the anti-immigrant lobby would whip up at the first sign of softening of immigration rules.
But if there was a "silent amnesty" it was a sensible way to get out of the hole created by near breakdown of the Border Agency. It was not the fault of people who fled from persecution to the UK and who have waited for years to have their position clarified, that the agency was "not fit for purpose".
If the Government is to have an effective policy it must have an effective agency to carry it out. But like so many other public bodies, the Border Agency has been targeted in the treasury's relentless search for savings. It has not had a permanent head since the last chief executive changed jobs five months ago. Last November, it was announced that the agency's staff is to be cut by 5,000, out of 24,000 during this Parliament. This begs the answer whether the slimmed down agency will be "fit for purpose" four years hence.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments