A report published by the House of Lords

A report published by the House of Lords, 'A Common Policy On Illegal Immigration', makes interesting reading and puts a few holes in the Home Office's concept of why people come to the UK. It also moots a call for an amnesty for a "growing underclass of people" who cannot be removed, whether failed asylum seekers or 'illegal' migrants. And has a sneaking suspicion that the largest number of 'illegal' immigrants coming to the UK are from the USA.

. . . . . 85. No EU country is able to remove every illegal immigrant. In the United Kingdom the main focus of attention is on failed asylum seekers, who represent only one category of illegal immigrants.

. . . . . 86. Some form of regularisation is unavoidable if a growing underclass of people in an irregular situation, who are vulnerable to exploitation, is not to be created.

. . . . . In the context of the historical movements of people the concept of illegal immigration is a relatively recent one. It was only when States were in a position to formulate rules governing the entry and residence of foreigners and to enforce them that contravention of those rules-and consequently the concept of illegal immigration-became possible.

21. The nature of illegal immigration varies between different countries. In the United Kingdom public debate and policy responses focus almost exclusively on asylum seekers, to the point where the term is sometimes used almost synonymously with illegal immigrants.

. . . . . more could and should be done across the EU to increase the opportunities for legal immigration in order to meet identified labour shortages.

. . . . . There is little evidence that illegal immigration is a national security issue in terms of providing cover for terrorists,

. . . . . 47. Governments need to manage migration in a way that controls illegal immigration effectively. But in doing so they must not forget that they are dealing with people, most of whom are motivated simply by a desire for a better life for themselves and their families; and in devising measures to control illegal immigration they must ensure that they scrupulously observe their human rights obligations.

. . . . . it is disappointing that the Government, while enthusiastically endorsing measures designed to improve the enforcement of immigration controls, have consistently chosen not to opt into positive immigration measures, such as those relating to admission for employment and self-employment; family reunion; and protection for the victims of trafficking.[70] A truly common policy needs to embrace both positive and enforcement elements and the Committee believes that United Kingdom interests would be better served by such an approach.

. . . . . Australia. There overstayers (58,748 in 2000,[23] of whom British citizens were the single largest national category) greatly outnumber other categories of illegal immigrants-those arriving unauthorised by air (1695 detected in 2000) and sea (4,175).[24] It is quite likely that a similar pattern exists in the United Kingdom with the largest number of illegal immigrants in the widest sense coming from countries such as the United States which provide the largest number of visitors.