@bbfarms.bsky.social
But people with ILR are not illegal: to the contrary, they have gone through legal processes. So the correction itself is problematic (a) in misrepresenting ILR and (b) in suggesting on that basis that only a slight adjustment of the claim is needed
February 1, 2025 at 2:36 PM
But people with ILR are not illegal: to the contrary, they have gone through legal processes. So the correction itself is problematic (a) in misrepresenting ILR and (b) in suggesting on that basis that only a slight adjustment of the claim is needed
But is there not another issue?
Saying the figure "ought to have been 1 in 13 based on the study's upper figure for irregular migrants, which includes children born in the UK w/irregular status, and, it is understood, those w/ILR" implies that people (or children, it's not clear) w/ILR are illegal.
Saying the figure "ought to have been 1 in 13 based on the study's upper figure for irregular migrants, which includes children born in the UK w/irregular status, and, it is understood, those w/ILR" implies that people (or children, it's not clear) w/ILR are illegal.
February 1, 2025 at 2:36 PM
But is there not another issue?
Saying the figure "ought to have been 1 in 13 based on the study's upper figure for irregular migrants, which includes children born in the UK w/irregular status, and, it is understood, those w/ILR" implies that people (or children, it's not clear) w/ILR are illegal.
Saying the figure "ought to have been 1 in 13 based on the study's upper figure for irregular migrants, which includes children born in the UK w/irregular status, and, it is understood, those w/ILR" implies that people (or children, it's not clear) w/ILR are illegal.
Any chance that Damian Kust might join you here?
January 13, 2025 at 11:17 PM
Any chance that Damian Kust might join you here?