Not true because there is no "evidence of illegal status" to supply.

That is nonsense. The Home Office didn't see any need to look for such evidence. It is in many cases perfectly possible to prove the circumstances of a migrant's arrival in this country, for a start. In the case of the Windrush generation that was prima facie evidence of their legal status here.

If the claim was that at some time in the past few decades they had spent sustained periods of time outside the country in a way that deprived them of legal status here, it would be perfectly possible to seek evidence that would prove that to be the case.

In some cases perhaps it might be seen as difficult or even impossible to find proof of someone's illegal status. In that case their right to stay would be recognised. If in some cases people would be granted that status when they were not entitled, that's how it goes. Better by far to err in that direction than the other way, as has been done till now.

It was much easier not to bother to seek that kind of evidence, and just demand that people had to produce some particular proof to confirm their legal status, while refusing to accept other forms of proof. But it was fundamentally unjust, as the government now belatedly admits. It was also almost certainly in breach of legally binding human rights legislation.