Labour's U-turn on immigration.

A._Badger

BobQ wrote: »

Politicians find the policies on immigration difficult because of the racism endemic in parts of Britain. the worst kind are of course the closet racists who present their bile in terms of economic issues.

"Racist" = anyone who considers an open door immigration policy unwise. Best screamed as loud as possible so as to silence any possible dissent, however cogently argued.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

A._Badger wrote: »

"Racist" = anyone who considers an open door immigration policy unwise.

No.

Racist = anyone who claims we have an open door immigration policy, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

any possible dissent, however cogently argued.

Dressing up anti-immigrant propaganda under a "migrationwatch" banner does not make it a cogent argument.

Nor indeed does it make it any less racist.

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

Surely multiculturalism means embracing other countries 'unique' approaches to democracy....

I'm not sure I agree with this. Presumably the reason at least some people want to come to this country is precisely because it isn't the country they are coming here from? I hope that at least one of the main motivators for people to come is that we have a (sort of) democracy (no matter how rubbish it's better than most other systems going), and we have freedom of speech, civil liberties etc.

heathcote123

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Translation:

"We tried to do the right thing for the economy and country, but the working class proles who are our voter base are too thick and bigoted to understand why immigration is vital.

So now we're going to make confused statements and try to appeal to the xenophobe vote just like the Tories do, whilst not actually doing anything to cut immigration, because just like them we know we can't, but also like them we daren't admit it in public."

Lots of Love

The Millipede

Unusually for Milliband it was correct. Unskilled immigration actually was displacing their thick and bigoted core vote out of work. It would take a mastery of smoke and mirrors to claim otherwise.

It was good for others though. I think most of us benefited.

prowla

I think it is bizarre that the government would prefer for people to come here to work whilst unemployment is high.

The current unemployment figure is given at 2.6m (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117), with the jumber claiming JSA at 1.6m.

The official immigration since NuLab came to power in 1997 is 1.8m (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7737134.stm).

Of course, it is widely acknowledged that the official figures may be widely out and that nobody really knows the actual numbers.

But, assuming that people on JSA are really job seeking as opposed to long-term unemployed, the figures suggest an uncanny correlation between people moving here and people who live here needing a job.

Generali

As so often is the case, the Monster Raving Loony Party has the answer to immigration:

Regarding Immigration… Any Person who can prove that they or their descendants emigrated to the U.K before 55 A.D can stay. All the others will be repatriated to their original country. (Well we have to draw the line somewhere)

http://www.loonyparty.com/loony-archive/2010-general-election-manifesto/

michaels wrote: »

However it would not seem impossible to have a social security system that favours those with the longest links to the country?

I couldn't claim any benefits for 2 years after arriving in Australia. It seems reasonable to me that if you migrate somewhere except as a refugee then you should be expected to put in before you take out. If Mrs Generali had also been English then we would have had to pay for all health care (including emergency care) and for our kids' education for 2 years too.

Refugees have a slightly different status to my mind as they often have to leave pretty much everything behind (e.g. the Ugandan Asians, people escaping Communist Europe etc.) so are more likely to need financial help on arrival.

misskool

Itismehonest wrote: »

Someone (sorry, I was only half paying attention ) on TV today said that non-EU still make up 75% of all immigrants, though.

As has been said, we can't do much about the 25% EU.
Of course, as LIR has said, when the next batch of new entries to the EU join, we don't have to be quite so open-doored, though.

We do need immigration but we desperately need a sensible system for restricting numbers to those that are here to genuinely learn or fill positions which we can't/won't whilst stopping those who come in illegally or who overstay their visas.

The law which says we have to have paperwork/proof of nationality before we can deport is seriously flawed, too.

The problem is you can't change the law overnight (although the current govt have pushed a lot through in the last few year)

Lab allowed massive amounts of what they deemed highly skilled migrants with clear timelines for settlement when they arrived. All these have to be processed as many of the laws cannot be applied retrospectively. So the current set of laws will take about 3 years to be filtered through as the last set of skilled migrants (route closed last year) had to be in the country for 5 years before applying for settlement.

Policies take time to filter down so we shall see a serious drop of numbers in 2-3 years.

chewmylegoff

misskool wrote: »

The problem is you can't change the law overnight (although the current govt have pushed a lot through in the last few year)

Lab allowed massive amounts of what they deemed highly skilled migrants with clear timelines for settlement when they arrived. All these have to be processed as many of the laws cannot be applied retrospectively. So the current set of laws will take about 3 years to be filtered through as the last set of skilled migrants (route closed last year) had to be in the country for 5 years before applying for settlement.

Policies take time to filter down so we shall see a serious drop of numbers in 2-3 years.

Except change the law retrospectively is exactly what they did. I almost certain that OH had the goal posts for how long she needed to be here before she could get ILR moved on her twice whilst she was here (not on a highly skilled visa, she was sponsored).

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

As so often is the case, the Monster Raving Loony Party has the answer to immigration:

http://www.loonyparty.com/loony-archive/2010-general-election-manifesto/



I couldn't claim any benefits for 2 years after arriving in Australia. It seems reasonable to me that if you migrate somewhere except as a refugee then you should be expected to put in before you take out. If Mrs Generali had also been English then we would have had to pay for all health care (including emergency care) and for our kids' education for 2 years too.

Refugees have a slightly different status to my mind as they often have to leave pretty much everything behind (e.g. the Ugandan Asians, people escaping Communist Europe etc.) so are more likely to need financial help on arrival.

I don't think that is so different to the system here for non EU immigrants who have their visa stamped "no recourse to public funds" (I'm probably teaching you to suck eggs unless your OH has an EU passport on an ancestry basis). My OH was here for almost seven years (paying tax the whole time) before she was entitled to access benefits / non emergency medical care. Somewhat ironically she worked for the NHS providing non emergency services which she herself would have no access to if she needed them.

misskool

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Except change the law retrospectively is exactly what they did. I almost certain that OH had the goal posts for how long she needed to be here before she could get ILR moved on her twice whilst she was here (not on a highly skilled visa, she was sponsored).

I don't know on the sponsored visa but the ones who were on HSMP (highly skilled migrants programme) were initially offered settlement after 4 years, then the govt changed it to 5 years but they got the ruling overturned by a judicial review. So they are now very careful not to apply retrospectively.

The programme then changed to Tier 1 (highly skilled) which is now closed except for high wealth individuals.