Here's why I don't think immigration will fall following Brexit

lisyloo

always_sunny wrote: »

Possibly but in reality even in countries that already have those sort of system (Canada, Australia, etc) it doesn't work that way either. The Uk is too big (population size) to scrutinise quotas to that granularity. The costs would be prohibitive.

On what basis are you saying it doesn't work in Canada/Australia?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

This will mean all those of us who earn above average and pay tax to cover the cost of NHS cleaners, care workers etc and who purchase things supploied by low paid workers like all shop workers wil be worse off.

No.

Everyone will relatively quickly be worse off except possibly the very lowest paid 10% or 20% (if we really are stupid enough to create artificial labour shortages), and in the long run they would be worse off too.

The economic growth fuelled by migration has increased wages for everyone above the lowest paid quintile - so around 80% of the population - and the bottom earning 20% have been fully compensated by minimum wages increasing much faster than inflation and the increase in the tax free allowance.

Those giveaways to the bottom 20% have to be paid for by the top 80%.

And if you then go on to decrease competitiveness, decrease economic growth, decrease real earnings, decrease the propensity of 80% of the population to spend, then that bottom earning 20% are going to be in real trouble sooner rather than later.

I contend that it is fairer.

You can contend anything you like.

It doesn't make you any less wrong on this point.

Hamish may only be interested in total GDP, I also think about GDP per head and income distribution

GDP has been rising, GDP per head has been rising, and income inequality has been decreasing.

Current migration levels have demonstrably not led to these factors worsening in recent years - just the opposite in fact.

and also quality of life and whether this is impacted by unplanned population density increases.

Oh dear.... Back to this nonsense again.

The UK is virtually empty.

I won't disagree we have some areas with overly dense population - but that is entirely our own fault for trying to cram 65m people into just 4% of our landmass for 90% of their lives - and housing them in just 1.1% of it.

There is simply no need to concrete over the countryside, or bulldoze areas of beauty, just use another 1% and there would be abundant land for 100 years of population growth.

always_sunny

lisyloo wrote: »

On what basis are you saying it doesn't work in Canada/Australia?

On the basis of reality; in Canada and Australia immigration levels are much higher than in the UK. Yes both countries are much bigger but in effect habitable areas are fairly limited.
Both countries have 'controlled immigration' as you cannot waltz in, with "tough rules", point system, etc but again, in reality it is relatively easy to get a visa and that includes low skill workers. Why? Because immigration is needed, cannot be stopped and will continue, economies cannot be held for ransom from indigenous demanding higher wages so they (CA/AU) import people willing to work at the right price. No one is going to pay someone in Grimsby £20/hour to fillet that fish. Unless of course, those £20 are worth EUR8/USD9.

Is there a single country (let's keep North Korea out of the picture) that has controlled immigration with low level of immigrants where the indigenous population is paraded like demi-gods (only they get benefits, only they get housing, only they get health care, etc)?
In the Middle East, where locals have more rights than immigrants, immigration is at 40%~.
They do have natural resources and a small population base.

In Australia/Canada most visas lead to Permanent Residency/Citizenship.
I believe there is a huge disconnect between what some folks may want in term of immigration policies and reality and unless those gaps are addressed and people are brought back to reality it will continue to create discontent.

The UK, like pretty much all other countries is in a very similar predicament, immigration will simply continue and highly likely increase, whether people will believe it's controlled, thought-through, meeting checkboxes is fairly irrelevant if the end result is the same.