No more immigrants.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
legaleagle  04 Aug 15 10.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Aug 2015 10.42pm
The only situation where I would relax that is in cases of asylum where I would take a set number......This country has always believed in political asylum.
You can't have a "cap" since the whole point is there will be crises where numbers legitimately qualifying will rise and periods where numbers will fall. The number in 2014,for example, was way below that in 2002. Many people don't realise that often people seeking asylum are here legally beforehand,say as international students (a big economic benefit to the economy now and to trade in the future).Something kicks off at home making it non-tenable for them to return.A good example being a couple of friends of mine from (different religious groups/ethnicity) in former Yugoslavia.They were here;it all kicked off and they were at serious risk of all sorts if they returned purely because of their religion/ethnicity.Classic basis for seeking and granting asylum.There were loads like them at the time.You cant simply say,we've processed 10,000 so sorry tough luck to number 10,001.The reality of numbers and effect of granted asylum (adding about 0.02% to the population) is so much less than you might think (or think from reading some rags) and I know from advising asylum seekers in the past its really not generally too easy to be granted it. Edited by legaleagle (04 Aug 2015 10.57pm)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Tom-the-eagle Croydon 04 Aug 15 11.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Aug 2015 10.29pm
In short, on immigration the 'real left'....The 'Corbyn' left if you will.....Which to be honest is the core political position of most Labour activists, they have completely lost the argument on immigration with the British public. The people who actually have to live within the society that they want...the vast majority.... don't like their beliefs on immigration. So what you get in discussions with them is the old, 'wiggling on a pin head'.....arguments around the edges of the issue to avoid the central points......And of course good old fashioned denial. There are some old Labour people who recognise the fact that the working class suffer for these policies and that the only real winners are actually those looking for wage controls and corporations..... but they are drowned out by this bizarre fear within activists not to be regarded as agreeing with Ukip or being regarded as a racist. The left today are in a totally ridiculous position on immigration......Left behind by reality. Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Aug 2015 10.29pm) Good post Stirling, the points you raise are the some of the very reasons why Ukip are now mopping up disenfranchised Labour voters. The media often believe that Ukip are predominantly a threat to the Tory’s but the way I see it, Ukip could become the new labour ( I don’t mean the new new labour!)
"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Stirlingsays 04 Aug 15 11.09pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 04 Aug 2015 10.54pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Aug 2015 10.42pm
The only situation where I would relax that is in cases of asylum where I would take a set number......This country has always believed in political asylum.
You can't have a "cap" since the whole point is there will be crises where numbers legitimately qualifying will rise and periods where numbers will fall. The number in 2014,for example, was way below that in 2002. Many people don't realise that often people seeking asylum are here legally beforehand,say as international students (a big economic benefit to the economy now and to trade in the future).Something kicks off at home making it non-tenable for them to return.A good example being a couple of friends of mine from (different religious groups/ethnicity) in former Yugoslavia.They were here;it all kicked off and they were at serious risk of all sorts if they returned purely because of their religion/ethnicity.Classic basis for seeking and granting asylum.There were loads like them at the time.You cant simply say,we've processed 10,000 so sorry tough luck to number 10,001.The reality of numbers and effect of granted asylum (adding about 0.02% to the population) is so much less than you might think (or think from reading some rags) and I know from advising asylum seekers in the past its really not generally too easy to be granted it. Edited by legaleagle (04 Aug 2015 10.57pm) I don't really agree with much of that. I'd maybe have exception with the cases of individuals already here in situations...... like the Bosnian war when that was kicking off...for example. I don't agree with the idea that this country should open its doors to all asylum cases...We currently are strict with asylum on how we operate it...I know the left would like to change that of course and expand the numbers..But just as we aren't the world's policeman, we aren't the world's saviour either. Asylum is immigration by another name....I'm alright with that....But every nation should control its own borders and Asylum comes under that same heading... so of course I believe in the numbers game.....With perhaps some wiggle room dependent upon world realities. Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Aug 2015 11.20pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| legaleagle 04 Aug 15 11.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Aug 2015 10.45pm
One that has reduced immigration.....That's the answer given. It isn't 'society' you believe in I know that.....I agree with the majority. How it is achieved......Well, that is open to debate. My first point would be that the relevant numbers are net migration when assessing overall national/international situation,which is different to just looking at immigration,though I accept the net figure has risen.And don't forget groups like school kids and students from overseas,who get added into the figures. I believe in free movement for EU nationals as a part of the overall benefits to the UK of EU freedom of movement of goods,services and labour.I know you disagree,but lets leave that to one side. I don't disagree with immigration controls in relation to non EU nationals.At present, you will obviously factor in that there are pretty strong immigration rules.I posted the link of what they are earlier. Should immigration go down,say next year or the year after,under free EU movement of labour and say the current rules,would I bemoan it as a matter of principle ? No.Do I think,as part of the big picture globally,it is a crisis for the UK if the current position remains and net immigration rises next year and/or the year after,no...but that's a little different to saying i/we think only rising immigration is good so we should actively now change the current rules to actively seek to increase it... I might seek to change people's perception of why they think their world/economic situation is not what they would like away from any over-focus on immigration,but that's a separate point,though not invalid as to why some people might think as you say they do or whether there are other factors apart from economic/social effects of immigration per se that might impinge on their reasons for such view. So,its not as simplistic as saying "people on the left" (and I know you don't stupidly lump in all you think of as being on the left as one bloc,any more than the right wing spectrum is)want a society premised on increased immigration as a sole core raison d'etre. How do you think (if you do) the current immigration rules re non EU nationals should be "strengthened" in support of your "goal"? You might want to not totally ignore points like the change being introduced in 2016 of a blanket £35,000 income threshold being necessary before settlement is granted to non-EU economic migrant nationals,not withstanding calls from the Royal College of Midwives of the likely NHS staffing crisis ensuing. Edited by legaleagle (05 Aug 2015 12.16am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 04 Aug 15 11.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
While we obviously differ in how we think countries should view immigration legal, yours is a well written post....It's a bit late for me now to give it a proper reply but I'll write a reply tomorrow. Get a good kip mate. I'm off to the land of nod.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 04 Aug 15 11.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Aug 2015 11.09pm
I don't really agree with much of that. I'd maybe have exception with the cases of individuals already here in situations like the Bosnian war. I don't agree with the idea that this country should open its doors to all asylum cases...We currently are strict with asylum on how we operate it...I know the left would like to change that of course and expand the numbers..But just as we aren't the world's policeman, we aren't the world's saviour either. Asylum is immigration by another name....I'm alright with that....But every nation should control its own borders and Asylum comes under that same heading... so of course I believe in the numbers game.....With perhaps some wiggle room dependent upon world realities. .................................................... Its perhaps strange you don't agree with "much of it" since you said you view asylum in a different light to immigration generally not least because of our history of granting refuge and would be more flexible in that regard than immigration generally.The main difference being you'd have a cap,and me arguing it should be more flexible as at present. You say the current situation re asylum (which hasn't a cap) is strict.Nothing I wrote suggested any change from now.You then seem to suggest I am arguing for something different, opening doors to "all asylum cases". That seems to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what current policy actually is. We currently under your "strict policy" grant asylum to anyone (and all) qualifying,that includes all people qualifying who apply.So weird that if you think it strict now,and think asylum should have greater flexibility than immigration generally,you want to make something stricter you already think is strict. But there it is,and thanks for explaining.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 04 Aug 15 11.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Fazil Bawlty at 04 Aug 2015 6.50pm
You really need to distinguish the difference between immigrants (mostly economic, financial migrants), and refugees / asylum seekers, driven towards the UK due to political and social hardship. Many of those in Calais (such as the reported 13 y/o old orphan who has led his 8 y/o brother to safety only to be denied and victimised as an 'immigrant'). Fact is, the UK is only ranked 16th out of the 28 EU members in the rate of refugees coming in. Only 0.24% of our population are refugees. We take in fewer than most EU countries. It's disgusting that parties such as UKIP have made this a prominent area of UK politics. The 7000 or so people coming into Britain from Calais - most of whom will work their fingers to the bone to survive and pay into our economy - shouldn't be vilified but cherished as they prove the success of our nation which has historically helped those plagued with political hardships and violence abroad. We're a tolerant, liberal society, grow up. We're 3rd in the table in the Calais thread. 7,000 would be an overnight 0.1% increase to the population of London. Figures are great, so it would be nice if you could use some to prove most (51%?) of migrants will work. Even if 7,000 jobs could be found, they're not going to be legitimate, owing to employment restrictions and not least the language barrier. At least housing won't be a problem with all those empty properties owned by hard working residents. They can work as hard as they want but more has already gone to traffickers that the taxman will ever see. You talk about the distinction but you don't appear to have made it. Instead combining the notion that they will work hard with that of their plight. We've got success stories - 'Immigrant entrepreneurs found 14% of UK start-up businesses' (or should I refer instead to 'Entrepreneur' visa scheme tightened after new scam uncovered'?) - but all we can really ever hope to do is break even. There's only ever going to be an increase in unemployment and homelessness for the foreseeable future. Quite a quick one to work out, based on the fact that there aren't new jobs and homes created for every person that arrives with our economic growth as it is.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 05 Aug 15 1.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote johnfirewall at 04 Aug 2015 11.37pm
Figures are great, so it would be nice if you could use some to prove most (51%?) of migrants will work. Even if 7,000 jobs could be found, they're not going to be legitimate, owing to employment restrictions and not least the language barrier. At least housing won't be a problem with all those empty properties owned by hard working residents. They can work as hard as they want but more has already gone to traffickers that the taxman will ever see. You talk about the distinction but you don't appear to have made it. Instead combining the notion that they will work hard with that of their plight. We've got success stories - 'Immigrant entrepreneurs found 14% of UK start-up businesses' (or should I refer instead to 'Entrepreneur' visa scheme tightened after new scam uncovered'?) - but all we can really ever hope to do is break even. There's only ever going to be an increase in unemployment and homelessness for the foreseeable future. Quite a quick one to work out, based on the fact that there aren't new jobs and homes created for every person that arrives with our economic growth as it is.
Recent immigrants were 45% less likely to claim benefits or tax credits than the general non-migrant UK population.Their research also indicated that non EEA migrants were less likely to claim benefits/tax credits than the general non migrant population. I realise that for some nothing will convince them that all migrants are not benefit seeking "scroungers", or for that matter that the UK is not refugee heaven number one intended destination.But for anyone interested in input into a meaningful and balanced discussion,that research would suggest a lot of migrants will work. In terms of "asylum application" figures,the Eurostat figures for 2014-15 (ec.europa.eu)give an indication.We were sixth position out of 26 EU countries with 31,000 applications,compared to the "real big boys",Germany with 212,000,Hungary 71,000,Italy 68,000 and France 58,000. Bear in mind that's applications,not people actually granted asylum.According to UK government figures (gov.uk) ,there were 24,000 asylum applications in 2014(as opposed to over 80,000 in 2002)Out of 19,000 initial decisions given when an applicant's application had been assessed,asylum was only granted in 8,000 cases.90% of applications came from people already in the UK as opposed to those claiming it when entering.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davenotamonkey 05 Aug 15 3.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 05 Aug 2015 1.03am
Quote johnfirewall at 04 Aug 2015 11.37pm
Figures are great, so it would be nice if you could use some to prove most (51%?) of migrants will work. Even if 7,000 jobs could be found, they're not going to be legitimate, owing to employment restrictions and not least the language barrier. At least housing won't be a problem with all those empty properties owned by hard working residents. They can work as hard as they want but more has already gone to traffickers that the taxman will ever see. You talk about the distinction but you don't appear to have made it. Instead combining the notion that they will work hard with that of their plight. We've got success stories - 'Immigrant entrepreneurs found 14% of UK start-up businesses' (or should I refer instead to 'Entrepreneur' visa scheme tightened after new scam uncovered'?) - but all we can really ever hope to do is break even. There's only ever going to be an increase in unemployment and homelessness for the foreseeable future. Quite a quick one to work out, based on the fact that there aren't new jobs and homes created for every person that arrives with our economic growth as it is.
Recent immigrants were 45% less likely to claim benefits or tax credits than the general non-migrant UK population.Their research also indicated that non EEA migrants were less likely to claim benefits/tax credits than the general non migrant population. I realise that for some nothing will convince them that all migrants are not benefit seeking "scroungers", or for that matter that the UK is not refugee heaven number one intended destination.But for anyone interested in input into a meaningful and balanced discussion,that research would suggest a lot of migrants will work. In terms of "asylum application" figures,the Eurostat figures for 2014-15 (ec.europa.eu)give an indication.We were sixth position out of 26 EU countries with 31,000 applications,compared to the "real big boys",Germany with 212,000,Hungary 71,000,Italy 68,000 and France 58,000. Bear in mind that's applications,not people actually granted asylum.According to UK government figures (gov.uk) ,there were 24,000 asylum applications in 2014(as opposed to over 80,000 in 2002)Out of 19,000 initial decisions given when an applicant's application had been assessed,asylum was only granted in 8,000 cases.90% of applications came from people already in the UK as opposed to those claiming it when entering. Oh, a lovely report from an EU-funded research group. The co-author of which predicted 5,000-13,000 Poles would emigrate to the UK. How did those figures work out then? Here's the rebuttal to that report: Meanwhile, via a non-partisan, non governmental body, and authored by a Cambridge Economics Professor: (as posted previously, p66 for conclusions, but much more in there than the following): "The focus of this report has been on the economic and demographic consequences of large scale immigration. These consequences are mostly negative for the existing population of the UK and their descendants, although there may be some minor benefits." "If many of the immigrants fail to get jobs, or if they end up in low skill jobs or displace native workers, large-scale immigration will have a negative impact on GDP per capita and on government finances. Thus, the impact could be positive or negative but either way it is unlikely to be very large." I will deal with your laughable "but we already have a points-based immigration policy" later, ditto your 'I'm going to brush 50% of immigration policy under the carpet "because EU"' when it's not so late.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 05 Aug 15 8.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 04 Aug 2015 10.47pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 04 Aug 2015 10.36pm
Quote Kermit8 at 04 Aug 2015 10.33pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 04 Aug 2015 10.23pm
Quote Kermit8 at 04 Aug 2015 10.20pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 04 Aug 2015 10.08pm
Quote Kermit8 at 04 Aug 2015 10.05pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Aug 2015 9.32pm
Quote Kermit8 at 04 Aug 2015 8.45pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Aug 2015 8.42pm
Kermy only speaks for a minority of people....like the rest of the open door immigration supporters on here. 75 percent in England want reduced immigration....Hell even in Scotland.....It's 58 percent.....That's even with their far left nationalists in charge dibbling out their anti Ukip waffle. They don't even represent the real views of the Scottish on the issue......God forbid what the numbers would be if more foreigners actually wanted to live in Scotland.
We have open door immigration in relation to the EU. So are you now saying you're against 'freedom of movement'? Because that is open door and that's what I'm referring to.
Or is it a one-way street you want? What is your immigration policy then Kermit? Why do we need any sort of immigration controls?
Take it from there really. It is very entertaining having you and legaleagle wriggling away from answering very straightforward questions. Take note everyone and bear in mind when you read their next sanctimonious posts on immigration.
Are you referring to South Africans and Zimbabweans of all ethnic origins, or just the white ones?
We have no choice but to let legal immigrants stay. Why do you want to deport legal immigrants? Why from those two countries in particular? Why pick on immigrants that are of a particular ethnic group in the main? You say there are "pressure points on our services" - which services do you think are under pressure? (As always) it would also be useful to know what your immigration policy is, and your view as to whether we need any sort of immigration controls, and is so, what they should be.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 05 Aug 15 9.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
^^^^ Read my reply to Stirling's post re:EU freedom of movement. That'll answer your question about policy. Beyond the EU borders we do have strict immigration control which I agree with. You can't just legally turn up and live here like the Zims and Springboks do unless you tick a few required boxes. It is not the free for all you imagine it to be in that head of your's. So what is your immigration policy beyond that of a Stalinist state?
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 05 Aug 15 9.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote davenotamonkey at 05 Aug 2015 3.52am
Oh, a lovely report from an EU-funded research group. The co-author of which predicted 5,000-13,000 Poles would emigrate to the UK. How did those figures work out then? Here's the rebuttal to that report: Meanwhile, via a non-partisan, non governmental body, and authored by a Cambridge Economics Professor: (as posted previously, p66 for conclusions, but much more in there than the following): "The focus of this report has been on the economic and demographic consequences of large scale immigration. These consequences are mostly negative for the existing population of the UK and their descendants, although there may be some minor benefits." "If many of the immigrants fail to get jobs, or if they end up in low skill jobs or displace native workers, large-scale immigration will have a negative impact on GDP per capita and on government finances. Thus, the impact could be positive or negative but either way it is unlikely to be very large." I will deal with your laughable "but we already have a points-based immigration policy" later, ditto your 'I'm going to brush 50% of immigration policy under the carpet "because EU"' when it's not so late.
But,lets take a look at some of your own biases. EU funding (so you say)of "research group" ,in fact University College London academics, equals: report must be dodgy. Attack on that report by academic funded by Civitas, free market think tank,ideologically of the right and with its roots in that think tank incubator of Thatcherism the Institute of Economic Affairs: neutral by definition and no problem at all. Lord Harris, enobled by Maggie and who had led the IEA and had spoken of Rupert Murdoch as the "saviour of what we used to know as Fleet Street",was Civitas' chairman and a leading light in "setting its direction of travel" Surely you don't have double standards depending on whether you agree with the academic in question or not? Presumably as a "neutral" observer,you also took the trouble to familiarise yourself with the authors' of the first report's rebuttal of Stones "critique" and the PR spin put out about it by (that ever so impartial,restrained and neutral organisation) Civitas? Here it is: "In conclusion, we welcome constructive comments on our analysis. We are pleased that our report is so thoroughly publicly scrutinised, and we believe that this interchange will help improve the way we inform the public debate on this important and sensitive issue. However, we reject the offensive tones used by Civitas’ press release, and we believe that if accusing someone of "schoolboy errors", as done by Civitas’ director David Green, you ought to be able to point to more actual errors". Do also look at this November 2014 journal paper: "We investigate the fiscal impact of immigration on the UK economy, with a focus on the period since 1995. Our findings indicate that, when considering the resident immigrant population in each year from 1995 to 2011, immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) have made a positive fiscal contribution, even during periods when the UK was running budget deficits, while Non-EEA immigrants, not dissimilar to natives, have made a negative contribution. For immigrants that arrived since 2000, contributions have been positive throughout, and particularly so for immigrants from EEA countries. Notable is the strong positive contribution made by immigrants from countries that joined the EU in 2004." No doubt Civitas have commissioned a critique of this too. As for "I'm going to brush 50% of immigration policy under the carpet" that's a little silly.I've made clear I agree with freedom of goods,services and labour within the EU.I respect others don't.But that's its own huge topic involving far more than just immigration needing its own thread.,so it is not illegitimate to make points in this thread relating to non EU migration,particularly given the present heated debate here re immigration stems from non EU migrant matters in Calais and the lengthy thread on that.. I look forward to reading your critique of my reference to the UK's non EU migrant "points-like" rules. Perhaps you'd start with reference to the actual immigration rules,which I posted a link to?
Edited by legaleagle (05 Aug 2015 9.57am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.