To be ashamed of Theresa May's slant on immigration

[thinkiamgoingcrazy]

No mention by her last night of the many positives. Or the net contribution that immigration makes to the coffers. Just a focus on bringing those numbers down because "that's what people want" and "for lots of reasons".

(Yes there have been issues in some places that have seen a huge increase in incomers, and where there has been a large downward pressure on wages. I am not saying nothing has to be done, but the first call IMO, should have been better investment in those areas and better monitoring and policing of unscrupulous employment practices.)

Instead, and since the Tory conference last year, the language that is being used is unfriendly, divisive and excluding. Also some of the policies that are being planned.

I think that it would benefit our country more, as well as the many contributing and hard working people from other countries who live and bring up their families here, if the rhetoric were more welcoming and inclusive. Not only that but people that we need are either leaving or not coming here. IMO that's embarrassing and shameful. How sad that numbers will go down / have been going down, because our brand is now inward looking and closed . I really don't think that this makes economic, political or social sense.

[makeourfuture]

I really don't think that this makes economic, political or social sense

The Tories don't think in those terms, only ideology.

[user1471452804]

It is questionable what contributions immigrants make, many are on low wages so pay litttle tax, when they have children the cost probably outweigh the taxes they pay when you allow for child benefits, schooling etc.

Some do not work and get welfare for some reason.

Then there is the massive demand to concrete over the countryside to build more houses, roads, etc.

The population of the UK is quite high enough

[ballerinabelle]

But it is what a lot of people want when you break it down to its simplest terms

[londonrach]

Think...where i live i cant see any positives. We have a huge increase of poles. Crime, traffic increased and its vvv hard to get a gp appt.

[Freddystarshamster]

Unless you're Teresa May, why would you be ashamed of her policies?

[strawberrygate]

The contribution is questionable.have a proper read up on it.

[thinkiamgoingcrazy]

Unless you're Teresa May, why would you be ashamed of her policies?

Because she's the current face of the UK. Because the things that are said at the highest levels legitimise a shift in the whole of society. She could be principled and lead by example, but she doesn't.

[Brokenbiscuit]

The Tories don't think in those terms, only ideology.

With Theresa May, I'm not even sure if it's about ideology. It seems to me that there is no right or wrong in her world, just what the far right "the people" want.

Well, I'm one of "the people", and I don't want the nastiness that she is peddling. Sadly, however, plenty of people do.

[thinkiamgoingcrazy]

Well, I'm one of "the people", and I don't want the nastiness that she is peddling.

Exactly how I feel Broken.

[SaucyJack]

"Our Nhs, our care sector, our farming, our hospitality sector, our universities are all reliant on immigrants and will all suffer massively without them."

I've just Googled, and there are roughly 1.5 million jobseekers in the UK.

Flooding the employment market with cheap labour benefits nobody but the bosses.

[Coffeethrowtrampbitch]

The contribution is not 'questionable'. EU immigrants are estimated to pay 45p per minute into the economy and 80% are in work.

They unquestionably contribute, but the money they pay isn't going to schools or hospitals, it goes to tax breaks for the wealthy (Shell Oil earned £7billion in 15/16, got a 216 million tax rebate. In Norway they paid over £2 billion tax for the same period).

The more you accept the explanation that immigration is responsible for all society's ills, the worse things are going to get because the real issues are being ignored.

[sonlypuppyfat]

Personally I think we have more than enough car washers and spud pickers

[IfYouGoDownToTheWoodsToday]

The Cons are after the UKIP vote, Cameron whilst still a cunt didn't speak like this.

[meadowlark3]

Yes, it seems it would be fairly easy to turn UK jobseekers into the jobs now occupied by immigrants, but you've got a bit of a labour issue: highly skilled immigrants working as doctors/nurses/technicians In the NHS and academics in our unis (none of whom are cheap labour) and unskilled farm labourers in rural areas. If you kick out all of these people (far more than 1.5 million) hard to see how the UK will fill the gaps, especially with Tory cuts to education. And it seems unlikely that a jobseeker in London will want to move to Somerset or for seasonal farm labour, no?

[olliegarchy99]

his
In an ideal world, we would be able to swap non thinking morons like you, user, for an immigrant with more sense.
that is an unacceptable personal statement and you should be ashamed of being abusive to someone who disagrees with you.

[histinyhandsarefrozen]

[cluelessnewmum]

I'm not anti immigration and certainly acknowledge that the NHS and many other services would collapse without immigrant workers, we definitely need it.

But I disagree with uncontrolled immigration, it does put a strain on resources and housing, and it means the population number goes up without necessarily even getting the skillsets you need.

Setting a target for immigration is wrong and likely to fail but if it was controlled and responsive to the gaps in skills our country has, I don't think most people would be so worried about it.

The contribution is not 'questionable'. EU immigrants are estimated to pay 45p per minute into the economy and 80% are in work.

That means 20% are not in work, which in my opinion is quite a lot when they will be using services and presumably receiving housing benefit etc.

[Brokenbiscuit]

Setting a target for immigration is wrong and likely to fail but if it was controlled and responsive to the gaps in skills our country has, I don't think most people would be so worried about it.

What do you think about the current controls on immigration, and what additional controls would you add? (Obviously, I'm talking about non-EU immigration, as EU immigration will no doubt be changing anyway.)

[Artisanjam]

If Teresa may really wanted to do something about immigration, she could perhaps have dealt with this while Home Secretary and reduced the substantial immigration from non-Eu countries which was totally in her control.

The fact that this has increased under her watch and is around 35-40% of net immigration to this country leads me to suspect she's actually full of shit and has no intention of actually reducing the figures while simultaneously blaming immigrants for government failings in proving housing, zero hours contracts, inadequate schools etc.

[Rhayader]

Other than small countries like Malta we are the most densely populated country in Europe. We have a severe housing shortage and really need to get things like that sorted before we open our boarders to unlimited numbers of people.

Of course there are positives the limited numbers of migrants with skills that we need, and she knows that, but last night wasn't a discussion on migration. She has made a commitment to under 100,000 net and that is what the electorate wants, end of. YABU.

[WeakAndUnstable]

Thanks for your excellent post histinyhandsarefrozen

[babybythesea]

One of the contributing factors in farm work, especially, is that it is seasonal. As I understand it (live in a farming area but not a farmer myself) it can be really hard to get local people to work on farms eg to pick spuds. One of the contributing factors is that if you claim JSA, then get seasonal work, your JSA stops. Then the work finishes but getting your JSA reinstated takes ages while you manage without money. So it's not as simple as saying there are people here who could do those jobs. There are, but they don't, not necessarily because they are too lazy but because it doesn't work well around benefits. Whereas immigrant workers may come in for the required period of time, then move on to the next patch of work and be able to be more movable with regard to location. So now it becomes a discussion about benefits and how to access them - does it need to be easier? The People don't want that either. Anyone pretending this is a simple issue with a clear solution (let's cut immigration as we have enough people here) isn't helping the issue.

[Artisanjam]

How does she know the electorate want less than 100000 immigrants?

Who has she asked - given that the election hasn't happened yet.

What evidence has she provided that 100.000 is the right number, not 110,000 or 90,000 or even 0.

It really isn't the 'end of' anything.

[Blaaaaaaaah]

"I've just Googled, and there are roughly 1.5 million jobseekers in the UK.

The contribution is not 'questionable'. EU immigrants are estimated to pay 45p per minute into the economy and 80% are in work.

And there is the reason why the 45p figure is misleading. Many of the jobs migrants do are low or no skilled which many of these unemployed people could do. Others are skills which unemployed people could relatively quickly and easily be trained in (like construction) but aren't because employers would rather take up the cheaper option of a fully trained migrant.

So much of that 45p could be contributed by a non- migrant if the migrant was not doing it. In fact, with a possible increase in wages if migration was lower they could be contributing more than 45p. Plus getting some of those unemployed people into work would also lower the welfare bill, which would mean that could be added to the contribution too. So rather than saying 'Isn't it marvellous they contribute 45p' we should be saying 'They only contribute 45p and there are more effective ways to maximise contribution to the economy than importing their labour'. Plus, if we reorient migration towards higher skilled jobs where wage suppression isn't an issue but limit low skilled migration, the average contribution of migrants would go upwards. There's also the question of how much of that money migrants send out of the UK economy which one of those 1.5 million would spend within the UK.

If you look historically, the contribution of low skilled mass migration always benefits the wealthy in society whereas for the poor it means deteriorating living standards, exploitation, expensive housing and low wages. Singapore and Nairobi are good examples of that. Conversely, periods with relatively low population growth or falls or declining birth rates were good for the poor as their labour increased in value. So looking at post war and after the Black Death for examples of that.

It would benefit everybody except the richest if we reoriented our migration system to concentrate on high skilled shortage professions.

But anyway, that 45p figure is too simplistic to be of value and deliberately misleading.