Do you think the UK should halt immigration?

It has a lot to do with the Empire. That's why so many people came here originally, from previously colonised countries.

Also, because people in, say, India, often have some English skills or the means to acquire them.

Thistledew. I'd love to see the day where there are no immigration controls but that will be the same day as there are no countries etc. It's not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

Merry, I don't think it has anything to do with our empire. But more to do with the fact that as an English speaking country people are drawn to us because they will probably already have some of the language. We also have a very developed economy and geographically are close enough to get to from Africa & parts of non EU countries.

Just in the same way that the US is a magnet for central american economic migrants.

Yellowraincoat - that was my point - what goes around (benefiting from an empire) comes around (responsibility/ties to people from ex-empire countries).

Re: benefits, you either give people benefits and health care or they die on the streets.

That might be fair, but it wouldn't be pleasant for anyone.

I don't think it was the UK that suffered most because of our Empire-building activities, merrymouse.

In fact, I'd say it's one of the reasons we're in such a strong position these days.

Ending worldwide immigration control would see an end to oppressive regimes and civil war as well. What would be the point of trying to oppress your subjects if they could just up sticks and leave for a place where their human rights were respected? Countries would actually see a benefit in ensuring decent working conditions and rates of pay, or else their economies would collapse when people went elsewhere.

I thought we already had rules that meant that only people who could contribute/needed to be here could emigrate to the UK?

I think we probably suffer from the fact that until fairly recently (i.e. less than a century ago) Britain had a massive empire, so for many people the UK seems to be the logical place to move to.

What goes around comes around.

I think we should do a part exchange service, hard working foreigners in, British scum bags out, can't see any other countries being as willing as Australia once was though (tongue firmly in cheek)

And I'd love to see all the British people who go over to Saudi/Dubai/etc try to learn enough Arabic to get by without any English.

By not translating stuff, you leave the most vulnerable open to exploitation.

And the government plans to close a lot of free English courses for immigrants, unfortunately.

I am with thistledew 100%

immigration law generally hurts the easy-to-catch family rather than the single criminal.

I think the apparent hypocrisy in telling immigrants 'learn the language or eff off' falls in fairly stark contrast to typical UK emigrant behaviour!

anyone who has been subject to Uk immigration for non-eu would tell you it is very very far from easy.

I have no problem with immigration I have a problem with exploitation and unfairness.

You want to import builders from Poland? fine go ahead but pay them the going rate that UK builders get not hire them so you can pay them less.

You want to come over here? fine but don't expect us to bend over backwards for you, learn the language and get in the queue for benefits and housing like everyone else.

(How much do we spend every year writing council and government documents in every language under the sun?).

I completely agree with you, Thistledew . The practicalities would be a nightmare to sort out, but I believe that if people genuinely wanted equality, they would fight towards accepting a world without borders. It would have to be something all countries would accept, and unfortunately I can't see that happening any time soon.

I teach English as a Foreign Language. The unfairness of our immigration laws smacks me in the face every day. The only students we have on visas are from very rich or middle class families. It is becoming increasingly true since students on visas are now longer not allowed to work to support themselves.

It is massively unfair that we benefit from the hard work of people in other countries and then turn around and tell them they can't live in our country because they don't have an education/experience.

It is the government's responsibility to ensure resources are shared out fairly.

but I am wondering whether we, the people of the UK, have maybe worn the brunt of eastern European immigration over the past 10 years

Interesting. Especially given my fiancee is actually from one of the Eastern European countries which you refer to. I suspect she'd be the first to say that since she's working and paying taxes that she's a net contributor so what's your problem? And that's despite the fact that when she was out of work and following a messy divorce that unlike a UK national, the benefits door was slammed firmly in her face.

I live in an area with quite a lot of eastern europe citizens and all seem to be gainfully employed. So presumably they are also contributing via taxes and to our society in general. Yes of course they'd use resources on the NHS, police, schools etc but no more, no less than a UK citizen who was also employed.

I guess some would argue they've taken jobs from a British person but then my fiancee would be very vocal with her opinion that if a UK person wanted the job they've done then they'd have stood more of a chance given the language barriers. But employers value hard work above nationality.

There are many ways to make a contribution to society, even those on the bottom rung, or even gasp end up on benefits, may be propping up part of British society by taking the caring roles that keep their native-born family members from ending up in expensive residential care. To some people, I don't think I - as an immigrant (particularly an immigrant who has had kids here and whose British DH claims benefits for them and his disability) - will ever be good enough.

What is 'interesting' is the view that if you are born into a situation where it is not possible for you to find sufficient work in your local area to provide a good future for yourself and your family, then you have a moral obligation to travel within your own country to try and find something better. But if you can't find any way in your own country to provide a better future for your children then tough, you should suck it up, as it is morally wrong if you cross a man-made, arbitrarily defined country line to do the same.

Or is that just an easy view for us to take, living in a country where your family is not going to starve, fall sick, and have no way of educating their way out of the mess you were born into? How many of us would feel or abide by a sense of moral obligation to stay put if we found ourselves in that situation?

I think it's fair to say we interpret European law a lot more strictly than many of our European neighbours. That's just in our nature. In Italy I've seen ash trays next to no smoking signs. We tend to do as we're told!

It is all a bit academic to discuss Euro immigration as I believe it constitutes about 80% of overall immigration and we couldn't change it even if we wanted to.

Kayspace these were highly skilled tech people which, believe me, commands a high salary. If these guys had families they were supporting them via that wage. Yes that means their children will have gone to local schools etc. but that seems a fair exchange to me. Plus it kept their wages in the local economy - presumably they paid the same extortionate London private rents as everyone else.

Immigration control is morally wrong and should be abolished worldwide. It does nothing but enforce a system of global feudalism where the rich benefit from the labour of the poor, by restricting the ability of the poor to benefit from the resources available to the rich. The message of immigration control, even the more liberal view in the UK is that we welcome those who are already skilled, educated and have benefitted from advantages in life, but those who have not been born into a situation where they have had these things should 'know their place' and not threaten our own security and 'entitlement' to the resources we have been born to.

The end of immigration control would mean that there would have to be a drastic rethink in terms of how the world's resources are shared, and it would mean that the rich would almost certainly end up paying more tax, and would probably have to adapt to a slightly less luxurious standard of living than we enjoy in the West. My own personal view is that I would be willing to forgo a few luxuries such as foreign holidays, and new clothes when I fancy a change in style, not because of necessity, if it meant that all children could grow up with access to healthcare, clean water, secure shelter and education. I know that many people do not agree.

It is a fallacy to say that the empire is no longer relevant- the wealth of our country, which not only puts us in a situation where we can buy cheap consumer goods, but means that our pensions, our banks and our government coffers are funded by investments that could only have been made as a result of 'free trade' that was created by force through the might of the empire. Just look at the history of BP, for example. Decisions made within living memory of 60 to 100 years ago in relation to the end of the empire still cause conflict and the oppression of people around the globe.

I accept that to simply lift all forms of immigration control would cause took much chaos to be feasible, but there are alternatives that are being discussed by academics at the moment. The key one seems to be reciprocal benefit agreements, so if a foreign national claims a benefit abroad, the bill is sent to their country of origin. This would incentivise all countries to provide their nationals with adequate health and social care themselves, as it would be cheaper and more cost efficient than paying bills racked up abroad.

Immigration control is not working. It has been a short-lived and flawed experiment that is proving less and less efficient at tacking the problems it proposes to deal with. It is time to start seriously thinking about a credible alternative.

why should we pay out to 'manage' our population? Why should we openly walk into a situation where it has become so large and unwieldy that we need to

Because as our population grows, it is the job of the government to manage our infrastructure to support that population. What IS wrong is allow immigrants to come then say "Ah bollocks, we didn't think to build more schools/reservoirs/hospitals. You lot, hop it."

Why do we not have an immigration policy that only supports the immigration of those who will be of net benefit to the country?

We already do. The current policy is to only allow non-EU nationals to enter the country if they meet a certain number of points. A system designed to work out exactly who is going to benefit us.

As for EU nationals, no-one seriously expects us to ban EU nationals from living in the Uk would they? To do so would violate one of the core principles of being in the EU and we'd have to leave. Which would have far worse consequences on the UK.

Overall immigration is a net benefit to the UK and unlike what the tabloid press and BNP will have you believe, they are not stealing from UK taxpayers.

Yikes, that's gone up quite a bit since last I looked. With travel costs (to get to the centre to take the test, to get to the citizenship ceremony) and the rest, it's no wonder more are choosing to risk remaining on just the 'leave-to-remain' visa. Which means we can't get fully involved in British life. Cutting ones nose to spite ones face.

'To get citizenship it costs well over a grand for most people (including the cost of the application - which is over 600£ itself at last count, test, travel, the mandatory ceremony...)'

Actually it's £856 + £50 for the Life in the UK test And that's for a EU citizen - the cheapest application there is basically. I have just applied for citizenship myself - I'm an immigrant but consider myself British. Hellishly high fees.

I think immigration should be stopped full stop. This country is ridiculously crowded, not just the SE but many other parts of the country too. We need to reduce the population before resources dry up and people start to starve.

I am an immigrant's daughter, my brother is an emigrant to another country. Immigrants are keeping my father alive and comfortable as I write this, so I have no grudges against migrants.

BUT... land is very, very scarce in the south, where everyone seems to settle. I am fighting a battle at the moment to stop development of a grade 2 agricultural field with a beautiful and historic view into housing. Once it's gone my children, your children, your grandchildren have lost this bit of scenery for ever. It's not just about my pleasure; it's about your descendants' future enjoyment of the countryside.

All well and good saying there's plenty of land, but realistically the chances of the Scottish Highlands or Welsh mountains becoming more populated are remote.

Low-skilled or illiterate families who will have lots and lots of children, putting strain on maternity services and schools aren't as useful to us as other groups. I think we have paid back the post-colonial guilt trip and it needs to stop now. We should choose who we want/need, who we feel an obligation to take in for moral or ethical reasons and that's that.