Do you think the UK should halt immigration?

I live and work in East London and believe me, the place is bursting at the seams. I know that this is obviously not the case all over the country, but I don't know how much more the various systems in London can cope with. There are children in the borough where I work who have no school places for September, schools struggle desperately to support the number of children with SEN, housing is often of a poor quality, unemployment is on the increase, domestic violence rates are one of the highest in the country. There are more people than the resources can cope with. There is nothing racist about having a pragmatic discussion about immigration and it's a shame there always seems to be someone ready with a knee-jerk reaction and a comparison with the BNP as soon as anyone raises concerns about the impact of immigration on society.

No, people who need a scapegoat for their own problems cause feelings of xenophobia to rise as they fall for all sorts of rubbish. Even groups that have been here for centuries have to deal with xenophobia, even when they are assimilated.

Immigrants (non-EU) already have no recourse to public funds upon entry. Even if the immigrant gets pregnant, they have no recourse to public funds or housing (their names nor pregnancies cannot even be put on the housing application so their partners apply as a single person if doing so). Not even child benefit (though their partners, if British, can apply for it). If they are not from a country where there is a treaty in place to compensate the NHS for its costs, they will be billed and forced to pay costs. Children do not get automatic citizenship upon birth unless one parent is British. The visas are very expensive, hundreds of pounds as well as travel costs (entry visas must be applied for in country of origin, if you have to change entry visas you have to go back and then re-enter). 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...). Most serious criminals are already deported, and detention centres are already working full out if not very effectively.

Now there is talk that those wishing to bring a spouse over will have to earn over 20k per annum (possibly each), more if there are children, meaning only the top 30% of earners will be able to do so. It's ridiculous, it's already hurting businesses, and more people, British people with immigrant family, are making plans to leave -- meaning their skills are leaving. People coming with little can do a lot - most new businesses in the UK are started by immigrant populations. The groups the xenophobes hate the most (Jews and Muslims) create the most new businesses and jobs. This whole thing is cutting ones nose to spite ones face. As has been said, just look at Japan to see the deterioration this type of thinking gets.

My DB's neighbour is claiming benefits. He has been in the UK 5 months.

The one thing in the OP that seems to be overlooked is that the call is to halt our current immigration, to begin to strictly limit it. Everyone is piling in saying 'immigration benefits the country enormously' then goes on the list the very sort of immigrants the OP says we should be encouraging! But no one has addressed the flipside which is low paid, unskilled immigrant workers bringing large families to the UK, usually to live in overcrowded, under resourced areas.

I didn't think it was that hard to understand!

"The ishoo here is the immigration of large numbers of people who cannot (or, let's face it, sometimes) or will not support themselves"

Again, this is a rich & misleading seam mined by the BNP on a regular basis. People who are newly arrived in the country cannot claim benefits. They are required to either support themselves or be supported by family. Benefit claimants are far more likely to originate from the UK than elsewhere

Cog- was keen to avoid the anecdote... but my DB lives, in a private rental, next door to a HCA house in which lives a recently arrived chap from NE Africa. He has his wife and 3 DC with him. He works 15 hours a week as a taxi driver. He's a nice, friendly bloke, but he openly expresses amazement that he was able to jump the housing list, that his DCs education will be free, that the shortfall in his wages is made up in benefits- and that he will now be able to bring his own parents over because his mother has cancer and will be treated on the NHS. I have absolutely no idea what visa he's bringing them over on- he was rather evasive about his own visa status which is fine, he doesn't have to tell my DB anything over the garden fence, after all, does he?- but he did say he was happily amazed when his visa came through as business back home was 'shit'- all of which implies he doesn't hold a British passport. But this is all absolutely true, not lifted from any BNP handbook.

I do not blame him at all, who wouldn't take advantage of such largesse? But I think the OP might be questioning why we are still 'offering' such largesse when we have such population crowding, unemployment and resource squeezing right now.

wasabi the people you mention sound like ideal immigrants (but how many are still here, not 'back home'?- really? How many brought their dependent families with them?). My DB's neighbour is unlikely to be heading home anytime soon and it will be decades before he starts making a net contribution to the economy, won't it?

In answer to the basic question posed in the thread title - no I do not.

I work in the IT industry and when I was office based pre DC's we had a massive mix of nationalities in our start up - every continent was easily covered numerous times over. A lot of tech comes out of the middle east and our company employed a lot of Israelis as well as Australians, Bew Zealanders, Indian, Pakistani and former Eastern European immigrants. Think we had a couple of Russians too. My point is that this was a thriving, tech start up which employed a lot of people and contributed to this country big style.

The idea that this country is full is utter crap. Some areas are over populated and it has created resentment as the scramble for limited resources becomes harder. I agree that business needs incentives to move to less densely populated areas.

I think that as a country we benefit massively from immigration. If someone has the get up and go to get here they aren't going to just sit on their arses. I do however wonder why eager beaver young Eastern Europeans for example view entry level jobs as a gateway to something better when our own school leavers often seem to regard them as beneath them in some way. If I was an employer I know what I'd prefer.

"I think unchecked numbers of immigrants who are not seen to be contributing to our society who then, via council rules appear to get preferential treatment by councils cause feelings of xenophobia to rise"

That's straight out of the BNP handbook. Distorting the facts to create the perception of prefential treatment.

Well said niceguy2. I'm a big supporter of relocating big government departments and organisations like the BBC in the regions. The country does not stop at the M25. However, IME 'local people' (shades of League of Gentlemen) are often reluctant to go where the jobs are, preferring to stay in their immediate area and complain bitterly about more enterprising types prepared to cross continents in search of work.

And that's why FPH the govt needs to continue to encourage investment outside of London & the SE. People go where the jobs are. If we create more jobs outside of the SE then both migrants and natives will move there.

But the country is not full. We're just not making the best use of our resources.

I went to see a play about children being held in detention centres (Yarls Wood) while their parents claims for asylum were being investigated and afterwards there was a question and answer session which turned into a bit of a bun fight.

Local MPs were there and a doctor from Yarls Wood and staff to answer questions and I was a tad stunned at how naive some of the campaigners were about their 'close it down' protests.

It is shocking that it can years to process a claim for asylum in which time people establish homes, families, friends, a social network, jobs and a life. The claim finally gets processed and is rejected and they find themselves in a place like Yarls Wood awaiting deportation.

Asylum claims should (in an ideal world) should be sorted at immigration but they are not and yes the way it is done at the moment has lots of flaws and problems.

What I found interesting was the 'inside view' of the staff of Yarls Wood and the bits that the campaigners tried to shout down.

Yarls Wood contains asylum seekers who are wanted for serious crimes in their own countries - think genocide in Rwanda or rape, robbery, torture etc etc.

Not all asylum seekers are honest, but I think Britain as a country has a duty to shelter people whose lives are genuinely going to be endangered if they are returned to their native country.

Not sure what point I am trying to make here really. I learnt a lot that night about how blinkered some people can be about human rights and those 'poor people' being held behind bars like criminals. Some of them are criminals of the worst kind and should be deported to face up to their crimes in a court of their own country.

CogitoErgoSometimes

Why not? Perhaps this industrious person has an equally industrious family. Perhaps, by having their family close by, they spend their earnings locally rather than sending it overseas. Maybe their children keep the local school open that is in danger of closing due to a falling birth-rate.

Or maybe, they don't.

As for being 'overcrowded', I suspect that's one of those words that gets trotted out as an excuse for xenophobia and which isn't borne out by the facts. The South East may be too heavily populated but it's certainly not the case in the rest of the country.

Problem being, of course, that the migrants go where the jobs are, and that's SE England. Over the last 10 years, 70% of migrants ended up in London and SE England. The overwhelming majority went in to London.

"the imported cabbage picker shouldn't necessarily, as a right, be allowed to import his entire family"

Why not? Perhaps this industrious person has an equally industrious family. Perhaps, by having their family close by, they spend their earnings locally rather than sending it overseas. Maybe their children keep the local school open that is in danger of closing due to a falling birth-rate. I think a lot of the immigration debate ends up, not as racism, but as snobbery.

As for being 'overcrowded', I suspect that's one of those words that gets trotted out as an excuse for xenophobia and which isn't borne out by the facts. The South East may be too heavily populated but it's certainly not the case in the rest of the country.

Have you tried to be a non-EU immigrant and get into this country? It is more difficult than the Daily Fail people would have you believe. Laws have been tightened and AFAIK there is now a "points" system in place. Or that's what I was led to believe they were doing at least. Australia's immigration system is far from perfect; they do have issues with overstayers & illegal immigrants (particularly from Eastern & Southern Asia).

I know a great deal of immigrants from all corners of the globe. Like PP said most of them are 40% tax earners or work two or three jobs. One worked 7 days a week for 4 years without complaint.

So no, I wouldn't just stop immigration. I believe it encourages our country to be more diverse, people to work harder, be more accepting.

My issue is with the points you make:-

1. "Let's say EU membership is up for discussion". Economically, it is my very strong view that withdrawal from the EU would have a detrimental effect on the GDP that far, far outstrips the benefit of then being able to limit immigration.
2. "how different Britain might look and function if we really did slow the rate of immigration right down" It would indeed look different. Without increasing the working population at a rate greater than is provided by current birth rates the social welfare system would collapse. We need to expand continually to prevent the time bomb exploding (see Japanese economics for where we'll be if we don't)
3. "only to those people ... who would be net contributors to our society" I am pretty sure that all available research clearly demonstrates that immigrants, in totality, are net contributers to the GDP.
4. "only to the people we need". This is the case for non EU citizens, where very strict criteria are applied. As for EU citizens, see point 1.
5. Why couldn't a 'new' immigration system encompass the occupations in which we have shortages BUT be based on the person working (and facing deportation if they stopped earning ie became 'a burden' instead of an asset). We do, for all non EU immigrants, unless they have qualified for residency. I've had the particularly difficult task of telling people that (a) they are being made redundant and (b) they'd best pack up their lives, take the kids out of school, and get on the next flight home.

I'm not sure you made any points other than these? Oh, except 'the option for unemployed local people to think cabbage picking is beneath them shouldn't exist". Yep. I agree with that one, but it has nothing to do with immigration.

I disagree that this island is becoming overcrowded. There's plenty of space. The problem is that too many people want to crowd into the SE of the country.

What the government need to be doing is encouraging companies to relocate further afield. This is starting to happen. For example BBC moving to the NW. And of course the high speed rail links which hopefully will encourage people to move further out (but I accept it may have the opposite effect).

As for water, we really REALLY shouldn't have an issue. We're a bloody island surrounded by it and it rains so flipping much. The real issue isn't population but the fact we're not managing it correctly. So whilst London is in drought, reservoirs in Scotland and the lakes were full. What we really need is a national grid for water, just like we have for electricity. Or invest in desalination plants which despite what the environmentalists would have you believe are actually pretty green.

So in short the problem isn't with numbers. In fact like I said earlier I think we need to increase them. The real issue is we're not managing ourselves the best way we can.

I would like to make it compulsory for visitors/immigrants to the UK to have valid health insurance to cover the length of their stay.

I wouldn't dream of travelling abroad without it and exepcting my host country to pick up the tab for any medical care I required but that is a very separate issue.

Just because you say "what I am saying is not racist" doesn't make it so.