to think it's irresponsible and reckless to accept large numbers of migrants when

[wonderingminds]

All over the country lots of factories are closing down and there is a serious shortage of housing.

Most migrants go to London, where there are plenty of entry-level jobs.

Allowing people with high level skills to come and work in the UK is a good idea as they contribute to the economic growth rate. People who come here to live on benefits only take money out of the economy - either that or take jobs from people who then cant then get a job and go on to benefits.

Canada and Australia have a points system for immigration and it is clear that only high skilled people, with good language skills and also some money to support themselves are welcome.

I don't see what is wrong with that system. I vote UKIP.

I am not at all sure we can continue to tell low skilled people on Benefits that they should go and get a job when we are importing even more low skilled immigrants to compete for those very jobs.

Exactly.
There will be a lot of unskilled people coming in.

I am not at all sure we can continue to tell low skilled people on Benefits that they should go and get a job when we are importing even more low skilled immigrants to compete for those very jobs.

Agree

If we kicked out all the illegal immigrants and economic migrants posing as 'refugees' then we could replace them with refugees in genuine need which would be great.

The comparisons with Nazi Germany and the Jews aren't really correct. Comparable groups now are Yazidis, Christians and Shia Muslims from Syria. These groups and the most vulnerable such as the sick and handicapped are the ones that the UK are prioritising in the cohorts we are taking from the camps which is exactly the right approach.

Taking in large numbers of Sunni Arabs no questions asked policy in Europe is more akin to us invited the entire population of Germany to come over in 1939 and throughout WW2 with no regard to links to or support for the Nazi party, and I have no doubt if we had the Nazi's would have taken advantage of that to create such internal chaos it would have been impossible for us to win the war. ISIS are already attempting to do the same in Europe.

There was a very interesting article in the Guardian today about how the current Geneva Convention on refugees is unworkable in it's current form and the definition of a refugee needs changing as it is simply not sustainable for entire populations to gain the right to go where they please.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/18/geneva-refugee-convention-crisis-demand-eu

I feel fairly comfortable with the policies we have at the moment. I think we're doing the right thing with regards to Syria and helping the right people. I think we've got some sensible restrictions in place re spouse visas and English and support requirements. I think the requirements on earnings for highly skilled migrants are a good step and are stopping the previously endemic situation where supposedly highly skilled migrants settled here to work as cleaners or in KFC.

I think the balance is about right just now. There is a lot of EU migration but I think that's fairly transitory in nature and will lessen if hopefully their economies improve.

Yeah, I am comfortable the situation is okay.

We already HAVE a points system :)

for anyone outside the EU - you can't just come in a work - hth before you vote UKIP!

Low skilled people are mainly coming via EU migrantion ATM.

We need a points system for EU citizens as well.

I vote UKIP for that reason. At the moment we have no way of stopping anyone from the EU coming to the UK and looking for work and claiming benefits.

Oh and before you all shout at me that unskilled EU immigrants cant come here and claim benefits - yes they can. They way they do it is by defining themselves as self employed and street hawking for the specified period or taking short term seasonal agricultural piece work just long enough to entitle them to benefits.

The jobs are not the sort of jobs that we need to import people to fill.

HTH!

I suppose all immigrants could go home. Then all British people (that is, after being thoroughly checked out that they go back at LEAST 5 generations British), could take up all the jobs, happily skipping off to work, everyone contented and in gainful employment and Great Britain shall rise once again. In reality tho factories would still close, government would still be shit and certainly wouldn't be building more and adequate housing to accommodate those pesky working class-ers, and it'd be a case of finding something else to moan about wouldn't it OP. The usual.

The only one doing the moaning seems to be you

It's interesting to see the different points of view.

yeah SBetaDad1 - like the 2 million brits working in the EU - should we have them back then ?

But what else can we do op?

We can't refuse to take in people emigrating from other EU countries. It would do us no good to do so, since the number of British citizens in the EU (like my cousin who lives in Denmark) is roughly equal to the number of EU citizens in the UK from other countries.

If you mean refugees, then I can't see how in good conscience we can turn them away. We are now bombing Syria, the population of which has halved and now stands at 6.5 million, we are bombing Iraq, and have 'finished' a war in Afghanistan.
Regardless of our motivations in these conflicts, the result is refugees. No one is going to stay in a war torn country and risk their kids getting killed, so those people are now refugees. If we caused them to leave their country, regardless of why, they are our responsibility.

Yet we take a tiny fraction of the refugees we have caused- poverty stricken Lebanon has taken over 1 million.

I agree with you we don't have enough jobs or homes, but that is the fault of this and previous governments. We need real investment in jobs (preferably renewables, £3.1 billion subsidy cut this year), and at least 250,000 new homes a year for the next 5 years. Not luxury dwellings built on floodplains by developers to make a quick buck, but social and affordable private houses which are eco friendly and built somewhere which won't flood.

Asking the question you have asked absolves those really responsible-the government- from any obligation to provide jobs, homes, or a stable and prosperous economy. It gives them an out to blame migrants for pressure on services, when in fact we would be able to cope with much more migration if our services weren't wholly inadequate.

ghosty - I would be very happy to see a EU wide points system across the whole of continent.

There is a very huge difference between economic migrants and refugees. We should be welcoming refugees with open arms, but I don't agree with the free movement of economic migrants. They should be subject to the same rules as anyone else wanting to emigrate.

*Lebanon receives significant international aid to help it deal with refugees.

Problem is that refugees are taking local low skill jobs and that is causing problems. I watched an interview with King Abdullah on this yesterday.

Most of the refugees in Lebanon are not in camps but out in the local economy.

I am very pro the idea of the UK funding good quality refugee camps with its international aid budget. Where necessary I am also pro bringing selected refugees here to the UK who either have skills or are vulnerable in some way such as the severely disabled.

This is not the same as uncontrolled immigration.

I don't think we are taking significant numbers of Syrian refugees are we? I thought 20,000? Over 5 years?

Really important to keep/encourage skilled migrants..... not so much un- skilled but that depends on the region. East Anglia relies heavily on unskilled migrant labour to undertake work lazy arse Brits refuse to do.
A significant number of business would go under if migrant workers upped sticks and returned home.

The aspect of the immigration debate that often gets obscured, especially among left-leaning but more middle-class demographics like the one you typically find on MN, is class.

If you're middle-class or wealthier, high immigration is absolutely in your class interests: it keeps the cost of services down and ensures a plentiful supply of cleaners, plumbers, baristas and so on without the price of a tidy house, radiator flush or latte going up dramatically.

If you're working class or on benefits, high immigration is not in your class interests. There is evidence that migration does indeed depress salaries for the lowest-paid (I'll dig the study out later, posting in haste). There is also robust evidence that the diversity of society is inversely proportional to that society's support for generous welfare (again I'll dig the study out later). In other words, the more multicultural a society is, the less keen its citizens are to support high levels of welfare spending. If you're among the poorest in society, and as such most likely to need welfare support, high immigration is therefore absolutely not in your class interests.

One of the things that frustrates me about this debate (FWIW I'm squarely in the 'net beneficiary of immigration' camp in socioeconomic terms) is the way the legitimate and rational objections of one social class to demographic change that they sense, correctly, impacts negatively on them, is framed as 'ignorance' and 'bigotry' by the class that stands to gain most from that demographic change. It's presented as a moral argument by the beneficiaries of immigration, but if you look beneath the surface that moral argument smells strongly to me of class warfare.

1. If you are talking about refugees we have committed to take 20,000 for five years and have not guaranteed that they can stay for more than 10 years. That is hardly a large number.

1. Non EU migrants will have to earn at least £35k to stay in the country so will in no way be a burden and will therefore probably be unable to take factory jobs.

1. Why the assumption that migrants are unskilled? We have a points system.

1. The S Wales economy has been struggling for a long time and not because of migration. Stopping all migration to the UK would not fix this.

Pay for education or training for poor people here or STFU.

Interesting post OTheHugeManatee. My objection to the OP's point is just that I don't believe we do have high levels of unskilled immigration.

I also think we're doing a fine job on our own of eliminating welfare. Does the study show why support for welfare spending is in inverse proportion to diversity? Is it because people from foreign background are less likely to support welfare spending or is it because people are less likely to want to spend money on benefits if they think it might be going to foreigners?

I would also suggest that there is a difference between a society being multicultural and having a high rate of immigration.

If you're middle-class or wealthier, high immigration is absolutely in your class interests: it keeps the cost of services down and ensures a plentiful supply of cleaners, plumbers, baristas and so on without the price of a tidy house, radiator flush or latte going up dramatically.

If you're working class or on benefits, high immigration is not in your class interests.

Excellent points.
It's easy to be pro immigration when you're middle class. It's not going to negatively affect. You might even benefit.

However (and one of the reasons I started the thread) if you live in an area where there is high unemployment and very little prospects of future employment and no investment is going into that area, then I imagine high numbers of immigrants coming in will affect you.
Adversely.

Excellent post ohthehuge. It's easy to be socially minded about housing, the flood of zero hours nmw jobs, benefits etc when you aren't desperately in need yourself.

Personally I think economic migration needs to end, to free up resources for those that need them, whether that be genuine asylum seekers or the vulnerable British population. Any economic migration should only be allowed on a points system, that ensures it won't negatively effect anyone else.

It's easy to prove to yourself the point about the effect on the bottom end of the labour market. 20 years ago the majority of unskilled nmw jobs did not call for zero hours flexible working. Many now do, because employers know someone will be desperate enough to try and support a family on it. And 20 years ago an unskilled job would leave you scrimping, but it wouldn't make you homeless and/or starving without tax credits like now.