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.

Or because of the high retirement levels of the baby boomer generation and chronic underfunding of further education meaning many young people aren't getting adequate training, there really is a shortage of skilled workers.

Investing in our country is the answer, not cutting of our lifeline.

But nobody wants or has the incentive to do that.

And the current non-EU migration system shows that it is perfectly possible to get 'lifeline' shortage workers without an accompanying unrestricted flow of unskilled labour. Employers can be told 'no' if they want to import someone to cover a job which could just as easily be covered by an apprentice or sending one of their existing staff on a short course. A lifeline being needed in some places doesn't mean no restrictions elsewhere.

Why do we feel that it's ok for "people like us" to behave this way but not anyone else? Why am I more entitled to use the public services of my new area more than someone who happened to be born somewhere else Because there's not a bottomless pit of support available unfortunately.

I have been a migrant from the U.K. to a non-EU country and it's a completely different board game. No recourse to public funds or benefits, no healthcare and you get deported if made redundant or sacked. Break the law and your visa is cancelled. Consequently, the population in my adopted country was very pro-immigration because they knew that it only added to their economy. They also knew that only highly qualified people needed to fulfil roles got in.

Many of those things of which people are most proud in this country - social welfare and the NHS, for example - increase the attractiveness of the U.K. to lower-skilled/paid migrants. I am from a white working class background and tbh if the inability to get a school place for your kid or a GP appointment coincides with an influx of new arrivals, it's not hard to see why many people are a bit pissed off. Magnanimity is easier when you are in (say) the West coast of Scotland looking out over countryside than when watching all the green space in your town be concreted for housing estates. It's also easier when you can afford to insulate yourself from the less desirable effects of population increases (private education, skilled work so less wage deflation, buying in a "nice" area, private healthcare etc). I suspect many MN'ers fall into this category.

FWIW DH is a non-white,non-EU immigrant who immigrated to the U.K. on a highly skilled migrant programme. He has been subjected to more checks because he is non-EU e.g. regular English tests, even though he was educated at a British school overseas, in English. Despite working for the NHS he could not stay here or claim benefits for many years even though he was a HR taxpayer. His EC colleagues - many of whom have faltering English - are not tested because EU law does not allow this. He voted leave (!) because he thinks the UK should be free to choose the workers it needs from anywhere rather than be forced to take all-comers from within the EU. I find it quite hard to argue with that.

YoungGirlGrowingOld best post on thread.

hidinginthespareroom

You seem to be implying that pp who want immigration levels reduced are making moral judgements about people who migrate. I haven't seen anyone on this thread do that so that is a bit of a red herring. People are talking about government policy on immigration not what individuals chose to do.

Also, if your argument is that it is somehow morally suspect to suggest a country should not be responsible for providing services etc for anyone who wishes to move here, do you want completely open borders and no immigration control at all? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

But Wrongtrouser, that is surely the logical outcome of many (not all) of the arguments made on this thread. That people who do not originate here are somehow less deserving of the benefits of living in the UK than those of us who started here? Whilst I'm sure that individual posters are perfectly nice people, there is inevitably a "worth" judgement inherent in that position, isn't there? I'm just trying to understand the basis for that distinction. As I have said above, it doesn't seem logical to me to base it on arbitrary lines drawn hundreds of years ago, into which you and I had no input. It doesn't seem logical to base it on input to the UK economy, otherwise many UK citizens would be denied access to public services. So what are we basing it on?

And yes, I guess I don't think that you or I have any more rights to receive services in Brighton or Tunbridge Wells than somebody who was born in Calais. Logically, then, I can't object to anybody immigrating from anywhere at any time. They're only doing what I am doing. And I would be so bold as to venture that many other MNers will have made the same geographical moves as I have over the course of their lives.

young girl growing old
Excellent post and reflects my views precisely, thanks.

why is it always the low earning foreigners that people want to send home? Sending home? You're being dramatic, has anyone on this thread said that. Do you disagree that low paid workers with children take out more than they contribute?

All low paid workers or just the foreign ones?

All low paid workers take out more than they put in, but it's okay if they're born here.

All low paid workers take out more than they put in, but it's okay if they're born here. Society has higher and lower earners, what's your point.

They wanted a world with a continuous supply of cheap labour and a class structure where they could lord it over us all. Their massive warcrimes made their dreams a reality... for a time.Then the peasants slowly stopped breeding and fled the churches that their children were abused in. No matter, they thought, we'll just bring in those grateful to be here to serve us. Which made the cannon fodder give up even more. Now they have a society they 'don't recognise' and want to fight wars with men they don't have. And they are terrified.

In a nutshell.

As with everything Tory....like the debt....they have set unthinking goals, and failed at reaching them.

SlieghtOfHand - you asked me "Do you disagree that low paid workers with children take out more than they contribute?"

And I want to know is whether you were talking about all low paid workers or just the foreign ones? For the record, I think low paid workers contribute more than they take out, if you take into account the work they do. Yes, they get paid a pittance so can't buy much and have to rely on state hand-outs too (like my wife and I do), but we enable the companies and organisations we work for earn millions. If we took out more than we put in, the country would collapse, simply because there's more of us.

dancing
the nhs will not be OVER without immigrants
have a look at this
fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-and-nhs-staff/
there is a common mis-conception - which is trotted out time and time again that somehow the migrants staff the majority of the NHS roles which is just not true.
I know someone who works in a small local hospital and the majority of the professional staff are UK born and trained. Not everywhere is like the big cities where I expect there is a much higher concentration of non-UK trained nurses and Drs.

Bear in mind that each extra person (adult or child) who arrives on these shores is an additional burden for the infrastructure. There has to be some CONTROL of immigration which as far as the EU is concerned is not possible.

People who benefit from immigration:

• Immigrants
• Business / corporations
• The City / financial institutions

People who don't benefit from immigration:

• Everyone else

Immigration has brought ordinary people absolutely nothing of value and the extra tiny percentage on GDP has come at great cost.

Her tough stance on immigration is the main reason I'm voting for her.

Is that the tough stance that was so successful over her 6 years at the Home office when non EU migration increased since 2010?

WhatToDoAboutThis2017 TM has already pledged twice before to reduce immigration.
She's failed BOTH times.
Why would you be gullible enough to believe her a third time?

It's not about being gullible.

I will not vote for Labour; Corbyn, Abbott and their policies are ridiculous.

I won't vote for Lib Dems because they want to let 50,000 Syrians in over 5 years.

So Tory is the best option.

Well it is about being gullible if your main reason is a twice broken promise.

Lib Dems 50,000 Syrians is s dealbreaker for me. Can't vote for them.

Won't vote for Labour as previously stated.

So Tory is my only option.

You call it what you want.

Investing in the NHS and education not your sort of thing then? OK.

Corbyn would not be a strong leader, and the fact he has Diane Abbott with him is proof of that.

Dealbreaker.

Ok. Refugees and two people from the Labour Party are your main reasons for voting for a woman who makes promises she can't keep and is ruining the NHS and education.
Fair do.

She's ruining it in your view.

Not mine.

And those "two people from the Labour Party" are the ones that would be running the country if pigs could fly. I find even the thought of that horrific, so it's a major dealbreaker.

Not going to change my mind about voting Tory and I'm going to work now, so end of conversation.