Thought about Migrant policies..

[Lone4anger]

Was chatting with a friend - the migrants who are entering illegally spend thousands of pounds to get to Europe. Some sections then complain about housing, benefits etc.
Very simplistic view here.
If the migrants are willing to spend/borrow thousands to come to Europe why does not Europe have a migrant policy which would mean that money would go the nation which hosts the migrants?
Separate skilled and unskilled - look at our job market and - providing they have the funds to cover housing & bills for x months, they could enter the country to work - they would be able to apply - after a certain period - for a reduced citizenship which would entitle them to some basic free NHS for example.
Their income would have a separate tax but this would build up to the point where they could receive full benefits.
All migrants would be processed and registered - just like anyone else entering the country.
Simplistic, but if you cut out the payments to the smugglers that money could enter into the system.
Would it be unreasonable to suggest this?
Does anyone else have thoughts / views about what we could do to improve lives? It doesn’t have to be about migration.

I have also thought that politics or some kind of Modern Studies should be compulsory in school.

That is people trafficking

The simple fact is that anyone coming into the country earning less than £40k is a burden on the existing taxpayers.

Doesn’t matter how they get here or what they do when they get here, the vast majority of migrants are taking more from the system than they are putting in. That’s not meant to be controversial, it’s a simple fact. Those are the numbers. And it applies especially to students, a large number of whom have been bringing an average of two dependents with them. So not only do they not earn enough to pay for services they use themselves, they bring dependents who also become net takers. The same goes for low paid workers.

Of course it works for migrants and and anyone would do the same in their situation. It also works for mediocre universities and employers who get to pay a low wage rather than invest in technology and automation. The people it doesn’t work for are the net contributors in this country.

And here is the most alarming thing. The number of net contributors is less than 50% of the population. Fewer than the half the people in this country are paying for everyone else, including net taker migrants. Again, not controversial, because it’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.

Simple math says that as the size of the pie reduces and there are more people wanting a piece of the pie, then everyone will get a smaller and smaller piece, until there is nothing left.

So no amount of tinkering around the edges of migration will fix this. The only way is to make it mandatory for employers and universities to bring in totally self funding people. Then watch the employers invest billions into automation and skills training.

So what you are proposing is that countries allow migrants to gain citizenship (of sorts) if they have enough money to pay the country in question. That is a seriously bad idea. The whole point of assylum is to help those who are being persecuted, not to just allow in people who are wealthy enough.

The UK could stop the small boats today by setting up an office in Calais where people can claim assylum. Then they would not need to cross the channel. The French would be more than happy to accomodate it. But we won't because it suits politicians to be "nasty" to foreign people at the moment.

The majority of those crossing are - according to the press - not asylum seekers. It is so hard to know the facts .. I was speaking of those who the press call ‘financial migrants’.
I often wonder when the ‘migrant’ situation became such an issue @ll09sm makes a good point. Would like to know the research behind the figures.

I don't really think the kind of money you are talking about is anywhere near adequate.

Can you back up your theories with numbers and facts?

with other reports suggesting that immigrants are putting in more than they take, one reason given for this is they didn’t receive education in U.K. or medical burden previous to 18 years old

itd be interesting to see the breakdown in reverse

If you come here through normal channels, and wish to work, you have to prove you have the money to sustain yourself ie not be a burden in the state.
There is a threshold of income which is around £20-£25,000 per annum.
You cannot arrive in the country with nothing.
Many migrants risk life to come here, paying thousands to people traffickers. Why? Because legitimate routes of entry are barred to them. Why?
Say a person is paying £5000 to a trafficker to come here. Rather than pay that money to a profiteer, why do they not approach the country through the visa scheme? They have the funds to sustain themselves for a period of time (depending on where they decide to live this could be worked out) and could find work during that time. Their information would be entered into the system with all the checks and balances carried out.
@Aaron95 all those who wish to immigrate pay to do so. No-one immigrates without paying fees and without proving how they will support themselves.

Illegal immigrant can't claim benefits.

Housing, healthcare, using public services is recourse to public funds. All illegal migrants use these things.

Those coming legally with dependents are using healthcare and schooling and unless earning £40k, are not paying towards it. The minuscule NHS charge they pay is a token only. A student who brings a whole family with them is instantly using all the services and contributing nothing towards it. At best, they are subsidizing other people’s pointless degrees in mediocre universities by paying high tuition fees.

Housing, healthcare, using public services is recourse to public funds. All illegal migrants use these things.

How ?

Do you have any idea how difficult it is even if you are British to get a sponsoring visa for a spouse/family member?

The income threshold is actually £29000 (set to rise) and the income must be made through employment in the UK so families wanting to enter via this route must either split whilst the sponsoring spouse/family member works in the UK for a year before the application or use savings - £84000 - to sponsor the visa. If you saved £1000 a month it would take 7 years to raise that amount! All while maintaining a life in whichever country will actually allow you to be together as a family. Those able to have done that will have been earning way over what the government says is necessary to earn to live in the UK (minimum wage is £21000?)

On top of that, accomodation cannot be found once the visa has been approved meaning that before any application you must either own a house in the UK, have a very understanding landlord that would allow renting an unoccupied property for the duration of the visa process, or have family/friends with a large enough home to offer separate accommodation (bathroom/kitchen).

The entire system is set up to allow only the rich to enter and determines how your family finances are set up: It matters not how much the person who is being sponsored earns. Your partner could earn £100000 a year and their income paid into a joint account with you but if you are (eg.) a stay at home parent that money would not class as income valid to sponsor the visa.

Nobody entering the UK via immigration routes has recourse to public funds (even Brits returning from abroad have no access to public funds for 6 months after they return) so the tabloid tripe that immigration drains the benefits system is purely that.

I agree entirely that the system needs overhauling, however it is the immigration system as a whole that needs scrutiny, not just migration caused by people entering the country illegally via the channel because the government does not want to tackle the problem at source as mentioned above by pp - set up offices in Calais.