To be shocked at the net migration figures currently being discussed

[Feelingathomenow]

Yesterday’s figures discussed by the Tories stated that since 2010 the net migration figures to the UK has equalled the size of the population of Wales. Today we were told the figures to June 2023 showed a net migration figure of nearly 1 million for that year, for the year to June 2024 this had reduced to a mere 3/4 of a million. The numbers coming in of the boats per year alone is equal to a large town. AIBU to think this has to stop. We need to immediately crack down on people allowed into this country- limit it to urgently needed highly skilled jobs and start offshore processing (or similar) of the people who are here illegally (basically like many other countries).

We just can’t cope with those numbers. - no wonder our infrastructure is collapsing, we have a housing crisis etc.

I want to hear from the government how they are going to tackle it. We have heard from the Tories now it is over to Starmer.

You're not supposed to tell people you're a spy.

Shocking. So every other rate payer in the borough will be subsidising ‘international students’ and their dependents. If you live in an area with a uni that attracts all these students to stay afloat then the cost is massive. Absolute madness.

You would need to research this. I am not in the sector. But in our hostile climate the bar is not low.

Very few people have mentioned the moral obligation of supporting the huge, and growing number of asylum seekers. As a proportion of the total, the UK takes a miniscule amount- we're not even in the top 25 and yet we're the 6 largest economy in the world. https://www.statista.com/statistics/263423/major-refugee-hosting-countries-worldwide/

Personally, I find this shameful and would not expect much support if and when we ever need refuge as a nation.

Thank you for making this important point, @Fletchasketch

I think everyone shares the concern about people paying smugglers.

There's no point in 'sharing a concern' and continuing to let it thrive. The system is enabling vast profits.

You won't be able to lower that with the approach now in place. It will only go up.

But the data in my earlier post show that people claiming on the basis of persecution for sexuality is very likely to be genuine. The percentage of claims is tiny and the claims are very largely from three countries where this persecution is a terrible problem.

I'm not focusing on sexuality I have said this a couple of times. Plus I don't think this paragraph is evidence of what you're claiming.

that it can take years to put together enough paperwork to mount a successful asylum claim

If that’s the case then how can asylum claims be processed faster as often demanded by posters on threads like this one?

Yes, I mean Europe had its fair share of revolutions and upheaval all achieved by its own citizens working to change things. What would have happened if European men had fled and commonwealth men not come towards Danger to defend Europe against Hitler et al?

Pay for a dodgy uni course and get a free hip replacement for Mum. It's the university business model.

Yup. The real beneficiaries are the universities while the council is left to cover the costs for the education of the dependants - some even get access to 30hrs funded childcare even though they aren't eligible in principle, but they can claim hardship and apply to the council for support. GPs and hospital care for young children and other services.

Students are not a problem when they are genuine students with mostly 0 or 1 dependant as was historically the case. Problems arose when hundreds of thousands of postgraduate students came in with 3 or 4 dependants each.

Hi,
Thanks for this. Does it clearly lay out what they mean by “hosting”? Does it mean they provide housing, welfare, health care, education etc. or could it include just processing and sending them elsewhere or placing them in internment camps?

We can disagree. My data from uk.gov show that people making an asylum claim based on persecution for sexuality have a slightly lower initial success rate than others and a markedly lower success rate at appeal (41% vs 50%) than others.

The document states that asylum claims using this criterion went down during the pandemic, but are consistent with pre-pandemic levels. Hence, stable.

I will reiterate that the claims are largely from three countries with notoriously harsh attitudes to gay people and that sexual persecution features in a whopping 2% of asylum claims.

Now I would welcome your analysis of why this is all wrong

I think that’s one thing we could agree on the countries these people are leaving are very likely unlikely to welcome westerners and support them living secular lives, allowing them to open pubs and clubs and have freedom of religion.

Universities UK Report Reveals £265 Billion Economic Contribution of UK Higher Education and Research Activities

the report finds that the total economic impact of the UK higher education sector on the UK economy is more than £265 billion.
The report considers the impact of the UK HE sector’s teaching, research, and innovation activities on the UK economy over the 2021-22 academic year. It found that, for every £1 of public money invested in the HE sector across the UK, £14 is put back into the economy.

They are huge local employers and could take down local business with them.

DH and I grew up in 80s in bits of UK textile and car industry didn't last out a parents working life - took decades for areas to improve economically.

If they go under currently issues with past qualifications being held - as no current national database.

Education still a route to a better life though less so each generation. A large proportion of DH students who go on to well paid jobs in a sector that doing quite well but is terrible at training people up in it and has staff shortages - are from similar backgrounds to us ie working class.

There are very few jobs here at 18 here that have any progression - uni degree still best bet for our kids to access higher paying jobs. They need higher paying job because cost of living and housing is so dam high. I suspect the employment rate would go up if Uni sector collapses with people in this age range as they may not be in areas they are needed but jobs to low waged to mean they can move to take.

Uni funding does need looking at - it cost the students, uni aren't getting enough and leaves the government with ever mounting debt that never gets paid off.
The night school system my Dad used to improve his education is gone and OU he later used is more expensive. There also an issue with UK business sector they seem to dislike investing in staff training or investing generally.

The sector brings money it bring it to country, world class research gets done and it still being a route to higher social economic class for many and probably keeps the unemployment rates down.

I don't think it as much it's middle class as it's a sector too big to fail though I think it may well slim down with merges and smaller institutions doing fewer range of courses perhaps with much larger numbers on them.

Yes, but... Immigrant women (in particular) are disproportionately unemployed and under-employed, with only few countries an exception. That is a huge socio-economic time bomb ticking.

Many migrants not claiming out-of-work benefits are either not entitled to receive them or don't claim them as to not invite extra scrutiny into their finances and/or immigration status and employment arrangements.

I am a migrant myself and live in a city negatively impacted by low skill and/or illegal, and/or criminal and/or socially unintegrated immigration.
I can't see how the situation would benefit anyone, immigrants themselves included.

Very few people have mentioned the moral obligation of supporting the huge, and growing number of asylum seekers

Who decides what our moral obligations are though?
And are we still obliged if the impact on our own society is negative?

A refugee is an asylum seeker who has been granted refugee status and by defualt the right to housing, healthcare, state support etc. What that means will vary from country to country, but we are far from being the most generous.

Numbers of international students have been climbing for years as universities try to claw in as much income as they can. Alongside the actual students, post graduates could bring family members up to last April so you won't see a equal numbers leaving to those starting for quite some time unless you limit the numbers coming to study here. Intl students have to provide substantial evidence of sufficient funds to live and have 1 year to leave after they finish up [unless sponsored by an employer which is quite difficult] so they should not be a drain on the state. They have to pay for healthcare access for example so presume that is noted somewhere on the NHS system if given an NHS number. If you don't have one, it would be an instant flag.

Legal economic migrants are usually coming to do skilled work and the reason for the new financial salary thresholds is presumably to ensure they can fund themselves when here. Their residency is limited to their job and if that ends, they have to leave as their right to work certification will be updated.

I honestly believe that politicians use migration [legal and illegal] as a tool to deflect attention, to create blame on a specific demographic and distract people from the overarching problem which is crap public services and high taxes. Other countries across Europe have far higher percentages of foreign born residents and manage their economies and public spending just fine.

Climate change - caused by us primarily and by the type of capitalist society we have exported worldwide - leads to war, famine, death and illness. We made a problem just exported the first consequences

I would say he do have a moral obligation to help out - to the benefit of all the people on the planet not just a privileged few

Of course if we did more now to reduce the impact of climate change there wouldn't be so much of a problem - but boo boo that means we can't carry on just as we like with no thought or consideration for anything but our own very short term pleasure

Climate change - caused by us primarily and by the type of capitalist society we have exported worldwide - leads to war, famine, death and illness. We made a problem just exported the first consequences

This is the thing though - more and more people are getting sick of the narrative that whites/British/Westerners are responsible for the world's woes and must therefore suffer as a mea culpa.
People, understandably, care about themselves and their own families primarily. Suicidal empathy is confined to the progressive left.

Besides, what are China and India doing to reduce their emissions?

@poetryandwine I don't think your figures show it either way

You're not aware of how these claims are evidenced as in pp

Back to the system which you support. Why do you buy into this model which sees high crime, risk, deaths and money as a way to do this?

I have nothing against the man who lied for asylum, can see why he did it as he too was sold a lie, but on the journey people will die and profits and criminality will occur

Why wouldn't you want to change the system?

Other countries across Europe have far higher percentages of foreign born residents and manage their economies and public spending just fine.

Other countries across Europe have major issues in general and huge rising social tensions due to mass immigration, and are lurching rightwards as a result.

So, @EasternStandard , I am genuinely interested in your dispute with my data (from 22.03 yesterday for anyone interested)

But if your main concern is people smuggling, what would you do? Bearing in mind that you cannot violate the 1951 Convention. Someone (perhaps you?) mentioned Australia earlier but even they are just processing claims offshore, albeit in a punitive and inhumane manner. Processing is not addressed by the Convention. People granted asylum are welcomed into Australia (at least formally)

Why do people want to escape France to claim asylum in the UK?

Why don't they chose the first safe country they enter?

(I genuinely don't know)

At the top of the list is Iran.
I don’t think we should be following their lead.

https://refugeeresearchonline.org/irans-mistreatment-of-afghans-human-rights-violations-of-refugees-and-asylum-seekers/