We cannot continue taking on immigrants indefinitely

[MobilityCat]

I'll probably be shot down for saying this but Immigration should be strictly controlled or we'll all become significantly disadvantaged. While international law doesn't require asylum seekers to stay in the first safe country they reach, some governments argue they should. There is a belief that the UK has a fairer asylum process, more legal protections, and better opportunities for work and education compared to other countries. While the reality may be different, word of mouth and social media often spread the idea that the UK is a good place to seek asylum. Our reputation as a desirable asylum destination is straining social services, housing, and the asylum system. The NHS and schools face increased pressure, housing shortages worsen, and asylum backlogs lead to long waits and high costs. Public frustration is growing, fueling political divisions. The system is unsustainable due to financial burdens, fairness concerns, and security risks.

The problem is now 1000s of people are claiming asylum via this route and we can’t tell if their claim is legitimate or not. Mostly people coming on boats are young men who won’t be filling the jobs such as social care and NHS work. They are economic migrants fooling the system.

Last year it cost the U.K. £4.3 billion to house feed clothe all of them in premier inns etc costing £3k a month per person.

This is £4.3b that could have gone on the winter fuel allowance. Perhaps you’re lucky enough to have the money to heat your home to be comfortable this winter but many aren’t.

If you look at the sums for immigration low skilled workers cost the U.K. more than they add. They are not paying anyone’s pensions. On the contrary they are dragging the economy down.

Then perhaps there should be pre processing happening in refugee camps.
I have worked with asylum seekers; they are not economic migrants. I have been shown torture scars on. young woman as she had dared go on a student march.

Another case where a young woman was trafficked here. She should be offered our support.

I’d be happy with that but in the meantime we have thousands coming in illegally. They are taking up the space of those with genuine need. U.K. has such a problem on its hands now.

They’re not illegal.

I believe NET immigration is actually increasing. So yes more people coming than leaving

They are not coming here illegally.
It is legal to cross the channel in a boat (ask the yacht owners).
There are no safe and legal routes for the majority of asylum seekers who come here. They cannot claim asylum until they arrive here.
They are not illegally here until their claim has been processed and rejected.
The tory government made a conscious decision to remove and reduce the number of staff with the expertise to look at claims, deliberately housing refugees in hotels owned by their mates (made their mates rich in the process).

Where should Antarctica house them?

But the asylum seekers are not coming illegally, what makes you think they are?

Reform will get in if this continues. That’s all I’ll say.

When you make silly statements like where shall we house then all. Antarctica. It makes moderate people want to dig their heels in because they aren’t being listened to.

Look at Trump.

You don’t see that by flooding our country with cheap unskilled labour we’re going downhill fast. If all the proposed benefits of immigration were manifested, we should have a very rosy economy but the opposite is the case.

Our culture is changed forever. Nobody voted for this. Nobody.

I'm not sure people didn't vote for it. I think there was a lot of campaigning of second generation Brits from Commonwealth countries who thought Brexit would give easier visa access to the UK by Brexit groups.

This demographic did get what they wanted because visa access is now a lot easier.

In certain policy environments, this outcome was intended or recognised early on.

The above is nothing to do with asylum. Which is a drop in the ocean when you have a million people entering the country legally.

Where people should be pissed off with the Brexit architects is that they got gipped. There is no more money for them. In fact, there is more competition from the rest of the world for jobs.

The question is why anyone thought that they would so much better by an idea mostly driven by Conservative or right wing people who had never wanted things like the minimum wage, employment rights, maternity leave, or anything that protected people from exploitation.

I don't think many Brexit architects are keen on those things. But now, they can get rid of them in the name of productivity and growth and scrapping "regulation".

Very good post.

I remember making the point on here several times during Brexit debates that the plan was to have mass immigration from Asia instead of Europe. Priti Patel admitted as much in a speech to Bangladeshi business leaders.

To be clear I'm not anti-immigration, but we do need to have a grown up conversation about economic and population growth, infrastructure and demographics v climate change and the cost of living.

The last Conservative government with Brexit and then working and study visas policy have opened a Pandora's Box of high permanent or long term population growth because of
legal immigration. When we had net population growth from Europe, a lot of people coming here would go home again after a few years. And of course it was vastly easier for UK citizens to go and live and work elsewhere.

@jellyfishperiwinkle - yes. It was predicted. It was a clever arrangement where there was a calculated effort to enrage people about immigration which paid off in spades.

Everyone vote! I hate these exam passing bastards! Hate them.

That was what they wanted. A lot of Brexit voters thought they would get protection and the kind of social investment to support their communities. And good jobs once the immigrants left.

Kindly you might say they hoped for better. But they will not get it.

This is such a predictable response. Not facing up to the reality of the situation because it hasn't affected you yet. Sigh.

Why? Be specific. I don't support current migration levels. I'd rather that we actually did support proper employment and manage it.

I'm just pointing out that Brexit is a crock and in some circles it was actually intended to get increased migration from places other than Europe. Which is what has happened in the years since.

This is always such a toxic debate. Some people won't accept any negativity around immigration and cry racism at every opportunity while sticking their fingers in their ears singing lalalala. Others are simply just racist with an ingrained belief that immigration is awful and that all the ills in the country can be traced back there.

We really need some honesty from our politicians, economists and social scientists in our public discussions. At the moment its a political football with so much disingenuous debate. How bad is demographic time bomb? To what extent do we need immigration? What profile/qualifications/expertise do we need? How can we be a moral home for those fleeing war and persecution? At what point does immigration stop being a good thing and start hurting the existing population?

It is very hard. If you go sector by sector, you could set migration targets, and then short term visas could be granted.

The issue is that the UK doesn't or hasn't done this for 25 years. We got used to migration which was drawn from the EU which met immediate demands.

Now the UK needs to plan this and have an economic policy to support growth sector by sector and educate our population to support that plan.

Or we could just carry on not giving a shit and just import people in without limit and disenfranchise our own population for the long term leading to increased racism and division. But way cheaper for business

We are storing up a financial nightmare for the future. Currently, about 650,000 people reach retirement age each year.

If we cant cope with the costs of our elderly population now, how will we cope when the numbers are doubled as the current huge waves of immigrants reach retirement age.

We wont be able to rely on more immigration because the only immigrants likely to be net financial contributors come from countries with similar, or often even lower birth rates than ours. They will be in hot demand everywhere

Maybe the government has seen this coming, hence the assisted dying bill.

Net migration has been running at >700,000 people for the past several years.

I read the links regarding Japan and they did not show that they are doing well with an aging population.

One was linked claiming that Japan has a lack of a housing crisis- yet if you read the link, they have 9 million empty houses that either haven't been claimed as inheritance or not needed and left abandoned,eventually becoming derelict and dangerous. Eventually the government take ownership and auction them off for a small amount of money.

The other was how they are doing economically- within the article at the very bottom it stated that the workforce was supported by foreign workers.

So the links weren't supporting the PP argument about how Japan is doing really well, quite the opposite. They are struggling with the effects of an aging population, although they are not at a crisis point yet

Yes they are struggling but they have relatively little immigration. Look at this chart.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1495688/japan-net-migration-japanese-and-foreign-nationals/

They still have a $5 trillion economy unlike our $2.9 trillion economy. They aren't falling on their sword.

In the meantime, crime rates in Japan are low and while they no doubt face all kinds of issues just like us, Japan appears to be coping OK with little immigration.

https://www.numbeo.com/crime/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Japan&country2=United+Kingdom

Yes the numbers are ticking up. However Japan is poised to break out of the sideways line it's been on for many years now.

Watch and see... Most of the investment reports are bullish on Japan this year. That tells you something.

I think in this country if we had immigration at around 190k per year, we'd all be OK with that. Instead we had approx 1.2 million last year.

People coming here to work have to be in relatively high paying jobs. Who is going to pay the taxes to support our elderly population, and help to fund our public services and infrastructure? Not our children. We aren't having them.

They’re likely closer and have more religious/cultural links 🤷🏻‍♀️

Not under FOM they didn't which has not long ended. And since then we've given waiver after waiver to low paid sectors who don't just bring themselves, they bring dependents too.

They will not be paying for anyone's pension, not even their own.

do posters expect workers to leave their families behind? Is that what uk nationals do when moving abroad for work?
Bil moved to SE Asia - with his family,,

You're completely wrong.

https://www.fsp-law.com/return-of-the-resident-labour-market-test/

Labour are considering re-instating the Resident Labour Market Test.

This was relaxed by Boris Johnson in 2020. This enabled jobs that only required A-levels to be advertised globally.

Can you imagine what this has done to British people, young graduates and school leavers who want to apply for jobs?

https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/services/department/immigration/skilled-worker-visas-and-sponsor-licences-a-guide-for-employers

There is no doubt that we need some outside help, that's for sure but at the moment, UK can recruit from anywhere with no need to ensure that British people are first in the line. This has has some very real consequences in the NHS for British junior doctors and nurses who can't get jobs now because applications from international applicants is so high, into the 1000s in some cases that the job closes early and they can't even get off in time from their shift to apply or other work they may be doing. Many graduates are up against international candidates too. Companies no longer need to prioritise British nationals.

If the retirement age is going up to 71, I'm not sure pensions will be needing to be paid for, we're all going to die before then anyway...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5271736-to-think-71-is-too-old-for-state-pension-age

We cant' keep expanding exponentially forever. Please do read the whole thread for reasons why.

Presumably he was extremely skilled. They don't let just anyone in. Singapore is very very careful.