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.

This is a straw man. No one is saying all migration is bad are they?

Well two is the replacement rate. China is finding the ramifications of the one child policy a bit tricky so possibly not the best route.

@supersimkin7 Most are young, fit as fiddles men, so healthcare is not too badly restricted for locals.

Where I live we are not worried about the healthcare being restricted but the 100 odd young men who have been placed into a hotel for months on end near to a secondary school, who have twice had to be escorted out of the playground at break times by the police and who now stand daily on the side of the road making obscene gestures at the girls as they leave every afternoon is a bit more of an issue.

And to be honest I have as much beef with the authorities as anyone, they stuck them there and then washed their hands of them and they are now board and aimless. Every time a complaint is raised they just bleat "processing" at us. Well either process them quicker or engage them in volunteer work or something whilst they wait but our girls should be safe to stand in the playground at lunchtime and walk home after school.

We already have a falling birth rate. 1st generation immigrants statistically tend to have bigger families. Then their 2nd generation fit the national pattern.

And yet isn't it infuriating that even we English people are not allowed to just go and live in Canada or America or New Zealand or Australia? All these countries that used to be owned by us, colonized by us, members of the Commonwealth, that have shared the same monarch for centuries.

There are a whole load of hoops and hurdles that one has to go through to go and live in those countries. That doesn't seem fair while at the same time an unlimited number of people are allowed to come and live on this tiny island.

I think we should be quicker with decision making. Also if people are economic migrants then they shouldn’t have recourse to state benefits, no nhs, universal credit, housing benefits. Either self fund or get popped on a plane home.

And jump through crazy hoops to be allowed here. 14 years to get leave to remain as a refugee.

These immigrants are taking all the jobs Brits refuse to do. We should make the welfare state tougher so Brits will have to do these jobs.

100%

There's so much ill-informed opinion on this thread already. If we're going to discuss immigration, we should at least do it based on the facts.

Native British are on average net contributors to the public purse. The immigrants we have been letting in for many years are a massive drain.

When it comes to care work, from some countries we got 4 dependents for every care worker. We could have doubled, trebled or quadrupled care workers wages, and it would still have only cost a tiny fraction of what the taxpayer will end up paying to support those immigrants for the rest of their lives.

I would be inclined to agree but if they have no documentation/ have documentation but own country won't take them back, then what??

MN needs an anti immigration sub forum.

With all these doctors and engineers arriving daily our NHS and countries ability to manufacture should be simply brilliant.

This. The two are often conflated, to the detriment of all I think.

So seeing as we have no borders with any country from which anyone would seek asylum, do you think it would be fair that we took no asylum seekers on the basis that they will always have to pass through another safe country before coming to the UK? You think that’s reasonable?

Can you supply the data sources for your facts please?

We currently don’t have a birth rate that’s at the replacement level. it will be interesting to see how these discussions change in 20 or so years time when the ramifications of significantly fewer young people entering the workforce begins to be felt.

Exactly. If people can fund and support themselves then not an issue imo. Otherwise just more strain on already stretched budgets

We did not grant asylum to a million people last year. Grow up.

Asylum seekers are a small number of those who come to the UK

www.gov.uk/government/collections/immigration-statistics-quarterly-release

The UK may take in fewer migrants/asylum seekers, but our country is significantly smaller than many other countries. The UK doesn’t appear to be building any more hospitals or increasing the capacities of those we already have.

I despair about the length of waiting lists for GP/hospital appointments etc in the future, if this necessary infrastructure is not prioritised.

We need to reduce the population, not increase it.

The reason why many places in the world are not currently "as good as Britain" is partly because of extractive colonialism over centuries...by...er...

I don't think we need to worry about that.

If the Assisted Suicide Bill gets passed Granny will be persuaded to top herself to stop 'being a burden' and save the state a shedload of dosh. 🙄

They come my dear, without asking. What taking is that LOL