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.

YABU to conflate immigration in general with assylum seekers, OP, you do realise that assylum seekers make up only about 6% of immigrants, right? YABVU to blame problems with housing etc on that small group of people. The UK takes far fewer than its fair share of assylum seekers globally.

Pretty sure immigrants aren't entitled to any benefits. Only if they are British citizens. Immigrants also have to pay an annual amount alongside their visa to use the NHS. I believe that to work here you need a job that has a salary above £30/35k, which is not a huge amount but higher than the minimum wage

Asylum seekers that have been granted refugee status can claim benefits. However, its surely more economic to speed up the decision process, so that they can then find work? Not all asylum seekers will be 'low-skilled'.

A different perspective here, I’m from a European country with a population of about 10 million. In less than a year it grew by an additional 1 million - mainly refugees from Ukraine. The UK are definitely not taking in more refugees than other European countries. Legal immigration, that’s another matter altogether…

The question is not whether it is reasonable for people in other countries to want to come here. The question is whether it is realistic to use 'improving other countries' as a way to reduce mass migration. Do you think it's realistic? I don't think it's realistic in any timeframe that would be acceptable to the British electorate, though I do think it's a generally laudable aim.

"Official data showed the government spent £4.3bn hosting asylum seekers and refugees in Britain in the last financial year"

So it's OK to keep spending £4.3b our taxes on people who are migrating here, much of the time for a better standard of living?

I don't blame them for trying but we have a housing crisis. And a climate and biodiversity crisis. Where are we supposed to house another million people that will turn up this year?

https://www.bond.org.uk/press-releases/2024/04/uk-government-continues-to-spend-more-than-a-quarter-of-the-uk-aid-budget-in-the-uk-on-asylum-seeker-costs/

Personally I'd rather spend that money on the NHS or education. Not on other people coming in illegally hoping for a better life. I realise that's selfish but there's 8 billion people on the planet. We cant house them all here in the UK, can we?

@DogsDinner, thanks for the screenshot. Do you have a link?

The screenshot mentions low earning immigrants earning below the average and then there's an opening discussing "average British born workers". It's not clear that the data is being compared like for like in the example. Workers earning low wages are all 'net recipients' (vs net contributors). In fact, the reality is that most UK households are net recipients (53.8%, according to Financial year end 2022 data from ONS).

Immigrants are entitled to all benefits. We have a non contributory welfare system.

You are 100% correct. Most are economic migrants not asylum seekers. Stop the generous benefits and a hell of a lot will deport themselves.

Well, you barely also forgetting that people are living longer, and with more complex health needs. Life expectancy in 1964 was 75.5 and 2023 was 79 for men and 83 for women.

So although birth rate is falling, it's almost hidden by longer life expectancy.

I'm not denying immigration hasn't contributed to the increase as well.

The UK needs a bigger population because we are about to reach a point where there are a higher number of pensioners living for a long time, more workers are needed to pay taxes, which will be put towards the pensions and social/health care that the elderly need. I can't remember where I read it now, but basically, even now, there isn't enough working age people actually working- including British citizens.

Mobility cat - among the pigeons - has not returned, funny that

We can't keep increasing the population to pay for the pensions of the previous generation.

The main/only reason other countries are more war-torn or less prosperous than Britain is because of colonialism? Does it hold for all former colonial powers or only Britain. It's a very controversial position and doesn't seem plausible to me.

Even if you accept your premise, it doesn't follow that there is a duty to accept anyone from any country who wants to come here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-funds/public-funds-accessible#immigration-status-and-access-to-public-funds

No, unless they have been granted settled status.

Any evidence for that claim?

Well perhaps if there was more investment in training and jobs like care paid a living wage there wouldn't be the need to bring in all these HCPs from overseas.

There was a thread on here the other day by a poster whose daughter had qualified as either a doctor or nurse (can't remember which) and was unable to find a job. Care homes which are often run by big companies want as much profit as they can and keeping care wages low is a major component of this.

Many of the UK's problems are caused by lack of investment in education and training, low wages and lack of decent housing and a failing NHS. These issues are not caused by immigrants although it's a bit chicken and egg because importing workers from overseas puts more pressure on services but these are not being improved to cater for the increase in population. There are also international factors including COVID and energy prices which have affected not only the UK.

People are being wound up to blame immigrants for all that is wrong with this country and are ignoring the last 14 years of steady decline. The Labour government cannot fix these things in the short term but they need to start looking at viable solutions and explaining to the public what these will be. At least if people feel something is being done then perhaps this anti-immigrant rhetoric will hopefully start to lessen.

When times are hard it is always easier to blame those who are seen as being "other" rather than looking at the underlying causes.

You're talking about people coming in at the moment. They will be on visas.

5.66 million people applied for settled status following Brexit.

All of them are eligible to receive state benefits. And given most of them are from Eastern Europe, they will be at the lower end of the wage curve. So there will be a lot claiming.

Well stop going to other countries then to poach nurses, doctors and other professionals.

The message is out there because for decades the U.K. goes out to other countries and tempts people over. My dad was one.

Ballad,

Sorry, I'm on my phone and I can't work out how to do links, only screenshots.

There are many British citizens who will also cost the country almost half a million over their lifetimes.

It's because I believe very strongly in a welfare state that provides decent living standards for everyone, that I realise we can't continue to increase their number by a million immigrants a year.

I will try and post some statistics later, but I'm not sure anyone will take any notice.

Everyone has their opinion, and they're sticking to it!

Best, too, not to assume that all those granted leave to remain have had their cases considered carefully

A quarter of a million asylum seekers waved through since the early 90's:
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/233/a-quarter-of-a-million-failed-asylum-seekers-granted-amnesty-since-the-early-1990s

Look at the figures. I can't be bothered to argue the point when all the information is freely available.

Well, I'm planning to leave the UK to live somewhere where the weather is warmer and the tax regime less punitive. I shall still be paying tax, and a net contributor to the public purse, just not in the UK.

My point is that however people are arriving we need overall control of immigration, economic migration and asylum seeking. Stricter controls could help manage numbers and prevent human trafficking.

My point exactly. Thank you, 🙂

The majority do stay in the first safe country. Check out Iran and Pakistan.

There certainly is a difference between people arriving in a plane or a boat. We do need people who have specific skills. While asylum seekers are generally not allowed to work until their claim is processed, those granted refugee status may eventually enter the job market, but limited recognition of foreign qualifications and language barriers can result in them being unemployed or dependent on welfare.