AIBU to ask those of you voting Green what the Green Party immigration plans would cost?

[PinkMagpie]

This is the Green Party platform on immigration. How much will it cost the country to implement this?

1. Implement a fair and humane system of managed immigration
2. Treat all migrants as if they are citizens
3. Give all residents the right to vote
4. Help families to be together
5. Dismantle the Home Office
6. Abolish the No Recourse to Public Funds condition
7. Abolish the ten year route to settlement
8. Stop the profiteering from application fees
9. Stop putting people in prison because of their immigration status
10. Accept our responsibility for the climate emergency and support the people forced to move

Wow, there really seems to be a coordinated anti-Green campaign happening on here at the moment. Wonder who’s frightened of them…!

They probably do need to get better at answering questions rather than this response

@MandingoAteMyBaby are you a Green voter? If so, is your opinion on their immigration policy platform?

I don't know what you are hoping for here, what you are asking for is a complicated statistical model which would take months to work through the data on. Presumably the party suggesting it has done the work on feasibility. You can't expect people here to have the knowledge and access to statistical modelling tools.

I am more concerned about the costs if Reform gets in and upends the legal working status of many settled beneficial migrants. It would be the death of the NHS. We have settled migrants in every business of any size. It would tank our economy. We still haven't recovered from Farage's last leave the EU stunt.

@PurpleNightingale i’m hoping for an answer to the question

How many people will be settling here as a result of climate change and how much (ballpark) will it cost for them to have access to public funds from Day 1

I don't actually, no. 😂

The Greens have only had mid Suffolk for 2 or three years. Come back and let's talk about it when it's been 10 or 15.

Do you think the Greens have done modelling for point 10?

I’ve heard ZP speak and he is as evasive as anyone re direct questions. If he had modelled helping people across the world he’d have something in terms of figures.

Giving asylum seekers the right to work from day 1, while their application is processed, would be a good idea rather than allowing them to languish in hotels or worse, roam around seaside towns being a nuisance (I know not all are like that). Who would want to employ someone with no references or background though?

So far the tenor of the pro-Green response has been

1. Local elections are nothing to do with national elections
2. We can’t be expected to understand what we’re voting for
3. What about Reform?
4. Some people have been mean about Zack Polanski
5. I judge my local election candidates on my subjective assessment of their character

I think if you live in London, your picture of a "migrant" is (say) a doctor or banker who's moved to London and bought a nice house and their kids go to private school etc.

You see a very different picture of "a migrant" if you live near where the small boats come in. I think it's something like 30,000 adult men arrived in the uk on small boats last year. It takes 12 months ish to process their application so they can't work in that time. What are they all doing?? That's so many men.

Oh and the best responses:

This Green Party policy will actually save us money

The Green party are completely insane but the scary thing is how uneducated people are about the economy and how much money there is. There is no economic growth really so there is no more money

The irony of someone with no economic knowledge posting this, fml

We employ overseas candidates.

You can get references, from their previous employers and education settings etc in their country of origin.

Point 10 is supporting the people forced to move? That sounds like with things like emergency tents, well drilling, rebuilding of housing- the sort of things many charities already do but might become overwhelmed by. That would be very sensible and long term thinking which could help ward off full relocations/ migration further afield becoming necessary later on.

Being quite realistic this would likely look like a pot of money made available for this support and would likely be a united effort with existing charities and other countries. Not a promise to fix the whole world on our own you are maybe thinking it is? These partnerships would take a while to establish. Until they are voted in, if they were, they wouldn't have the standing to start having these negotiations.

I'd be surprised if they could give a direct answer to it at this stage. But I think the idea that a wealthy country should have some charitable element to suffering in other countries is not wrong. Do you not support the emergency food and aid we already send? I see it as an extension of that.

I was talking about the people coming in on small boats, not the doctors and engineers. I got the impression that the people on small boats have limited paperwork (maybe erroneous).

I made the distinction in one of my comments above that a lot of these policies have the professional migrants in mind, when many voters are worried about irregular arrivals

So you see it as helping in other countries. Sounds ok but there does need to be some realism about how much funding is available and what gets a lower amount here. Education, defence or welfare etc

I have listened to ZP speak and his supporters will say ‘he doesn’t want open borders’ but when pressed can’t give any indication of a limit. So how does that work?

Thank you @PurpleNightingale for engaging with the question. If that is what is meant by point 10 then I agree it is sensible

Not necessarily, as an example - last year we employed a Turkish asylum seeker who had very recently had her asylum claim granted. She had arrived on a boat originally.

She had a CV, written by a local service that supports people into work, which we used to verify references.

Because she’d been granted asylum, she had Right to Work using the government portal. We worked with her liaison officer to get her working.

I assume a similar process would be followed to employ asylum seekers, just earlier.

Surely the point of the thread is to invite discussion and predictions of likely costs and outcomes of such policies. It's a chance to air conflicting views of what would work and what wouldn't.
I dont think anyone is going to hold you to an exact figure.

I don't vote green because I want or expect a green majority in parliament. I vote green because they best reflect the issues I care about and because i want those represented in parliament. My ideal would be a centre-left coalition.

I'm not uneducated on the economy. I've studied it at degree level and - specifically for public sector economics- at postgraduate level. I happen to have a different view from you on what is good/bad for the economy because two people, both with critical thinking skills, can look at the same information and draw different conclusions.

For example, to me the difference in social care in just a few years, with so many vacancies, rapid turnover and people doing the job until they fins something better is due, in part, to the UK becoming less attractive to the sort of people who would do that role. The impact my mother's inadequate care is having on my ability to work and on my husbands ability to work is significant.

I think the solutions are not more money or moving budgets but a different way of thinking about how everything impacts everything else. But I also think corporations like Starbucks and billionaires should contribute more.

That's interesting, thank you for sharing.

As a side note I was interested to read that asylum seekers used to be able to apply to work after 6 months while their application was being processed, but a labour government scrapped that in 2002. Then they reintroduced it but made it they had to wait 12months, in 2005 to comply with the EU. The Labour Party said in 2022 that this ought to be reduced back to 6 months, but they haven't done that now they're in government.

I wonder why the govt thinks it's better for asylum seekers to be idle? Do they think that protects jobs for locals? It's so strange.

Edit to add where I read this

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01908/

I think there's been a lot of talk from different parties about "reducing pull factors" but that evidently hasn't worked. I guess the Green party is saying let's not even bother deterring people from trying to arrive here irregularly.

I think it could be because there’s no winning, for some voters.

Migrants (of all kinds) are either “coming over here and using our resources/taking our benefits,” or “coming over here and taking our jobs.”

Youth unemployment is at all time high. There are very few non-skilled jobs atm. and the vacancies there are have huge numbers of applications. If migrants are able to work from day 1 then ,unless they have skills which are in-demand, they will have full access to the benefits system so costs will be more.

Very true, they are both phrases I've heard used.

I'm more of the mind that I'd rather working was a requirement! - like if I had a nephew lodging with me, I can imagine saying "get a job or I'm kicking you out".

I can see why it horrifies people that we're providing free accommodation for up to 12 months for tens of thousands of adult men and not even letting them work, let alone expecting it.