Latest immigration stats released & they are gigantic again

[BritBrit]

The final immigration stats from the ONS before the EU referendum have been released with immigration for 2015 at 630,000.

-630,000 immigrants came to the UK
-Net immigration was 333,000 up 20,000
-EU immigration was 270,000
-Romanian & Bulgarian immigration tripled in 2015
-42% of EU immigrants did not have a job when coming to the UK
-EU immigrants took more new British jobs (224,000) than British workers (185,000)

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/may2016

pang I think if we go for a points system for immigration we can choose just the people we want with the right skill sets. Instead of being forced to take thousands of people unskilled or maybe be highly skilled but not qualified (through language barrier or lack of recognised qualifications) to work in their field in the UK. But they can do menial work, earning the minimum wage here and still earn more than in their own country and enjoy free healthcare -then return with a hefty sum set up for life...

The UK has 100% control of immigration from outside the EU. The majority of net migration into the UK come from this source. There is absolutely nothing to stop a points system being implemented for this cohort of people right, so I wonder why that is not already in place. If Gove et al are truly chomping at the bit about it. It is rather disingenuous to give the impression that is what they would do if there is a Brexit but are powerless to do at the moment because of the EU , when they are in fact perfectly able to implement it for the majority of migrants toute suite.

There is a Brexit campaign under the banner of 'save the British Curry'. They were complaining they were unable to bring people to work in their restaurants as they wouldn't be paying them anything near the requirement. I think it was from Bangladesh. So their main complaint was they couldn't import cheap labour and pay them peanuts. Their aim wasn't to reduce immigration, but to replace EU migration. I must admit, it does beg the question why they aren't training people to cook for their restaurants. It must be to do with doing it as cheaply as possible. Maybe the wages would be so low, no trained cook/chef in the UK would accept it. So their campaign was in the interests importing cheap labour.

There seem to be contradictory reasons people are supporting a Brexit. If a points system comes into place at all, (and this begs why it is not in place for non-EU now or campaigned for by the Brexit Tories in Gov't) the 'save the British curry' people could find that the system would prevent them importing a curry cook from Bangladesh if they wouldn't earn enough, have no English or recognised qualification.

Pang we don't have currently have a points system but I know of Canadians and Americans who have had to return home when their visas ran out - I worked with an Indian woman who was working in a professional environment - she had specialist skills we needed and had to jump through hoops to get here.

So although I don't know everything about the immigration from outside the EU I do know we have some control -in the case of the Eastern Europeans we have no control - they don't need to have skills, can stay for as long as they like, can be criminals and there seems to be nothing we can do to control that. And that is wrong - especially as I said either on this thread or another one our NMW is more or less the highest in Europe - it is 4 times that of Poland and 7 -8 times higher than some other Eastern European. countries with that and the added attraction of free healthcare and tax credits etc -no wonder they want to come here. But they aren't taking skilled work...they aren't doing anything that people already in the UK couldn't do.
hover - sigh -
is that the only part of my post you read - it is irrelevant whether the border is in Calais or not - we won't get the 'jungle' as they will already be here not waiting to try and sneak across. And we can detain them and process them. (I think France will still have the Jungle as they can't very well wait in the channel to try and sneak in ...and the illegal ones without a claim won't want to be picked up in the UK border cos we can (and should) detain them - which if they have dodgy claims means they will be going straight back to where they came from or kept in long term detention...) And they haven't been processed before - so haven't registered in the first safe country -which will damage their claim.

And we give France money to handle the border - so they will be looking after a jungle without money from the UK...as it is if they pick up migrants trying to smuggle into the UK they just taken then a little way away and let them go...to try again the next day...so what difference will it make?

So I would say being a member of the EU or not is irrelevant - in fact I suspect it might be better if we did free up an old army base to deal with them when we catch them ...

In fact - you can read all about the Calais border controls here
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33267137

myhoover would you like to point out which points I have missed?
Did you read this
But Mayor of Calais Natacha Bouchart has said the town is a "hostage to the British" because migrants expect better lives in the UK.
She called the situation "barely manageable" and called for the UK border to be moved back to Britain.
And this is nothing to do with Brexit - the Mayor of Calais wants the border moved back to the UK anyway.

I guess the bit you are pointing out is
French economy minister Emmanuel Macron told the Financial Times the country could end the so-called Le Touquet agreement - which lets UK border guards check passports on the French side of the border - if Britain left the EU.
followed by
UKIP said the PM's claim was "based on fear, negativity and falsehood". French government said it had "no plans" to change the agreement

Yes, no plans right now, of course - typical political non-committal phrasing. But Hollande also did say that Brexit would have "consequence" for France's migrants policy.

www.lefigaro.fr/international/2016/03/03/01003-20160303ARTFIG00371-migrants-brexit-l-avertissement-de-hollande.php

I don't know if it would make rational sense for France to cancel the agreements. But the problem is that rationality is only part of the equation. If Brexit happens there will be huge domestic political pressure on the French government to push the Calais migrants problem back onto Britain, not least from the Front National.

Unlucky - do you not actually read what you post? The French want to get rid of UK customs at Calais, yet you seem to think they will be somehow obliged to keep then in the event of a Brexit!

The current arrangement with border agency is nothing to do with our membership of the EU and arises via the Le Toquet bilateral agreement between the UK and France.

Even if the French reneged on that deal, those migrants still have to board a ship, train or a plane to get here. and the airlines already have effective controls for policing that - for fear of the large fine for carrying illegal immigrants.

Conflating non-EU initiated bilateral agreements with our EU membership is just scaremongering.

It's not scaremongering if French officials have said it. And have domestic political reasons to want to enact it too.

If the agreement doesn't matter because migrants still have to board ships/planes that have effective controls, then why was did we need to put this deal in place at all? Genuine question, I don't know much about this.

It's not scaremongering if French officials have said it. And have domestic political reasons to want to enact it too.

It is scare-mongering as the last time I looked, the Mayor of Calais had no authority to rescind an international agreement.

If the agreement doesn't matter because migrants still have to board ships/planes that have effective controls, then why was did we need to put this deal in place at all? Genuine question, I don't know much about this

Because the migrants were not using legal travel but were stowing themselves away in lorries or being smuggled through by others in their cars. Why do you think that these migrants pay thousands to people smugglers to get to places lie Calais instead of popping down to their local airport and flying to the UK? They seem to have the money for an air fare.

Answer - because the airlines would be fined very heavily if they transported an illegal immigrant to the UK, as would lorry drivers or private car drivers. Boarding passes and a ticket are required for Eurostar and the ferries. No ticket - no boarding pass - no entry onto ship. ferry. train or plane. So short of swimming the Channel or getting here in a rubber dinghy via people smugglers the borders would still be protected post - Brexit.

But it's not just the mayor of Calais, it's also (very clearly) the minister for economy, and (in more covert words) the President. Of course their sincerity and seriousness is debatable, but it's not entirely unreasonable to listen to what the French government has said and to take it seriously. As I said, even if the agreement makes sense, there would be a lot of domestic pressure for a political gesture against it.

Just thought I would leave this here.

www.unexpectedsocialist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/if-immigration-is-your-answer-someone.html

Assuming my link works cos I always balls it up.

Just to remind people brexit would mean the dublin agreement would go as well so we would have no recourse to say migrating non EU, people have to register in France.

Also if as brexiters don't want free movement then that means people in EU could try their luck at trying to get into the UK as well as now everyone would be under UN rules..

BornFreeButinEUchains Sat 04-Jun-16 21:33:16 - If we don't like certain policies, we can take action

No sorry we cant we get one shot with a 2 year leave notice period to try to get some compromise, if we dont we go to standard WTO, and a big mess.

"The current arrangement with border agency is nothing to do with our membership of the EU and arises via the Le Toquet bilateral agreement between the UK and France. Conflating non-EU initiated bilateral agreements with our EU membership is just scaremongering."

In fact, I've just caught a BBC2 morning debate in which Yvette Cooper tried to do exactly that. She was pulled up by someone in the audience and Pixie Cooper looked stunned - either she was ignorant of it, or she thought the audience member was! It was shocking to watch, because the Undecideds were totally ignorant of so much background re EU, the fact that it is the commissioners who generate issues and write the propositions that are put to the MEPs for a Yes/No vote. No one can glean enough information in order to make a decision unless they research the EU and its workings themselves.

Blackriver
" the fact that it is the commissioners who generate issues and write the propositions that are put to the MEPs"

Another myth. The commissioners are told by the heads of government (our elected leaders) what issues to consider and come up with proposals on.

They don't just sit in their swanky diamond-encrusted offices drinking the 1984 Lafit and imagining what will destroy our lives next.

Just, you know, to clear that one up. (although I think the 1984 was a little disappointing).

europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/procedures/index_en.htm

And BlackRiverLoretta you've just tried to say the Parliament have to accept or reject, when there is also an amendment procedure. Why have you omitted the Council? You are right that people should research themselves.

Just so people aren't misled.

"The European Parliament and the Council review proposals by the Commission and propose amendments. If the Council and the Parliament cannot agree upon amendments, a second reading takes place.
In the second reading, the Parliament and Council can again propose amendments. Parliament has the power to block the proposed legislation if it cannot agree with the Council.
If the two institutions agree on amendments, the proposed legislation can be adopted. If they cannot agree, a conciliation committee tries to find a solution. Both the Council and the Parliament can block the legislative proposal at this final reading."

thanks for the link unexpsoc, it's a good balanced summary

the one point it doesn't bring up is the (absolutely fair) concerns about general population increase, and its negative effects on the environment and quality of life

to which I would have two answers - first, there are many ways to improve housing and public services without building more. Secondly, while I completely agree that humanity in general should ideally stabilise its population asap, on the scale of Britain this would not be a good idea right now. To have an old, ageing population is to impose a very unfair burden on the younger generations who have to pay for disproportionate amounts of pensions and healthcare. As long as Britain's population keeps ageing, it's going to need to import younger immigrant taxpayers to fund all of this. Once the huge baby boom demographic bulge has been absorbed, in a few decades, and we're back to a "normal" demographic pyramid, then the population stabilisation argument will start making a lot more sense.

Myhover I don't think I am the one struggling with comprehension here...
I will try and explain better to you.

I am not worried about the French moving the border to our side of the channel. In some ways I think it would be a good thing as long we deal with bogus claims efficiently - return people and keep them in detention centres. They already have lost some rights as they have obviously not claimed in the first safe country.

Whether we are in the EU or not there is pressure from the Mayor of Calais to move the border. So remaining in the EU will not guarantee that the current arrangement will last for ever anyway but I think it will for now.
If we do have to move the border we will not get 'the Jungle' in the UK - a lot of people in the Jungle have dubious asylum claims - they can't get openly and legally get on the Eurostar and get off at the UK border control and claim asylum. So they have to try and sneak through. If they could simply do that they would be doing it anyway.
As the channel is a break they will still be hanging around in a Calais jungle awaiting a chance.
The French know that - with the border on our side they will still be dealing with problems - the jungle, chaos on the motorway etc but without any financial help from us - lorry drivers won't suddenly be saying yep sure jump in my lorry - as they know they will fined if they get caught. Ferry operators will be in a similar situation, possibly refusing to use Calais or demanding ID. They can't stop guarding the channel tunnel and allow people to walk through as if any died they would be to blame...
So all in all I don't think being in or out of Europe will make that much difference. It is not something that worries me.
Lack of democracy is - why I am voting out.

The democracy argument is really bullshit. The EU Parliament is more representative than our domestic legislature - half of which we have literally no say in electing at all, and the other is vastly unrepresentative.

The democracy argument is really bullshit. The EU Parliament is more representative than our domestic legislature - half of which we have literally no say in electing at all, and the other is vastly unrepresentative

This x 1000 is so true, lol

First Past the Post(FPT) is BS,
-the fact that brexiters are so silent on FPT is BS
-the fact that the government of the UK is dependent on a few swing constituencies is BS
-the fact that in the last election the following seats were awarded
is BS. Just a reminder of the scale of the BS -
Sorted by votes:

Conservative Seats 331 Votes:11,334,576
Labour Seats 232 Votes 9,347,304
UKIP have the following results: Seats 1 votes 3,881,099
Liberal Democrat Seats 8 Votes 2,415,862
Scottish National Party Seats 56 Votes 1,454,436
Green Party Seats 1 Votes 1,157,613
Democratic Unionist Party Seats 8 Votes 184,260
Plaid Cymru Seats 3 Votes 181,704
Sinn Fein Seats 4 Votes 176,232
Ulster Unionist Party have the following results: Seats 2 Votes 114,935
Social Democratic & Labour Party Seats 3 Votes 99,809

And all has nothing to do with Europe and people are implying we are doing it so much better here

breaking - I suggest you look at all previous General Elections
I am so tired of reiterating this point - when nulabour were in - they did not have a mandate of over 50% of the electorate because of FPTP
I know you Conservative haters like to heap all sorts of the country's ills at their door - but really look at the facts - would the labourites have complained when TB and GB held power because of FPTP
it is not democratic but unless someone comes up with a better system it is how it works at the moment. Suggest you don't just use the figures from the last GE and go off on a rant.
The SNP (if number of votes was what counted) would not have 56 MPs and UKIP would have more than 1