Immigration rules after brexit

[Doubletrouble99]

I for one am really pleased with today's report from the Migration Advisory Committee.
They have outlined exactly what I've been saying all along in that I was against FOM because I feel it is prejudice against people from other parts of the world. I'm really happy that they are saying we should treat everyone the same no matter where they come from.

I would have liked them to have gone further though and answered the questions about how we deal with unskilled labour and seasonal labour.

Yes, it was clear to me that Brexiteers only wanted to benefit non-EU migrants. That came through so loud and clear it was deafening.

bellin - If you'd been on these threads for the last 2 years you would know that I have always said that I found the FOM policy of the EU basically racist I that it favours countries with a mainly white Christian population. You will also find that that is the policy of even UKIP - although I am certainly not a supported of that party.

Fear not @Doubletrouble99.
By the time Brexit is done NO ONE will want to go to the UK, or at least not stay there. It will become a low wage society as Mr Hammond has already explained there will be CUTS, CUTS and MORE CUTS.

Why on earth would it be a 'low wage society'? As for Hammond - well he has always been a doom monger, wouldn't take everything he says as gospel.

I'm finding the committee's conclusion curious, being as I'm part way through the report and so far it's lauding EU migrants for contributing more to the economy than anyone else - including non-EU migrants and native Britons.

I'm up to here so far in the dynamic analysis:

"We found evidence to suggest that the average 2016 migrant is a fiscal
asset to the UK public finances. We estimated that each additional migrant from the EEA in 2016 will make a total discounted net fiscal contribution of approximately £78,000 over his or her lifetime, in 2017 prices. For non-EEA migrants, we estimated a positive net fiscal contribution of £28,000 per head over his or her lifetime."

The 60-page report is downloadable here, if anyone is interested in reading it instead of just grabbing the headline interpretation of their choice and running with it:

www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent-releases/8747673d-3b26-439b-9693-0e250df6dbba

doubletrouble
There is nothing wrong with fairness of course but I think your view is very naive.
FOM allowed for flexibility and fluidity which had major advantages such as allowing businesses to meet demand and be more reactive. Applying the same strict rules to everyone will hinder that (so not great for business) and also mean that casual migration- people not staying long enough to settle- will vanish. Any immigrant having jumped through the HO hoops will not be inclined to leave again so soon. Nothing wrong as such but infrastructures will have to adapt for sure to accommodate everyone. Basically, it's not going to solve any issues related to immigration, only prevent businesses from accessing a flexible workforce according to their needs.

I'm really happy that they are saying we should treat everyone the same no matter where they come from.

That's not quite what they're saying. I read it as we should treat everyone we can profit from the same. If you're hoping this is a signal that the UK will be accepting more refugees, you're going to be a little disappointed.

I think its disingenuous to suggest the immigration argument around Brexit was about "fairness".

Historically Irish immigrants suffered racism as did the Windrush generation. Today the hate is aimed at eastern europeans. Some people just don't like immigration regardless of where it comes from.

The economic arguments largely suggest immigration is positive but Brexit was never about logic it was about slogans, feelings and in some cases raw hate.

Why a low wage you ask?
For a start companies OUTSIDE the UK will not be particularly keen on investing as unless it is for the UK market or maybe Africa who have very little money to spend, as they will be hit by import tariffs to almost anywhere else on the planet. Immediate 10 percent or thereabouts 'hit'.
Thus making anything will HAVE to be a good 10 percent cheaper (labour and parts) than elsewhere. You will be 'competing' with sweatshops in China, India, Pakistan etc.
While you may be entertained by Mr Hammond's observations, he is not alone. The head of the IMF has said the UK will lose out from where it is now. There are talks of another GLOBAL recession on the way which will compound any problems the UK has trying to get back to where we were 2 years ago. We have already 'lost' some 5 percent or more in financial terms.

Pineapple - I would suggest that one of the main reasons that EU migrants contribute more than others is to do with the demographics of that population in that they are mainly young people in employment with fewer dependents. The whole UK population of course consists of the retired and elderly as well as the disabled and children so the demographic is entirely different.
I would also suggest that immigrants from other parts of the world will include the dependents of people from the Indian subcontinent and others who are more likely to be migrating to the UK long term unlike many from the EU who are often only here for a relatively short period so would not necessarily have brought all their dependents nor might they intend retiring here.

If you had to make a boat journey and you were warned of storms on the horizon, would you deliberately drill a load of holes in your boat?

Most of the immigration argument leading up to the referendum I saw was about "scroungers" and Europeans "dragging wages down." This report puts paid to that.

Agree with you ghost but I think for the OP it is definitely about fairness. She has posted about it before.

Now that I've read the entire report, it doesn't say anything about recommending non-EU migrants over EU migrants. It just crunches the numbers demonstrating that immigrants have been very good for the UK, and EU immigrants have been particularly so.

doubletrouble
So if you agree that EU and non EU migration are quite different in nature why insist on the same rules then?
The answer would lie in an improvement of the rules applying to non EU immigrants. Treat everyone better, not everyone worse.

Now that I've read the entire report, it doesn't say anything about recommending non-EU migrants over EU migrants. It just crunches the numbers demonstrating that immigrants have been very good for the UK, and EU immigrants have been particularly so.

You can prove anything with facts.

Despite the protests in Germany, I am pretty sure they said a while back that the immigrants, of which they hosted many from a couple of years back, have made a positive impact on their GDP.

And germany has also had substantial increase in intra EU net migration. All the Romanians and Bulgarians formerly coming here went there instead last year.

This is the only bit of good Brexit news I've heard. Vote Leave had a huge racist following. I'm so delighted that their racist vote has backfired, can't wait to tell my mum and others I know that we will be shutting the door to white European Christians and opening it to brown Asian Muslims.

What TM said yesterday was that they wanted to have an immigration policy that was the same for everyone no matter where in the world they came from. I would like to see a different approach to visas and the cost to the immigrant and the employer. I feel that really has to change and become much less bureaucratic.
I also think that the idea that FOM is good because firms can be much more reactive to market conditions is in fact the opposite.
I think that's where the zero hours contracts come from and the heavy reliability on eastern European workers in distribution comes from and I don't think that is necessarily a good thing. There is nothing wrong with proper forward planning in managing one's recruitment needs. This is where we have fallen short with Nurses and Doctors with our over reliance of bringing in others from other countries all the time and not looking at the long term and training up enough of our own medical professionals.

Just because some in the argument have used a racist argument to justify their reasons for not wanting people here from other nations doesn't mean we can't have a fair system now.

Far too much was made of the idea that leavers thought that migrants were a drain on our services and were scroungers by the remain press. No-one ever concentrated on the fact that the likes of UKIP policy on immigration is actually as I am saying - as of course that wouldn't make for very interesting headlines.

cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

This was quite an interesting analysis- it was available before the ref of course.However facts and experts were ignored.

Why people prefer non EU migration to EU migration is a bit weird. The individuals who come have benefits to offer wherever they're from. Although my NHS doctor friend says she doesn't like saying it but the EY nurses are overall generally better trained than the Filipino ones.

Before the referendum plenty of facts showed that
•EU immigrants pay more in taxes than they take out in welfare and the use of public services. They therefore help reduce the budget deficit. Immigrants do not have a negative effect on local services such as crime, education, health, or social housing.
•The refugee crisis has nothing to do with EU membership. Refugees admitted to Germany have no right to live in the UK. The UK is not in the Schengen passport-free travel agreement so there are border checks on migrants.

@Double I can see merit in what you say, as one possible adv of Brexit is to up-skill our own work force and have a decent school and FE system, providing business with the skills they need.

But if the Governments new migration policy is to bring in skilled workers from else where and possibly use it to drive down skilled workers wages, then what is the point of Brexit?

I believe Matt Hancock has recently boasted that many of the EU nurses that have left the NHS are being replaced with nurses from non EU countries ie developing nations but bursary's for UK nurses will not be re-introduced.

The important fact here is that the UK has always had the power to 'adjust' immigration rules of EU and non EU citizens but it failed to use it.
It could even have employed 'draconian' measures in contravention of the EU 'rules' if necessary. It could have been challenged and there might have been a mild legal 'spat' of it came to a significant head but it was all POSSIBLE.

lonely - I don't 'prefer' non EU migrant to those coming from the EU. I just want a fair system so everyone is treated equally no matter where you come from.

I hope a system like this might help to put paid to some of the stupid racist views of many as they would have much less to gripe about.

Hopefully the ideas will keep coming with a fair system for seasonal workers and the unskilled. I also want to see the government do much more to encourage firms to train our own population to fill many of the vacancies.

UKIP policy on immigration is actually as I am saying
Hasn't UKIP said they want zero net immigration?