Do you think the UK should halt immigration?

[LittenTree]

What would you think of a policy that pretty much, forthwith, limited immigration in to the UK to an 'Australian model', say? (where, for instance, it's bloody hard to get a residents visa but once you have one, fairly easy to get citizenship. I know the model may have changed from the 'points system' they used to use where you got more points for being educated, English speaking, in a high demand trade or profession, being within a certain age band etc etc).

What would you think?

OK, I recognise that various treaties etc we've signed up to means we cannot prevent an EU influx but let's say that was also under discussion.

Before anyone skim-reads this and shouts' racist', no I'm not. I am not suggesting we bar anyone as a result of their race. Being able to speak the language of your adopted country isn't a function of race, for instance.

But I am wondering how different Britain might look and function if we really did slow the rate of immigration right down and then only to those people we need and who would be net contributors to our society (yes, unlike many of our own people, but that's a different story!).

Could we ultimately see gains in the environment as our population gradually fell to something more sustainable? Would we see more social cohesion as previous groups of immigrants had far more time to assimilate before the next group arrive to 'threaten' their feeling of stability (it is to be noted that many of the strongest supporters of limiting immigration are the most recently arrived immigrants themselves as of course they often find themselves on the lower rungs and naturally aren't pleased to find themselves being squeezed by the resources being stretched to accommodate the next group. We've all done geography where we see how, for most ethnic groups, they arrive in a new country, all live close together in a specific area, then, over a few years, begin to move on up and out to have their 'place' repopulated with a new, distinct immigrant group).

I was going to add another bunch of caveats about how what I'm saying doesn't mean this or that; then I thought, my musing can stand alone. Do you think the UK should halt the current immigration model it uses and rethink to one that is very selective and prescriptive? Pros and cons?

Note this is in 'politics' as immigration is a political issue.

"I think unchecked numbers of immigrants who are not seen to be contributing to our society who then, via council rules appear to get preferential treatment by councils cause feelings of xenophobia to rise"

That's straight out of the BNP handbook. Distorting the facts to create the perception of prefential treatment.

No one's got a problem with "more enterprising types prepared to cross continents in search of work". The ishoo here is the immigration of large numbers of people who cannot (or, let's face it, sometimes) or will not support themselves, immigrating into an already overcrowded and resource stretched corner of the country.

Why do we not have an immigration policy that only supports the immigration of those who will be of net benefit to the country?

I am not sure that it's wise to make our society 'a competition' where the most driven and industrious get to call the shots. This has shades of the 'get on yer bike' comments addressed to Maggie's millions (the 3 million her policies put out of work)- said by people who felt utterly safe and secure in them themselves never having to relocate anywhere where there wasn't a direct rail link to London and a travel allowance to pay for the commute! Why should 'local people' leave everything they've ever known if jobs are available locally that they can be persuaded or even financially coerced to do (see 'cabbage picking'!). The answer isn't to import labour which can then destroy the net advantage to the economy , and maybe even socially if they choose to ghettoise- in importing their whole family!

In answer to the basic question posed in the thread title - no I do not.

I work in the IT industry and when I was office based pre DC's we had a massive mix of nationalities in our start up - every continent was easily covered numerous times over. A lot of tech comes out of the middle east and our company employed a lot of Israelis as well as Australians, Bew Zealanders, Indian, Pakistani and former Eastern European immigrants. Think we had a couple of Russians too. My point is that this was a thriving, tech start up which employed a lot of people and contributed to this country big style.

The idea that this country is full is utter crap. Some areas are over populated and it has created resentment as the scramble for limited resources becomes harder. I agree that business needs incentives to move to less densely populated areas.

I think that as a country we benefit massively from immigration. If someone has the get up and go to get here they aren't going to just sit on their arses. I do however wonder why eager beaver young Eastern Europeans for example view entry level jobs as a gateway to something better when our own school leavers often seem to regard them as beneath them in some way. If I was an employer I know what I'd prefer.

Cog- was keen to avoid the anecdote... but my DB lives, in a private rental, next door to a HCA house in which lives a recently arrived chap from NE Africa. He has his wife and 3 DC with him. He works 15 hours a week as a taxi driver. He's a nice, friendly bloke, but he openly expresses amazement that he was able to jump the housing list, that his DCs education will be free, that the shortfall in his wages is made up in benefits- and that he will now be able to bring his own parents over because his mother has cancer and will be treated on the NHS. I have absolutely no idea what visa he's bringing them over on- he was rather evasive about his own visa status which is fine, he doesn't have to tell my DB anything over the garden fence, after all, does he?- but he did say he was happily amazed when his visa came through as business back home was 'shit'- all of which implies he doesn't hold a British passport. But this is all absolutely true, not lifted from any BNP handbook.

I do not blame him at all, who wouldn't take advantage of such largesse? But I think the OP might be questioning why we are still 'offering' such largesse when we have such population crowding, unemployment and resource squeezing right now.

wasabi the people you mention sound like ideal immigrants (but how many are still here, not 'back home'?- really? How many brought their dependent families with them?). My DB's neighbour is unlikely to be heading home anytime soon and it will be decades before he starts making a net contribution to the economy, won't it?

"The ishoo here is the immigration of large numbers of people who cannot (or, let's face it, sometimes) or will not support themselves"

Again, this is a rich & misleading seam mined by the BNP on a regular basis. People who are newly arrived in the country cannot claim benefits. They are required to either support themselves or be supported by family. Benefit claimants are far more likely to originate from the UK than elsewhere

The one thing in the OP that seems to be overlooked is that the call is to halt our current immigration, to begin to strictly limit it. Everyone is piling in saying 'immigration benefits the country enormously' then goes on the list the very sort of immigrants the OP says we should be encouraging! But no one has addressed the flipside which is low paid, unskilled immigrant workers bringing large families to the UK, usually to live in overcrowded, under resourced areas.

I didn't think it was that hard to understand!

My DB's neighbour is claiming benefits. He has been in the UK 5 months.

Cogito- benefit claimants originating in the UK would seem to my mind to have a greater claim than someone newly arrived from overseas. I'm not sure trying to counter attack what's being said by implying it's in some way 'racist' (as surely the allusions to BNP mean?) is helpful.

No, people who need a scapegoat for their own problems cause feelings of xenophobia to rise as they fall for all sorts of rubbish. Even groups that have been here for centuries have to deal with xenophobia, even when they are assimilated.

Immigrants (non-EU) already have no recourse to public funds upon entry. Even if the immigrant gets pregnant, they have no recourse to public funds or housing (their names nor pregnancies cannot even be put on the housing application so their partners apply as a single person if doing so). Not even child benefit (though their partners, if British, can apply for it). If they are not from a country where there is a treaty in place to compensate the NHS for its costs, they will be billed and forced to pay costs. Children do not get automatic citizenship upon birth unless one parent is British. The visas are very expensive, hundreds of pounds as well as travel costs (entry visas must be applied for in country of origin, if you have to change entry visas you have to go back and then re-enter). To get citizenship it costs well over a grand for most people (including the cost of the application - which is over 600£ itself at last count, test, travel, the mandatory ceremony...). Most serious criminals are already deported, and detention centres are already working full out if not very effectively.

Now there is talk that those wishing to bring a spouse over will have to earn over 20k per annum (possibly each), more if there are children, meaning only the top 30% of earners will be able to do so. It's ridiculous, it's already hurting businesses, and more people, British people with immigrant family, are making plans to leave -- meaning their skills are leaving. People coming with little can do a lot - most new businesses in the UK are started by immigrant populations. The groups the xenophobes hate the most (Jews and Muslims) create the most new businesses and jobs. This whole thing is cutting ones nose to spite ones face. As has been said, just look at Japan to see the deterioration this type of thinking gets.

I live and work in East London and believe me, the place is bursting at the seams. I know that this is obviously not the case all over the country, but I don't know how much more the various systems in London can cope with. There are children in the borough where I work who have no school places for September, schools struggle desperately to support the number of children with SEN, housing is often of a poor quality, unemployment is on the increase, domestic violence rates are one of the highest in the country. There are more people than the resources can cope with. There is nothing racist about having a pragmatic discussion about immigration and it's a shame there always seems to be someone ready with a knee-jerk reaction and a comparison with the BNP as soon as anyone raises concerns about the impact of immigration on society.

I am an immigrant's daughter, my brother is an emigrant to another country. Immigrants are keeping my father alive and comfortable as I write this, so I have no grudges against migrants.

BUT... land is very, very scarce in the south, where everyone seems to settle. I am fighting a battle at the moment to stop development of a grade 2 agricultural field with a beautiful and historic view into housing. Once it's gone my children, your children, your grandchildren have lost this bit of scenery for ever. It's not just about my pleasure; it's about your descendants' future enjoyment of the countryside.

All well and good saying there's plenty of land, but realistically the chances of the Scottish Highlands or Welsh mountains becoming more populated are remote.

Low-skilled or illiterate families who will have lots and lots of children, putting strain on maternity services and schools aren't as useful to us as other groups. I think we have paid back the post-colonial guilt trip and it needs to stop now. We should choose who we want/need, who we feel an obligation to take in for moral or ethical reasons and that's that.

I think immigration should be stopped full stop. This country is ridiculously crowded, not just the SE but many other parts of the country too. We need to reduce the population before resources dry up and people start to starve.

'To get citizenship it costs well over a grand for most people (including the cost of the application - which is over 600£ itself at last count, test, travel, the mandatory ceremony...)'

Actually it's £856 + £50 for the Life in the UK test And that's for a EU citizen - the cheapest application there is basically. I have just applied for citizenship myself - I'm an immigrant but consider myself British. Hellishly high fees.

Yikes, that's gone up quite a bit since last I looked. With travel costs (to get to the centre to take the test, to get to the citizenship ceremony) and the rest, it's no wonder more are choosing to risk remaining on just the 'leave-to-remain' visa. Which means we can't get fully involved in British life. Cutting ones nose to spite ones face.

why should we pay out to 'manage' our population? Why should we openly walk into a situation where it has become so large and unwieldy that we need to

Because as our population grows, it is the job of the government to manage our infrastructure to support that population. What IS wrong is allow immigrants to come then say "Ah bollocks, we didn't think to build more schools/reservoirs/hospitals. You lot, hop it."

Why do we not have an immigration policy that only supports the immigration of those who will be of net benefit to the country?

We already do. The current policy is to only allow non-EU nationals to enter the country if they meet a certain number of points. A system designed to work out exactly who is going to benefit us.

As for EU nationals, no-one seriously expects us to ban EU nationals from living in the Uk would they? To do so would violate one of the core principles of being in the EU and we'd have to leave. Which would have far worse consequences on the UK.

Overall immigration is a net benefit to the UK and unlike what the tabloid press and BNP will have you believe, they are not stealing from UK taxpayers.

Immigration control is morally wrong and should be abolished worldwide. It does nothing but enforce a system of global feudalism where the rich benefit from the labour of the poor, by restricting the ability of the poor to benefit from the resources available to the rich. The message of immigration control, even the more liberal view in the UK is that we welcome those who are already skilled, educated and have benefitted from advantages in life, but those who have not been born into a situation where they have had these things should 'know their place' and not threaten our own security and 'entitlement' to the resources we have been born to.

The end of immigration control would mean that there would have to be a drastic rethink in terms of how the world's resources are shared, and it would mean that the rich would almost certainly end up paying more tax, and would probably have to adapt to a slightly less luxurious standard of living than we enjoy in the West. My own personal view is that I would be willing to forgo a few luxuries such as foreign holidays, and new clothes when I fancy a change in style, not because of necessity, if it meant that all children could grow up with access to healthcare, clean water, secure shelter and education. I know that many people do not agree.

It is a fallacy to say that the empire is no longer relevant- the wealth of our country, which not only puts us in a situation where we can buy cheap consumer goods, but means that our pensions, our banks and our government coffers are funded by investments that could only have been made as a result of 'free trade' that was created by force through the might of the empire. Just look at the history of BP, for example. Decisions made within living memory of 60 to 100 years ago in relation to the end of the empire still cause conflict and the oppression of people around the globe.

I accept that to simply lift all forms of immigration control would cause took much chaos to be feasible, but there are alternatives that are being discussed by academics at the moment. The key one seems to be reciprocal benefit agreements, so if a foreign national claims a benefit abroad, the bill is sent to their country of origin. This would incentivise all countries to provide their nationals with adequate health and social care themselves, as it would be cheaper and more cost efficient than paying bills racked up abroad.

Immigration control is not working. It has been a short-lived and flawed experiment that is proving less and less efficient at tacking the problems it proposes to deal with. It is time to start seriously thinking about a credible alternative.

Kayspace these were highly skilled tech people which, believe me, commands a high salary. If these guys had families they were supporting them via that wage. Yes that means their children will have gone to local schools etc. but that seems a fair exchange to me. Plus it kept their wages in the local economy - presumably they paid the same extortionate London private rents as everyone else.

Yes, wasabi- IF they brought their families, they seemed to be both able to fully support that family and make an overall contribution to our intellectual and financial lives.

Bring 'em on.

Others: bear in mind this isn't necessarily a practical debate as in yes, we are in the EU, so we cannot shut out EU members we don't want; however, it can't be overlooked that France, for instance, picks the bits of EU law it likes and ignores the rest. I am not suggesting we behave likewise but I am wondering whether we, the people of the UK, have maybe worn the brunt of eastern European immigration over the past 10 years, pricewise.

And good luck with your views, thistledew. Interesting but rather 'out there'!

I think it's fair to say we interpret European law a lot more strictly than many of our European neighbours. That's just in our nature. In Italy I've seen ash trays next to no smoking signs. We tend to do as we're told!

It is all a bit academic to discuss Euro immigration as I believe it constitutes about 80% of overall immigration and we couldn't change it even if we wanted to.

What is 'interesting' is the view that if you are born into a situation where it is not possible for you to find sufficient work in your local area to provide a good future for yourself and your family, then you have a moral obligation to travel within your own country to try and find something better. But if you can't find any way in your own country to provide a better future for your children then tough, you should suck it up, as it is morally wrong if you cross a man-made, arbitrarily defined country line to do the same.

Or is that just an easy view for us to take, living in a country where your family is not going to starve, fall sick, and have no way of educating their way out of the mess you were born into? How many of us would feel or abide by a sense of moral obligation to stay put if we found ourselves in that situation?

There are many ways to make a contribution to society, even those on the bottom rung, or even gasp end up on benefits, may be propping up part of British society by taking the caring roles that keep their native-born family members from ending up in expensive residential care. To some people, I don't think I - as an immigrant (particularly an immigrant who has had kids here and whose British DH claims benefits for them and his disability) - will ever be good enough.

but I am wondering whether we, the people of the UK, have maybe worn the brunt of eastern European immigration over the past 10 years

Interesting. Especially given my fiancee is actually from one of the Eastern European countries which you refer to. I suspect she'd be the first to say that since she's working and paying taxes that she's a net contributor so what's your problem? And that's despite the fact that when she was out of work and following a messy divorce that unlike a UK national, the benefits door was slammed firmly in her face.

I live in an area with quite a lot of eastern europe citizens and all seem to be gainfully employed. So presumably they are also contributing via taxes and to our society in general. Yes of course they'd use resources on the NHS, police, schools etc but no more, no less than a UK citizen who was also employed.

I guess some would argue they've taken jobs from a British person but then my fiancee would be very vocal with her opinion that if a UK person wanted the job they've done then they'd have stood more of a chance given the language barriers. But employers value hard work above nationality.

I completely agree with you, Thistledew . The practicalities would be a nightmare to sort out, but I believe that if people genuinely wanted equality, they would fight towards accepting a world without borders. It would have to be something all countries would accept, and unfortunately I can't see that happening any time soon.

I teach English as a Foreign Language. The unfairness of our immigration laws smacks me in the face every day. The only students we have on visas are from very rich or middle class families. It is becoming increasingly true since students on visas are now longer not allowed to work to support themselves.

It is massively unfair that we benefit from the hard work of people in other countries and then turn around and tell them they can't live in our country because they don't have an education/experience.

It is the government's responsibility to ensure resources are shared out fairly.

I have no problem with immigration I have a problem with exploitation and unfairness.

You want to import builders from Poland? fine go ahead but pay them the going rate that UK builders get not hire them so you can pay them less.

You want to come over here? fine but don't expect us to bend over backwards for you, learn the language and get in the queue for benefits and housing like everyone else.

(How much do we spend every year writing council and government documents in every language under the sun?).

I am with thistledew 100%

immigration law generally hurts the easy-to-catch family rather than the single criminal.

I think the apparent hypocrisy in telling immigrants 'learn the language or eff off' falls in fairly stark contrast to typical UK emigrant behaviour!

anyone who has been subject to Uk immigration for non-eu would tell you it is very very far from easy.