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.

By not translating stuff, you leave the most vulnerable open to exploitation.

And the government plans to close a lot of free English courses for immigrants, unfortunately.

And I'd love to see all the British people who go over to Saudi/Dubai/etc try to learn enough Arabic to get by without any English.

I think we should do a part exchange service, hard working foreigners in, British scum bags out, can't see any other countries being as willing as Australia once was though (tongue firmly in cheek)

I thought we already had rules that meant that only people who could contribute/needed to be here could emigrate to the UK?

I think we probably suffer from the fact that until fairly recently (i.e. less than a century ago) Britain had a massive empire, so for many people the UK seems to be the logical place to move to.

What goes around comes around.

Ending worldwide immigration control would see an end to oppressive regimes and civil war as well. What would be the point of trying to oppress your subjects if they could just up sticks and leave for a place where their human rights were respected? Countries would actually see a benefit in ensuring decent working conditions and rates of pay, or else their economies would collapse when people went elsewhere.

I don't think it was the UK that suffered most because of our Empire-building activities, merrymouse.

In fact, I'd say it's one of the reasons we're in such a strong position these days.

Re: benefits, you either give people benefits and health care or they die on the streets.

That might be fair, but it wouldn't be pleasant for anyone.

Yellowraincoat - that was my point - what goes around (benefiting from an empire) comes around (responsibility/ties to people from ex-empire countries).

Thistledew. I'd love to see the day where there are no immigration controls but that will be the same day as there are no countries etc. It's not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

Merry, I don't think it has anything to do with our empire. But more to do with the fact that as an English speaking country people are drawn to us because they will probably already have some of the language. We also have a very developed economy and geographically are close enough to get to from Africa & parts of non EU countries.

Just in the same way that the US is a magnet for central american economic migrants.

It has a lot to do with the Empire. That's why so many people came here originally, from previously colonised countries.

Also, because people in, say, India, often have some English skills or the means to acquire them.

People speak English because of the Empire.

Some people have ties to this country because of the Empire. (E.g. rights of South Africans and Australians to visas).

Also, one of the reasons that Britain is a comparatively rich country is that Britain had an empire which took advantage of other countries. We can't then take the moral high ground when people from those countries want to come and live in Britain.

Equally, France has many immigrants from their former territories.

Fourth - Depending on how long they have been married and living together he would either be granted 2 years leave to enter, or indefinite leave to enter. In order to qualify for indefinite leave he would have had to pass the 'Life in the UK test'. If he was granted 2 years leave to enter, he would have no recourse to public funds until he had been granted indefinite leave at the end of this period. If he is eligible for indefinite leave immediately, there is no absolute bar to him receiving NHS care, but his Spouse may be required to sign an undertaking to say that he will not claim public funds, and if he subsequently does, the money could be reclaimed from her. They would also have to demonstrate that they intend to settle in the UK (not just visit for treatment), and that they have a source of income sufficient to support them both (currently above the income support level, but there are proposals to raise this to £18,000 ver soon).

Let's have a rule that English people can only emigrate out of the UK to countries where they are really needed, make a genuine contribution to society, and they can't take their families to sponge off the local education/health system. And if they lose their jobs in the new country, they need to come straight home.

There, now it's fair.

I thought there were "no jobs". Or at least that is what lefties shout whenever there is a crackdown on workless people on benefits.

If there are no jobs for the million plus unemployed in the UK, why on earth would importing millions more, mostly unskilled, unemployable people be a good idea, except as an ideological move by the left to ensure their pool of voters doesn't shrink.

Most of the benefits of the Empire were used to pay for the Second World War, a very worthy investment, I'm sure we'd all agree. This country was bankrupt by 1945.

And I can't see where all these fruits of empire have been for at least the last thirty or forty years. Our biggest trading partners have been the US and Europe.

And interestingly, the numbers of British people who actually went to live in the Empire were not as great as you might imagine. The Darfur area, for example, was patrolled by just a small number of mounted police. And they managed to stop the Arab tribes killing the African tribes far more successfully than has been the case in recent years.

It was not at all like the situation in, say, Bradford, where an entire city became ethnically very different following migration. There may be other reasons to offer 'pay-back' for the Empire, but numbers of people transferred isn't one of them.

'Let's have a rule that English people can only emigrate out of the UK to countries where they are really needed, make a genuine contribution to society, and they can't take their families to sponge off the local education/health system. And if they lose their jobs in the new country, they need to come straight home.'

That is what happened to my brother in Australia. And to people I know in Canada.

niceguy - I agree that it is unlikely that we will see an end to immigration control in our lifetimes, but that does not mean that it is not something that we should be working towards. However, I do think that it will eventually happen, as there are pockets of free-movement areas around the world already: we are part of this in Europe, and there are similar free trade/free movement agreements between several sub-Saharan African countries, and the start of free trade agreements in Southeast Asia.

It is shameful how immigration is used as a political tool, and how immigration and immigrants are treated as an evil threat to our society. These are individuals, people, who are just trying to make a better life for themselves and provide their families with a future, yet if they stray one iota from the rules that we have put in place, we demonise them. We lock them up for months or often years on end, we separate them from their families and friends, we destroy the lives that they may have worked for years to build for themselves, and we deprive them of the dreams and hopes that they have for their futures.

Sadly, it has to be acknowledged that there is no political will to end immigration control: politicians of all hues have cottoned on to the fact that everyone in this country, no matter how poor, has a lot to lose when compared to the poorest people in the developing world, and they use the fear that this creates as a means of control - "Vote for us, we will stop those nasty immigrants coming here and making our country as bad as the one they have left". There is no incentive for politicians to present other alternatives, but it does not mean that those alternatives do not exist.

Abra1d - I don't think Sudan is a good example of the benefits of the British Empire. We created the country by arbitrarily lumping together several different ethnic groups, who had been governing themselves independently, we then recognised that probably they should be separate countries, and spent years promoting the idea that the South should be separate from the North. At the same time we deliberately failed to provide the education systems needed to produce people who could govern in the South, preferring instead to ship in people from Northern ethnic groups to become administrators. Then, despite years of planning and promising for an independent South, we failed to actually make it happen, and left the country without any means in place to see it through. There may have been less fighting between the ethnic groups at the time, but that was probably because we slaughtered so many of them ourselves.

Q: -"Let's have a rule that English people can only emigrate out of the UK to countries where they are really needed, make a genuine contribution to society, and they can't take their families to sponge off the local education/health system. And if they lose their jobs in the new country, they need to come straight home.

There, now it's fair."

Um- Abra1d- that's precisely what the rules are..... maybe not the 'deportation' but such people will have to 'return home' as they only have recourse to emergency HC' in the vast majority of countries, on temporary, even permanent visas. If they have no income, they have to leave. Did you know that, for example, if you move to say Mosman in Sydney, to ensure the local Australian DC get school places, that those places aren't all filled with the DC of immigrant Poms, the Poms have to pay school fees to the state schools?? No namby-pambying around there! Simply 'your taxes haven't paid for this, ours have, you have to compensate us to use this service'!

The situation in just about anywhere in the world is 'don't come unless we need you or you can handsomely support yourself'.

Much here is being made of non-EU immigration purely because it would appear we can do nothing about EU immigration. Maybe we can negotiate a 'deal' with the rest of the EU that seeing as the UK is shouldering the lion's share of the EU immigration, our EU contributions should be cut to 'compensate' for the non productive arrivees, like DC and pregnant women? This isn't racist, it's balancing the financial books. We may wish all this even harder if the likely influx of Roma materialises.

Sorry, that was to ciske - I was agreeing with you, abra1d!

This country was bankrupt by 1945.

And encouraged emigration from empire to make up labour shortages, e.g. Windrush, Pakistanis working in textile industry.

(And if you want to discuss cities changing following immigration/emmigration, the partition of India was quite a notable event).

As far as I am aware, quite a few people of European origin are living in former African colonies and New Zealand and Australia, and their descendants (rightly or wrongly) have rights to work in the UK. (Not too many indigenous people want to emigrate from Australia and New Zealand, but then again there aren't many of them left).

Having no immigration control would be an absolute nightmare. There would be a worldwide race to the bottom in terms of everything.

how effective do you think the current system is? don't you think that everyone that really wants to be here is here already? apart from a few law-abiding unfortunates?

Edgar- absolutely not. Say you were a destitute, completely uneducated, landless, near starving southern Sudanese with 8 children. There are tens of thousands of them. Wouldn't they 'rather be here' enjoying heavily subsidised state housing, free health and education? Who wouldn't?.... Except, as Josephine points out, if indeed the country, any country was bulging at the seams with such newly arrived desperate immigrants, who'd be earning the money that paid the tax and NI that provides the housing benefit, unemployment benefit, free health and education? OK, such a country would cease to be a magnet for the world's destitute; but those destitute find themselves in just as dire a situation as they'd left behind, along with that country's indigenous population, all now bankrupt.