Changes to immigration rules announced by Starmer

[OneAmberFinch]

Full white paper here is extensive and announces changes to all avenues of migration - basically their approach to resolving the issues of massively increased migration from 2019-2023/4.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6821aec3f16c0654b19060ac/restoring-control-over-the-immigration-system-white-paper.pdf

And Starmer's commentary on the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce810e3z6dkt

Handful of headline changes: default timeline to get ILR to go to 10 years instead of 5; abolishing new care worker visas; raising skills threshold for Skilled Workers back up to graduate level; increasing minimum grades required for student visas; various bits and pieces around English language requirements among several other policies

Did you agree with his island of strangers views?

Yes?

What do the gangs bring over? People. Why should these people not be counted in the net migration?

Same old. The only way to stop the boats is literally to stop the boats!

He wasn't discussing asylum seekers as part of that. He was talking about work and studying visas.

People are concerned about the pressure on infrastructure due to so many people coming into the country on work/study visas. He was talking about strategies to reduce net migration.

Net migration includes the asylum seekers as well.

Exactly. Australia seemed to manage it successfully.

All it means is they'll have to do another 2 rounds of visa applications they'd unlikely be sent back if already here

He wasn't discussing asylum seekers as part of that. He was talking about work and studying visas.

Its really the Tories that are suffering the most, they failed dismally against Reform in the recent councils, had 18 councils, lost 18 councils, inc Buckinghamshire, a true blue area if ever there was.

But whether these changes will make any difference is debatable, both to numbers and to votes.

If either main party wishes to survive the next GE, they'll need to work together or sink together, i suspect the latter.

Which Pacific Island should we ship them off too? answers on a postcard please?

You keep writing about net migration. This includes all arrivals and all departures.

I understand you might have been confused, but because of his promises he should have included the legal and illegal arrivals in this figure.

He chose not to.

It's not me who's confused. For the third time:

He wasn't discussing asylum seekers as part of that. He was talking about work and studying visas.

I think so too. I expect they are panicking because of the general rhetoric.

Then why did you keep banging on about net migration?

And yes, he should have.

I've been watching Keir Starmer's latest "What we need is less of these foreigners coming over" with keen interest.
Obviously it's a poor stance for any human being to adopt, and I don't feel like I need to articulate exactly why, but it is equally obviously bad for additional reasons:

1. Britain is a country with a below replacement fertility rate (1.57), which means, assuming we want to do things like economic growth and have pensions in the future, need to be bringing workers in. In addition there are a lot of sectors in the UK that require labour that for whatever reason can't be supplied domestically (usually due to lack of training or the wages/conditions not being appealing to UK citizens), so immigration is needed to keep them going. At least, at the prices and service levels people have come to expect.
2. Since the mid years of the Blair government, every government has promised to bring down immigration. Because largely of point 1, every attempt has largely failed. David Cameron's pledge in 2011 stands out as a particularly clear example. It's unlikely this time will be different. However, it's possible Starmer will actually try extremely hard anyway, because Labour are for some fucking reason talking about emulating the way Donald Trump is managing the USA. So maybe tanking the economy to appease racists is on the cards for real.
3. The Labour government are being so hardcore and weird about immigration that they are actually being attacked from the left by Reform. Now read that last sentence again. Basically, this policy, while attempting to appeal to anti-immigration voters, has allowed Reform to position themselves the as reasonable ones. As they put it, they just want to bring immigration down to a sensible level, not this weird and hurtful level Starmer is doing. This is just another example of how the current Labour government basically has no organic constituency, and so are completely flailing because they don't actually know who they are trying to appealing to, and failing miserably as a result.

I've included a photo of one of Keir Starmer's pledges here, together with some other relevant media for the short of memory/attention span, but I think it's worth remembering that whilst almost everybody with a working moral compass was jubilant to see the back of the egregious Tories, Starmer has proven himself to be one of - if not the most - dishonest politicians in UK history, and nakedly lied to everyone to get the top job.

“MiloMinderbinder925 · Today 16:58
He was talking about cutting net migration to the UK.”

This is you earlier.

Then they should pay a better rate for the job.

Carers are looking after elderly vulnerable people and they should be paid accordingly. for the responsibility.

"Legal" immigration includes a huge amount of relatively low-skilled immigration through the work and study routes, which these policies propose to reduce.

(Probably not by a huge amount, but it's a step in the right direction and grappling with the right issues)

Regarding very skilled workers waiting 10 years instead of 5 for ILR, the white paper says that they will consult "later in the year" on potential points-based ways to keep the shorter route. I assume this means if you're a high tax payer you might have an exception.

(This potentially affects me as someone waiting for ILR but I think it's overall a good step. Migration from 2019 has been MASSIVE and a pause button is required.)

Because he was outlining strategies to deal with net migration regarding work/study visas. Why do you keep banging on about asylum seekers as though nothing else whatsoever is important?

Yes he should have, as should students be excluded, they are here to study, then leave, they also prop up our Uni's, will not be drain on services or housing and by default are well off.

Dubai and Singapore are not more welcoming! They don’t give ILR out at all.

even Canada are toughening up their rules

there is no net migration without all arrivals being counted.

Which benefits are dished out like confetti to immigrants?

There is no right wing or left wing politics any more, no? Every political party is like a weather vane.

Re the asylum seekers, I read that there will be a separate white paper on illegal migration - today’s was about legal migration only