Which leaves us with two potential outcomesThe pay and conditions immigrant workers put up with simply would not be accept by British workers.
Companies won't take a cut to their profits, look at the uproar every time minimum wage increases or there is the slightest increase in workers right, so you have to work out how you deal with price increases and the impact on inflation and the economy.
We've been reliant on labour paid poverty wages for so long we've back ourselves into a corner.
It should be possible to make the initial decision much quicker but even with the current process there's a huge shortage of qualified staff, this results in a large amount of wrong decisions, 48% of which get overturned at appeal.
It's the appeals process that takes forever as it's long and complex. The cost, in terms of keeping asylum seekers accommodated and fed during that period, providing the relevant legal assistance and the admin cost of the process itself must be huge.
Work out what is going wrong so that the vast majority of initial decisions are correct and you immediately relieve a large part of the system and free up staff.
Having said all that I wouldn't be surprised if it's policy to maximise how many applications are turned down at the initial stage and just hope people don't appeal. That certainly seems to be the case in the care system, at least from my experience.
That's not a bad idea tbf.Countries that do that do it in international waters to avoid international law. There’s no international water in the channel so if you want to “turn them back” without France agreeing you’re talking about invading France.
That's not a bad idea tbf.
Im sure if the will was there, we could temporarily stop all immigration, (the boats are just the tip of the iceberg)
The issue i see is that I really dont think the government have the will.
Countries that do that do it in international waters to avoid international law. There’s no international water in the channel so if you want to “turn them back” without France agreeing you’re talking about invading France.
That's quite a way to travel by any transport and I doubt he had access to a car.Man charged with sexual assault after Rugby incident
Ahmed Muhammad Almahi, 32, was charged following an incident in Rugby, Warwickshire Police says.www.bbc.co.uk
And another one. Looks like he is staying in a Migrant hotel in Crick.
Its only 5 or 6 miles from Crick to Rugby.That's quite a way to travel by any transport and I doubt he had access to a car.
Oh sorry it always seemed longer when I was travelling and trying to get home after working a long shift in London.Its only 5 or 6 miles from Crick to Rugby.
I mean at least you’re honest.Tbf if it was an option I would. Say those who are here can stay, but no more.
I know there will be replies about needing them for the NHS and services, just pay those what they are worth and the shortage will diminish.
We have poor outdated infrastructure all over the country, creeping services, spiralling debt and not enough houses. Some will blame all of that on 14 years of Tory rule, but if they're honest it's much, much longer.
Spend a generation repairing what we have and preparing for the future. If we don't it will only get worse.
He's probably right tbf, trouble is economists will figure out a way to make all those gains for us disappear down some globalists throat.I mean at least you’re honest.
I agree with significantly improving pay and conditions in the sectors where we're relying too heavily on foreign labour. I don't agree with just ceasing all immigration overnight.He's probably right tbf, trouble is economists will figure out a way to make all those gains for us disappear down some globalists throat.
I agree with significantly improving pay and conditions in the sectors where we're relying too heavily on foreign labour. I don't agree with just ceasing all immigration overnight.
There may be if they introduce a radical scheme!It’s the same thing. We need to spend more on care because we are older. We have fewer taxpayers per pensioner because we are older and not having kids. There’s no world where we can both increase spending on care and reduce immigration without such huge tax rises of working people they’d probably riot.
There may be if they introduce a radical scheme!
Just made up politics for children…
Even Trump had to scale back his hired goons dragging immigrants off the street because of protests from his fellow capitalists.I think well before you got to zero immigration you’d have riots from businesses and anyone reliant on the care or healthcare sectors. While lower immigration is a top issue for a lot of voters the number who would be prepared to accept higher taxes or worse services to get it is a lot smaller.
Just made up politics for children…
Immigration Policy Adjustments
- Eased visa restrictions for care workers: Lower salary thresholds and simplify sponsorship processes.
- Retention incentives for overseas workers: Support with accommodation, integration programs, and indefinite leave to remain pathways.
Even Trump had to scale back his hired goons dragging immigrants off the street because of protests from his fellow capitalists.
The argument so far is just to not let any foreigners in, though I assume that also means you would need to not let in any tourists from overseas either, should they overstay their visas. Unless he also wants to stop tourism?The cost of enforcement is the other thing. Could you imagine what a Trump style ICE equivalent would cost here?
You not concerned about people overstaying and becoming 'illegals' that way? Pretty common in the US.Tourism spend money and they're not staying. Id happily pay more tax if it went on service and could be guaranteed not to administrators or going back overseas. Look after those we need to and in 2 generations with a declining birthrate we'll have less pensioners and less services required. Keep bringing people in with a population that continues to age and the spiral will never stop we'll continue to need more to service more.
I'm sure if that was our issue it would have featured high in the numbers.You not concerned about people overstaying and becoming 'illegals' that way? Pretty common in the US.
There’s likely a Northampton - Rugby bus that goes through Crick.Its only 5 or 6 miles from Crick to Rugby.
Tourism spend money and they're not staying. Id happily pay more tax if it went on service and could be guaranteed not to administrators or going back overseas. Look after those we need to and in 2 generations with a declining birthrate we'll have less pensioners and less services required. Keep bringing people in with a population that continues to age and the spiral will never stop we'll continue to need more to service more.
I get that, but the point was about migration in general. The often quoted stat higher up here was how the illegal migration was only 4%. Can't have it both ways. I'm saying stop the 96% and even if the illegal creeps to 10% with overstayed visas, then of current we're 90% in front, it really isn't the biggest issue. Our services and housing are creeking.Data is short on it particularly recently but overstaying your visa is probably the number one source of illegal immigration with a majority being tourist visas:
View attachment 45030
For comparison this is refused asylum seekers:
View attachment 45031
from: Unauthorised migration in the UK - Migration Observatory
It’s the classic shark attack vs heart attack thing. Boats are visual and feel illegal. Mohammed visiting his cousins then sticking about to work in the shop happens at Heathrow and away from our eyes. So we worry about the first despite the second being an order of magnitude more of a problem.
Of course. So just ban students from coming here to study, ban professional athletes coming here to play sport, ban qualified professionals coming here to do research, to work in industry etc etc.I get that, but the point was about migration in general. The often quoted stat higher up here was how the illegal migration was only 4%. Can't have it both ways. I'm saying stop the 96% and even if the illegal creeps to 10% with overstayed visas, then of current we're 90% in front, it really isn't the biggest issue. Our services and housing are creeking.
I get that, but the point was about migration in general. The often quoted stat higher up here was how the illegal migration was only 4%. Can't have it both ways. I'm saying stop the 96% and even if the illegal creeps to 10% with overstayed visas, then of current we're 90% in front, it really isn't the biggest issue. Our services and housing are creeking.
This thread really shows how muddled public thinking on immigration is. Half think there’s more illegal than legal.
And most change their mind when asked what tradeoffs they’d make to reduce it.
People on average seem to have no issue with legal immigration:
So basically a plurality are misinformed about the level of illegal immigration and that’s driving their views but they don’t actually want to reduce legal migration or if they do only if it won’t affect services or taxes.
What are the official numbers on legal vs illegal migration?
This thread really shows how muddled public thinking on immigration is. Half think there’s more illegal than legal.
And most change their mind when asked what tradeoffs they’d make to reduce it.
People on average seem to have no issue with legal immigration:
So basically a plurality are misinformed about the level of illegal immigration and that’s driving their views but they don’t actually want to reduce legal migration or if they do only if it won’t affect services or taxes.
Who is actually being polled?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?