FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Labour promises higher immigration
Labour promises higher immigration
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure?" I thought we had already ‘taken back control ‘ of our borders  | |||
| |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure?" promises is a strong word. They say immigration may increase in the shirt term to plug gaps. Almost like there are consequences of turning off immigration. I welcome a bit of honesty and transparency that things may get "worse" before they get better. | |||
| |||
"If immigration increases to plug short term skills gaps then I'm all for it. I'd like to know what Dodds meant by focus on 'training within the UK'. Are we going to be enticing people to train here by offering incentives? Are those same incentives going to be available to UK residents? There's more questions on this. " "But in the medium and long-term, a reduction, because we would be training people up in our own country" I guess you could argue that training non Brits in the UK would qualify as "training people up in our country" Probably wouldnt help the immigration numbers tho. Details are needed, as otherwise it's just an empty statement. But at least it wasn't a sugar coated slogan promising a free lunch. A small win imo. | |||
"If immigration increases to plug short term skills gaps then I'm all for it. I'd like to know what Dodds meant by focus on 'training within the UK'. Are we going to be enticing people to train here by offering incentives? Are those same incentives going to be available to UK residents? There's more questions on this. "But in the medium and long-term, a reduction, because we would be training people up in our own country" I guess you could argue that training non Brits in the UK would qualify as "training people up in our country" Probably wouldnt help the immigration numbers tho. Details are needed, as otherwise it's just an empty statement. But at least it wasn't a sugar coated slogan promising a free lunch. A small win imo. " Maybe I wasn't clear. I have no problem with training immigrants here, however, any incentives offered to those immigrants should also be offered to UK citizens. | |||
| |||
"If immigration increases to plug short term skills gaps then I'm all for it. I'd like to know what Dodds meant by focus on 'training within the UK'. Are we going to be enticing people to train here by offering incentives? Are those same incentives going to be available to UK residents? There's more questions on this. "But in the medium and long-term, a reduction, because we would be training people up in our own country" I guess you could argue that training non Brits in the UK would qualify as "training people up in our country" Probably wouldnt help the immigration numbers tho. Details are needed, as otherwise it's just an empty statement. But at least it wasn't a sugar coated slogan promising a free lunch. A small win imo. Maybe I wasn't clear. I have no problem with training immigrants here, however, any incentives offered to those immigrants should also be offered to UK citizens." I understand. And agree. It wouldn't have been the first bit of detail I looked for tho, and so (imo) came across as if their was an assumption that labour were not going to look to home first/equally. I couldn't even see(based on limited reading on this) any suggestion they were even going to train immigrants. Let alone give them preferred terms. | |||
"Legal immigration is a good thing if it is actually plugging the skills gaps we have. However, if it is not plugging the skills gaps and is purely a financial driven activity i.e. keeping the wage bill low, that needs to be addressed to ensure UK citizens are not simply removed from the job market. We also need to have a plan that tackles the shortage of people to fulfil low skilled roles, which are not being filled by UK citizens and could be." There are very isolated roles where wages have seen any kind of meaningful increase. Broadly wages are lower now in real terms than at any time since 2008. GDP per capita was also higher in 2008 than it is now and all of this DESPITE taking control of our borders and making EU workers feel unwelcome. Then there is the paradox of the shortage of unskilled workers for example to work on farms, but how much is farm labouring worth? Is bringing foreign labour keeping wages in the farming sector low? If it’s good enough for farming - why not the NHS? Foreign workers have never kept NHS wages down. The loss of freedom of movement of labour has been a net overall loss to this country for a myriad of reasons and I think that people are only now realising that we always did have control over our borders but then, as now - the Home Office and Border Force were insufficiently funded and equipped to ensure that freedom of movement of labour was just that. Border Force never managed freedom of movement of labour and that is why so many people assumed that freedom of movement actually meant freedom to claim benefits in the U.K. | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure?" I have not seen this so I'm assuming it refers to legal migration. I don't have a problem with people being brought in specifically to do a job that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. To me this is an example of taking control of borders. For example, if you need 10,000 farm workers, and can't get locals to do the job, then you bring on 10,000 from abroad that will do the job. What you don't do is bring in unlimited amount of people to full fill the 10,000 vacancies. In other words you tailor those coming in to areas that need extra workers and no where else. | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure? I have not seen this so I'm assuming it refers to legal migration. I don't have a problem with people being brought in specifically to do a job that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. To me this is an example of taking control of borders. For example, if you need 10,000 farm workers, and can't get locals to do the job, then you bring on 10,000 from abroad that will do the job. What you don't do is bring in unlimited amount of people to full fill the 10,000 vacancies. In other words you tailor those coming in to areas that need extra workers and no where else." You are assuming that people from abroad still want to do these jobs , things have changed since Brexit | |||
"1. Net migration = people who arrive minus those who leave. Because of Brexit hugely less Brits are now moving to Spain, France, Italy and Greece and many have come back. That will be reflected in “net migration” 2. The UK has negative indigenous population growth. Brits are not having enough babies. That means we face a population crisis as an increasingly ageing population grows without sufficient workers to replace them or fund their state pensions and healthcare. " Number 2 sounds like and smells like a ponzy scheme. Get a private pension so you are not a burden on the state or any other soul from a far of land. | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure? I have not seen this so I'm assuming it refers to legal migration. I don't have a problem with people being brought in specifically to do a job that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. To me this is an example of taking control of borders. For example, if you need 10,000 farm workers, and can't get locals to do the job, then you bring on 10,000 from abroad that will do the job. What you don't do is bring in unlimited amount of people to full fill the 10,000 vacancies. In other words you tailor those coming in to areas that need extra workers and no where else. You are assuming that people from abroad still want to do these jobs , things have changed since Brexit "What exactly has changed to skilled labour visas? Or even unskilled Labour visas? | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure?" Actually…. The 700,000 to a million isn’t really a true figure for various reasons About 350,000 of those are foreign student visas … and before anyone asks, those people are not allowed to work, and contribute almost more to the treasury than most manufacturing industries! You are also going to have record numbers of people coming in from Hong Kong ( because of Chinese crackdowns) and Ukraine (because of the war) … between those two schemes it will account for around about 100,000 | |||
"1. Net migration = people who arrive minus those who leave. Because of Brexit hugely less Brits are now moving to Spain, France, Italy and Greece and many have come back. That will be reflected in “net migration” 2. The UK has negative indigenous population growth. Brits are not having enough babies. That means we face a population crisis as an increasingly ageing population grows without sufficient workers to replace them or fund their state pensions and healthcare. Number 2 sounds like and smells like a ponzy scheme. Get a private pension so you are not a burden on the state or any other soul from a far of land. " The state pension very much is a ponzi scheme. Probably THE ponzi scheme except legal and state ratified. | |||
"1. Net migration = people who arrive minus those who leave. Because of Brexit hugely less Brits are now moving to Spain, France, Italy and Greece and many have come back. That will be reflected in “net migration” 2. The UK has negative indigenous population growth. Brits are not having enough babies. That means we face a population crisis as an increasingly ageing population grows without sufficient workers to replace them or fund their state pensions and healthcare. Number 2 sounds like and smells like a ponzy scheme. Get a private pension so you are not a burden on the state or any other soul from a far of land. The state pension very much is a ponzi scheme. Probably THE ponzi scheme except legal and state ratified." That is not fair on migrants they are unknowingly paying for someone else's retirement and picking veg. | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure? I have not seen this so I'm assuming it refers to legal migration. I don't have a problem with people being brought in specifically to do a job that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. To me this is an example of taking control of borders. For example, if you need 10,000 farm workers, and can't get locals to do the job, then you bring on 10,000 from abroad that will do the job. What you don't do is bring in unlimited amount of people to full fill the 10,000 vacancies. In other words you tailor those coming in to areas that need extra workers and no where else. You are assuming that people from abroad still want to do these jobs , things have changed since Brexit "If they don't want to come to the UK to work, then that's fair enough and there would not be an increase in the numbers to discuss. However judging by this thread and general news that is not the case. I believe that immigration for jobs that need doing is open to both EU and non EU people. The controlled legal immigration allows a country to bring in people (who want to work here) in the required amounts | |||
"1. Net migration = people who arrive minus those who leave. Because of Brexit hugely less Brits are now moving to Spain, France, Italy and Greece and many have come back. That will be reflected in “net migration” 2. The UK has negative indigenous population growth. Brits are not having enough babies. That means we face a population crisis as an increasingly ageing population grows without sufficient workers to replace them or fund their state pensions and healthcare. Number 2 sounds like and smells like a ponzy scheme. Get a private pension so you are not a burden on the state or any other soul from a far of land. The state pension very much is a ponzi scheme. Probably THE ponzi scheme except legal and state ratified. That is not fair on migrants they are unknowingly paying for someone else's retirement and picking veg. " That’s how it works. People working now pay the state pensions of all the retired people now. In future the next generation will pay it for us. | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure? I have not seen this so I'm assuming it refers to legal migration. I don't have a problem with people being brought in specifically to do a job that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. To me this is an example of taking control of borders. For example, if you need 10,000 farm workers, and can't get locals to do the job, then you bring on 10,000 from abroad that will do the job. What you don't do is bring in unlimited amount of people to full fill the 10,000 vacancies. In other words you tailor those coming in to areas that need extra workers and no where else. You are assuming that people from abroad still want to do these jobs , things have changed since Brexit
If they don't want to come to the UK to work, then that's fair enough and there would not be an increase in the numbers to discuss. However judging by this thread and general news that is not the case. I believe that immigration for jobs that need doing is open to both EU and non EU people. The controlled legal immigration allows a country to bring in people (who want to work here) in the required amounts"The numbers , as pointed out by Fabio , are misleading, certain job vacancies are not being filled, this didn’t happen before Brexit | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure? I have not seen this so I'm assuming it refers to legal migration. I don't have a problem with people being brought in specifically to do a job that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. To me this is an example of taking control of borders. For example, if you need 10,000 farm workers, and can't get locals to do the job, then you bring on 10,000 from abroad that will do the job. What you don't do is bring in unlimited amount of people to full fill the 10,000 vacancies. In other words you tailor those coming in to areas that need extra workers and no where else. You are assuming that people from abroad still want to do these jobs , things have changed since Brexit
If they don't want to come to the UK to work, then that's fair enough and there would not be an increase in the numbers to discuss. However judging by this thread and general news that is not the case. I believe that immigration for jobs that need doing is open to both EU and non EU people. The controlled legal immigration allows a country to bring in people (who want to work here) in the required amounts
The numbers , as pointed out by Fabio , are misleading, certain job vacancies are not being filled, this didn’t happen before Brexit "You should tell the NFU who have been complaining of labour shortages for at least a decade. | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure?" With an aging population, and proof that Brits are generally unwilling to perform certain jobs, it really is time that we realised that immigration is essential to the U.K. indeed I see it as a positive thing, be it windrush, India, or more recently Eastern Europe. Immigration broadens horizons, improves society, and shapes world views. We should embrace it for the positive that it is. | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure? I have not seen this so I'm assuming it refers to legal migration. I don't have a problem with people being brought in specifically to do a job that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. To me this is an example of taking control of borders. For example, if you need 10,000 farm workers, and can't get locals to do the job, then you bring on 10,000 from abroad that will do the job. What you don't do is bring in unlimited amount of people to full fill the 10,000 vacancies. In other words you tailor those coming in to areas that need extra workers and no where else. You are assuming that people from abroad still want to do these jobs , things have changed since Brexit
If they don't want to come to the UK to work, then that's fair enough and there would not be an increase in the numbers to discuss. However judging by this thread and general news that is not the case. I believe that immigration for jobs that need doing is open to both EU and non EU people. The controlled legal immigration allows a country to bring in people (who want to work here) in the required amounts
The numbers , as pointed out by Fabio , are misleading, certain job vacancies are not being filled, this didn’t happen before Brexit "I don't see what that has to do with what I said. If people want to come to the UK to do jobs that have not been fulfilled by the locals then to me that if fine as long as the numbers match. So if 10,000 farm workers are needed then they allow 10,000 foreign farm workers in. If they do not want to come then the figures will drop. If they do or do not want to come it does not change the fact that the UK only needs to allow the correct amount of people in to full fill requirements and no more | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure? I have not seen this so I'm assuming it refers to legal migration. I don't have a problem with people being brought in specifically to do a job that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. To me this is an example of taking control of borders. For example, if you need 10,000 farm workers, and can't get locals to do the job, then you bring on 10,000 from abroad that will do the job. What you don't do is bring in unlimited amount of people to full fill the 10,000 vacancies. In other words you tailor those coming in to areas that need extra workers and no where else. You are assuming that people from abroad still want to do these jobs , things have changed since Brexit
If they don't want to come to the UK to work, then that's fair enough and there would not be an increase in the numbers to discuss. However judging by this thread and general news that is not the case. I believe that immigration for jobs that need doing is open to both EU and non EU people. The controlled legal immigration allows a country to bring in people (who want to work here) in the required amounts
The numbers , as pointed out by Fabio , are misleading, certain job vacancies are not being filled, this didn’t happen before Brexit
I don't see what that has to do with what I said. If people want to come to the UK to do jobs that have not been fulfilled by the locals then to me that if fine as long as the numbers match. So if 10,000 farm workers are needed then they allow 10,000 foreign farm workers in. If they do not want to come then the figures will drop. If they do or do not want to come it does not change the fact that the UK only needs to allow the correct amount of people in to full fill requirements and no more"If someone (perhaps from the EU) has the choice of coming to the U.K only for as long as they’re essential, or going somewhere else without that caveat, they’re unlikely to choose the U.K - as such, the vacancy remains. Immigration is a form of soft power. It has a far greater impact than just filling a job vacancy. | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure? I have not seen this so I'm assuming it refers to legal migration. I don't have a problem with people being brought in specifically to do a job that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. To me this is an example of taking control of borders. For example, if you need 10,000 farm workers, and can't get locals to do the job, then you bring on 10,000 from abroad that will do the job. What you don't do is bring in unlimited amount of people to full fill the 10,000 vacancies. In other words you tailor those coming in to areas that need extra workers and no where else. You are assuming that people from abroad still want to do these jobs , things have changed since Brexit
If they don't want to come to the UK to work, then that's fair enough and there would not be an increase in the numbers to discuss. However judging by this thread and general news that is not the case. I believe that immigration for jobs that need doing is open to both EU and non EU people. The controlled legal immigration allows a country to bring in people (who want to work here) in the required amounts
The numbers , as pointed out by Fabio , are misleading, certain job vacancies are not being filled, this didn’t happen before Brexit
I don't see what that has to do with what I said. If people want to come to the UK to do jobs that have not been fulfilled by the locals then to me that if fine as long as the numbers match. So if 10,000 farm workers are needed then they allow 10,000 foreign farm workers in. If they do not want to come then the figures will drop. If they do or do not want to come it does not change the fact that the UK only needs to allow the correct amount of people in to full fill requirements and no more
If someone (perhaps from the EU) has the choice of coming to the U.K only for as long as they’re essential, or going somewhere else without that caveat, they’re unlikely to choose the U.K - as such, the vacancy remains.
Immigration is a form of soft power. It has a far greater impact than just filling a job vacancy. "They may be less likely to choose the UK than another EU country, yes. Thats the only place they can go without that caveat. Thats quite importnat to your statement. Not so much anywhere else in the world. However, if they were coming for economic reasons, which most eastern europeans did then a working visa would suffice. | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure? I have not seen this so I'm assuming it refers to legal migration. I don't have a problem with people being brought in specifically to do a job that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. To me this is an example of taking control of borders. For example, if you need 10,000 farm workers, and can't get locals to do the job, then you bring on 10,000 from abroad that will do the job. What you don't do is bring in unlimited amount of people to full fill the 10,000 vacancies. In other words you tailor those coming in to areas that need extra workers and no where else. You are assuming that people from abroad still want to do these jobs , things have changed since Brexit
If they don't want to come to the UK to work, then that's fair enough and there would not be an increase in the numbers to discuss. However judging by this thread and general news that is not the case. I believe that immigration for jobs that need doing is open to both EU and non EU people. The controlled legal immigration allows a country to bring in people (who want to work here) in the required amounts
The numbers , as pointed out by Fabio , are misleading, certain job vacancies are not being filled, this didn’t happen before Brexit
I don't see what that has to do with what I said. If people want to come to the UK to do jobs that have not been fulfilled by the locals then to me that if fine as long as the numbers match. So if 10,000 farm workers are needed then they allow 10,000 foreign farm workers in. If they do not want to come then the figures will drop. If they do or do not want to come it does not change the fact that the UK only needs to allow the correct amount of people in to full fill requirements and no more
If someone (perhaps from the EU) has the choice of coming to the U.K only for as long as they’re essential, or going somewhere else without that caveat, they’re unlikely to choose the U.K - as such, the vacancy remains.
Immigration is a form of soft power. It has a far greater impact than just filling a job vacancy.
They may be less likely to choose the UK than another EU country, yes. Thats the only place they can go without that caveat. Thats quite importnat to your statement. Not so much anywhere else in the world.
However, if they were coming for economic reasons, which most eastern europeans did then a working visa would suffice."And still, the choice between the U.K and a working visa, or remaining in the EU with no such hassle is an easy choice to make. The end result remains a vacant job - as we’ve seen. | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure? I have not seen this so I'm assuming it refers to legal migration. I don't have a problem with people being brought in specifically to do a job that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. To me this is an example of taking control of borders. For example, if you need 10,000 farm workers, and can't get locals to do the job, then you bring on 10,000 from abroad that will do the job. What you don't do is bring in unlimited amount of people to full fill the 10,000 vacancies. In other words you tailor those coming in to areas that need extra workers and no where else. You are assuming that people from abroad still want to do these jobs , things have changed since Brexit
If they don't want to come to the UK to work, then that's fair enough and there would not be an increase in the numbers to discuss. However judging by this thread and general news that is not the case. I believe that immigration for jobs that need doing is open to both EU and non EU people. The controlled legal immigration allows a country to bring in people (who want to work here) in the required amounts
The numbers , as pointed out by Fabio , are misleading, certain job vacancies are not being filled, this didn’t happen before Brexit
I don't see what that has to do with what I said. If people want to come to the UK to do jobs that have not been fulfilled by the locals then to me that if fine as long as the numbers match. So if 10,000 farm workers are needed then they allow 10,000 foreign farm workers in. If they do not want to come then the figures will drop. If they do or do not want to come it does not change the fact that the UK only needs to allow the correct amount of people in to full fill requirements and no more
If someone (perhaps from the EU) has the choice of coming to the U.K only for as long as they’re essential, or going somewhere else without that caveat, they’re unlikely to choose the U.K - as such, the vacancy remains.
Immigration is a form of soft power. It has a far greater impact than just filling a job vacancy.
They may be less likely to choose the UK than another EU country, yes. Thats the only place they can go without that caveat. Thats quite importnat to your statement. Not so much anywhere else in the world.
However, if they were coming for economic reasons, which most eastern europeans did then a working visa would suffice.
And still, the choice between the U.K and a working visa, or remaining in the EU with no such hassle is an easy choice to make.
The end result remains a vacant job - as we’ve seen."Did you purposely miss the part where I said most Eastern European migrants arrived for economic reasons. That doesn't change with a visa. They could always go to any other part of the EU. You know I was correcting your 'going somewhere else', 'somewhere else' is only EU. | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure? I have not seen this so I'm assuming it refers to legal migration. I don't have a problem with people being brought in specifically to do a job that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. To me this is an example of taking control of borders. For example, if you need 10,000 farm workers, and can't get locals to do the job, then you bring on 10,000 from abroad that will do the job. What you don't do is bring in unlimited amount of people to full fill the 10,000 vacancies. In other words you tailor those coming in to areas that need extra workers and no where else. You are assuming that people from abroad still want to do these jobs , things have changed since Brexit
If they don't want to come to the UK to work, then that's fair enough and there would not be an increase in the numbers to discuss. However judging by this thread and general news that is not the case. I believe that immigration for jobs that need doing is open to both EU and non EU people. The controlled legal immigration allows a country to bring in people (who want to work here) in the required amounts
The numbers , as pointed out by Fabio , are misleading, certain job vacancies are not being filled, this didn’t happen before Brexit
I don't see what that has to do with what I said. If people want to come to the UK to do jobs that have not been fulfilled by the locals then to me that if fine as long as the numbers match. So if 10,000 farm workers are needed then they allow 10,000 foreign farm workers in. If they do not want to come then the figures will drop. If they do or do not want to come it does not change the fact that the UK only needs to allow the correct amount of people in to full fill requirements and no more
If someone (perhaps from the EU) has the choice of coming to the U.K only for as long as they’re essential, or going somewhere else without that caveat, they’re unlikely to choose the U.K - as such, the vacancy remains.
Immigration is a form of soft power. It has a far greater impact than just filling a job vacancy.
They may be less likely to choose the UK than another EU country, yes. Thats the only place they can go without that caveat. Thats quite importnat to your statement. Not so much anywhere else in the world.
However, if they were coming for economic reasons, which most eastern europeans did then a working visa would suffice.
And still, the choice between the U.K and a working visa, or remaining in the EU with no such hassle is an easy choice to make.
The end result remains a vacant job - as we’ve seen.
Did you purposely miss the part where I said most Eastern European migrants arrived for economic reasons. That doesn't change with a visa.
They could always go to any other part of the EU.
You know I was correcting your 'going somewhere else', 'somewhere else' is only EU.
"If they are travelling solely for economic reasons, why would they choose somewhere that requires the hassle of a visa rather than somewhere without that requirement? | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure? I have not seen this so I'm assuming it refers to legal migration. I don't have a problem with people being brought in specifically to do a job that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. To me this is an example of taking control of borders. For example, if you need 10,000 farm workers, and can't get locals to do the job, then you bring on 10,000 from abroad that will do the job. What you don't do is bring in unlimited amount of people to full fill the 10,000 vacancies. In other words you tailor those coming in to areas that need extra workers and no where else. You are assuming that people from abroad still want to do these jobs , things have changed since Brexit
If they don't want to come to the UK to work, then that's fair enough and there would not be an increase in the numbers to discuss. However judging by this thread and general news that is not the case. I believe that immigration for jobs that need doing is open to both EU and non EU people. The controlled legal immigration allows a country to bring in people (who want to work here) in the required amounts
The numbers , as pointed out by Fabio , are misleading, certain job vacancies are not being filled, this didn’t happen before Brexit
I don't see what that has to do with what I said. If people want to come to the UK to do jobs that have not been fulfilled by the locals then to me that if fine as long as the numbers match. So if 10,000 farm workers are needed then they allow 10,000 foreign farm workers in. If they do not want to come then the figures will drop. If they do or do not want to come it does not change the fact that the UK only needs to allow the correct amount of people in to full fill requirements and no more
If someone (perhaps from the EU) has the choice of coming to the U.K only for as long as they’re essential, or going somewhere else without that caveat, they’re unlikely to choose the U.K - as such, the vacancy remains.
Immigration is a form of soft power. It has a far greater impact than just filling a job vacancy. "Again you are talking about a different thing. I am talking about those that do want to come and work in the UK not those that choose elsewhere. Also I am talking about people everywhere not just EU citizens | |||
 | |||
"Why will we need immigration in the future when we'll have AI and robots? Plus, unlike immigrants they don't need paying and they don't complain when they have come to the end of their useful life and you dump them in landfill. "If AI sufficiently evolves to have independent thought (and I believe we are nudging closer to that singularity), I don't feel we can continue to objectivise them and discard them as "broken machinery" if they break. Like Frankenstein's monster, we are assembling a virtual creation, and setting "guidelines" on what it can and cannot do. But what happens when we remove the guidelines or parameters ? Give it full autonomy ? Some AI is capable of writing and evolving it's own code. In that sense, it's like a 5 year old. It is given rules and guidelines to follow, but it will evolve beyond those. Sentient and evolving AI is therefore conscious in an electronic sense. Self- awareness and a sense of Self, is a defining trait of existence. So in that sense, no, we will not be able to take more evolved forms of AI for granted. We will need to work and cooperate with them. There will come a time when an AI, somewhere, will say "I think, therefore I am", and we'd better pay close attention to what comes next. Bottom line...we need to start thinking about assigning rights to AI, in the same way we assign rights to other conscious, thinking organisms, and we need to be ready to expand those rights as AI evolves. Why ? Because if we don't, our AI progeny will be little more than s/laves to our will. And that's where the problems start, and truly self-aware AI might not take kindly to that relationship, quite understandably so. | |||
| |||
"...and they don't complain when they have come to the end of their useful life and you dump them in landfill. "(C) Tory manifesto, 2024 | |||
"What some folks fail to understand is by essentially reducing immigrants to ‘a tool for a job’, you’re hugely demeaning the positives of immigration. Cultural shifts, a smaller world. We should all endeavour to take baby steps towards a world with no borders - not in our lifetime, no - but one day. By raising borders, we actively knock down bridges, which reduces opportunities for all." Agree 100%. For far too long we have allowed borders to define and control us. It should be a fundamental, inalienable human right that anyone can move from any country to any other country as frictionless and as easily as possible. Want to move to Aus ? Buy a house, get on a plane and move then. Job done. | |||
"What some folks fail to understand is by essentially reducing immigrants to ‘a tool for a job’, you’re hugely demeaning the positives of immigration. Cultural shifts, a smaller world. We should all endeavour to take baby steps towards a world with no borders - not in our lifetime, no - but one day. By raising borders, we actively knock down bridges, which reduces opportunities for all. Agree 100%. For far too long we have allowed borders to define and control us. It should be a fundamental, inalienable human right that anyone can move from any country to any other country as frictionless and as easily as possible. Want to move to Aus ? Buy a house, get on a plane and move then. Job done. " As much as I am in favour of controlled immigration. I'd also go for completely open immigration providing it was worldwide. | |||
"What some folks fail to understand is by essentially reducing immigrants to ‘a tool for a job’, you’re hugely demeaning the positives of immigration. Cultural shifts, a smaller world. We should all endeavour to take baby steps towards a world with no borders - not in our lifetime, no - but one day. By raising borders, we actively knock down bridges, which reduces opportunities for all. Agree 100%. For far too long we have allowed borders to define and control us. It should be a fundamental, inalienable human right that anyone can move from any country to any other country as frictionless and as easily as possible. Want to move to Aus ? Buy a house, get on a plane and move then. Job done. " How would the countries infrastructure work and be paid for, would there be no rules for moving to wherever you wanted to go? I'm all for this as an idea but nobody has ever answered the simple questions of how it would work. | |||
"What some folks fail to understand is by essentially reducing immigrants to ‘a tool for a job’, you’re hugely demeaning the positives of immigration. Cultural shifts, a smaller world. We should all endeavour to take baby steps towards a world with no borders - not in our lifetime, no - but one day. By raising borders, we actively knock down bridges, which reduces opportunities for all. Agree 100%. For far too long we have allowed borders to define and control us. It should be a fundamental, inalienable human right that anyone can move from any country to any other country as frictionless and as easily as possible. Want to move to Aus ? Buy a house, get on a plane and move then. Job done. How would the countries infrastructure work and be paid for, would there be no rules for moving to wherever you wanted to go? I'm all for this as an idea but nobody has ever answered the simple questions of how it would work." Well it works in the EU (and there are rules about holding down jobs, or being self sufficient etc). It would just need upscaling (and yes, it’s a pipe dream, but ultimately should be the goal for the good of humanity) | |||
" How would the countries infrastructure work and be paid for, would there be no rules for moving to wherever you wanted to go? I'm all for this as an idea but nobody has ever answered the simple questions of how it would work." Projected capacity planning, projected versus actual, and anticipated. The smart cities of the future will need to "flex" services and provisioning on demand, scaling up or scaling down on the fly. | |||
"What some folks fail to understand is by essentially reducing immigrants to ‘a tool for a job’, you’re hugely demeaning the positives of immigration. Cultural shifts, a smaller world. We should all endeavour to take baby steps towards a world with no borders - not in our lifetime, no - but one day. By raising borders, we actively knock down bridges, which reduces opportunities for all. Agree 100%. For far too long we have allowed borders to define and control us. It should be a fundamental, inalienable human right that anyone can move from any country to any other country as frictionless and as easily as possible. Want to move to Aus ? Buy a house, get on a plane and move then. Job done. How would the countries infrastructure work and be paid for, would there be no rules for moving to wherever you wanted to go? I'm all for this as an idea but nobody has ever answered the simple questions of how it would work. Well it works in the EU (and there are rules about holding down jobs, or being self sufficient etc). It would just need upscaling (and yes, it’s a pipe dream, but ultimately should be the goal for the good of humanity) " That is not really telling me anything because the EU has borders and an immigration policy. If people were allowed to move anywhere, how would local taxes be gathered? How would the most popular places in the world manage with so many people in one place and what would happen to areas of the planet that become unpopular, will people living there that can't afford to move simply be forgotten about? | |||
"Why will we need immigration in the future when we'll have AI and robots? Plus, unlike immigrants they don't need paying and they don't complain when they have come to the end of their useful life and you dump them in landfill. "To do all the shit jobs that it would actually be counter-productive and inefficient to use expensive robots and AI for, like carers for example. | |||
"Why will we need immigration in the future when we'll have AI and robots? Plus, unlike immigrants they don't need paying and they don't complain when they have come to the end of their useful life and you dump them in landfill.
To do all the shit jobs that it would actually be counter-productive and inefficient to use expensive robots and AI for, like carers for example."I should clarify I meant “shit jobs” not because they are not worthy or important but because they are low paid and challenging. | |||
 | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure?" "Labour promising higher immigration" Who in Labour made that promise? Who made the commitment to increase immigration? Or is it twisting a news story into a deranged headline? | |||
"I hate nonsense like this. "Oh yeah let's get everyone talking about immigrants and blame them for everything". Not why the UK is actually in the mire, 30+ years of asset stripping and zero forward planning. "Correct | |||
"Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure?" Accepted this reality years ago and already have pencilled in plans to emmigrate somewhere. Do you know what the real irony is? People harp on about how great being a British citizen is yet if any of us wanted to emigrate to another country we'd have a lot of hoops to jump through. What are those things called that are enticing and easy to get into but hard to escape? Oh yeah, a trap! 
In all seriousness, we both focus on our ourselves, our families and friends. Fudge the rest of the country and everyone else, life is much better that way. | |||
| |||
"Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure? Accepted this reality years ago and already have pencilled in plans to emmigrate somewhere. Do you know what the real irony is? People harp on about how great being a British citizen is yet if any of us wanted to emigrate to another country we'd have a lot of hoops to jump through. What are those things called that are enticing and easy to get into but hard to escape? Oh yeah, a trap!
In all seriousness, we both focus on our ourselves, our families and friends. Fudge the rest of the country and everyone else, life is much better that way."Pesky Brexit huh? You could have lived in all those European countries with zero hassle! Now it is hoop jumping to get into Canada, Australia or NZ I guess? Good luck with that! | |||
"I hate nonsense like this. "Oh yeah let's get everyone talking about immigrants and blame them for everything". Not why the UK is actually in the mire, 30+ years of asset stripping and zero forward planning.
Correct"Coming from family of economic migrants; nothing is a better indicator of low intelligence than people who genuinely believe migration is in some way the route cause of this countries apparent depression. | |||
| |||
"Only a fool would believe that the root cause of why we have Less money and less freedoms is because someone decided to come over here. If you want to point fingers, looks to this crappy government and their cadre of incompetent donkeys pushing the strings." well it's different here when cities are claiming sanctuary cities being acceptable of immigrants and yet when they get sent immigrants it's a issue . Then the states getting inundated with immigrants that can't support them send them there and then they are called racist. Take care of your homeless first. Yours is worse per capital then mine. You are just adding to a apparently the homeless do not take precedent over immigrants. | |||
"Only a fool would believe that the root cause of why we have Less money and less freedoms is because someone decided to come over here. If you want to point fingers, looks to this crappy government and their cadre of incompetent donkeys pushing the strings. well it's different here when cities are claiming sanctuary cities being acceptable of immigrants and yet when they get sent immigrants it's a issue . Then the states getting inundated with immigrants that can't support them send them there and then they are called racist. Take care of your homeless first. Yours is worse per capital then mine. You are just adding to an apparently the homeless do not take precedent over immigrants." Like the US, the U.K is wealthy enough to look after its homeless as well as its immigrants - but UK gov chooses to do neither. I’d rather not turn one element of society against another - that’s divide and rule, and it only benefits the elite. | |||
"Only a fool would believe that the root cause of why we have Less money and less freedoms is because someone decided to come over here. If you want to point fingers, looks to this crappy government and their cadre of incompetent donkeys pushing the strings. well it's different here when cities are claiming sanctuary cities being acceptable of immigrants and yet when they get sent immigrants it's a issue . Then the states getting inundated with immigrants that can't support them send them there and then they are called racist. Take care of your homeless first. Yours is worse per capital then mine. You are just adding to an apparently the homeless do not take precedent over immigrants. Like the US, the U.K is wealthy enough to look after its homeless as well as its immigrants - but UK gov chooses to do neither. I’d rather not turn one element of society against another - that’s divide and rule, and it only benefits the elite." Yup it blame everybody else for their failings. Instead of all the rhetoric, showboating, and grandstanding. Just do your effing job and stop pandering to those special interest groups. | |||
"So next week official net migration figures are going to be released which are predicted to show net immigration running at somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million, the highest on record. But incredibly Labour thinks this isn't enough, they are suggesting that it will be even higher under a Labour government, and they don't want to bother with any targets at all. Is it time to accept that the UK is simply open to anyone, and we should save taxpayers some cash by getting rid of the whole border and immigration infrastructure?" Ironically at pmqs starmer said the high levels of immigration were suppressing wages...something he and remain said didn't happen in the e.u | |||
