[TopHat]

You can't say "vote Aye to this Bill, I know it has deficiencies, but they're going to be fixed in another Bill later!". Even assuming we did say Aye to this Bill, we might No the next one, and then those deficiencies would be stuck in law forever. What an awful attitude to have to legislation.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by tufc)
In 2010, the average state spending per pupil was over £6000 in England. That means that someone could bring two kids and a wife over, have their NHS cover, and state school, without paying a penny in tax, the total bill for them being more than they earn!

I don't think we should let anyone in who earns under £25000.

They do pay tax. People will only be allowed into the country if they have a job placement above the £10,000 personal allowance. The first £10,000 earned above the personal allowance shall be taxed at a rate of fifteen pence in the pound.
The next £80,000 earned above the fifteen per cent tax rate shall be taxed at a rate of twenty-five pence in the pound.
All income earned above the twenty-five per cent tax rate shall be taxed at thirty-five pence in the pound.

From the Tax Bill passed by the Libertarians last term

[mevidek]

(Original post by tufc)
Good...

How inhumane of you.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by TopHat)
You can't say "vote Aye to this Bill, I know it has deficiencies, but they're going to be fixed in another Bill later!". Even assuming we did say Aye to this Bill, we might No the next one, and then those deficiencies would be stuck in law forever. What an awful attitude to have to legislation.

It does have loopholes which can only be sorted out by another. They are 2 completely different subjects and should be represented in different bills.

[TopHat]

Also, what about students? This bill would effectively ban foreign students.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by TopHat)
Also, what about students? This bill would effectively ban foreign students.

I will propose another reading possibly.

First bill, what dya expect

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
You can't say "vote Aye to this Bill, I know it has deficiencies, but they're going to be fixed in another Bill later!". Even assuming we did say Aye to this Bill, we might No the next one, and then those deficiencies would be stuck in law forever. What an awful attitude to have to legislation.

The problem is that if you agree with one part of a Bill, but not the other, at the vote you either vote no or abstain so effectively the part of the Bill that you liked has been voted against. Cutting Bills down like this into smaller parts means that the legislation can be debated and each section passed without it being affected by less popular parts.

[TopHat]

In fact, this bill just generally displays a total misunderstanding of how the immigration system works. There are three main categories to being able to immigrate to the UK. The first is high-value migrants - these are those with the skills and qualifications that mean they are capable of working at the higher end of the job market immediately. You have to meet a stringent points qualification to be able to meet this. By requiring them to have a job before they can get in, all you're doing is creating unnecessary frictional barriers in the labour market to those who will quite obviously be able to get jobs. The second is skilled workers - and they require an employee sponsorship already, so this doesn't affect them. The third is temporary workers - and, quite obviously, they're temporary, and aren't affected by benefits. The minor categories are: domestic worker in a private household - which is also temporary, and contract seaman - again, temporary, representative of overseas business.

In other words, this Bill doesn't actually affect a single immigrant, except high-skilled workers and students. All other categories of immigrant are untouched. The worst part is, high-skilled workers are the ones who bring actual benefit to the UK! All you are doing is deterring them and making it harder for us to attract overseas talent. This bill has absolutely no relation to real life and reads like the product of a Daily Mail reader gone wild.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/vi...ation/working/

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by TopHat)
In fact, this bill just generally displays a total misunderstanding of how the immigration system works. There are three main categories to being able to immigrate to the UK. The first is high-value migrants - these are those with the skills and qualifications that mean they are capable of working at the higher end of the job market immediately. You have to meet a stringent points qualification to be able to meet this. By requiring them to have a job before they can get in, all you're doing is creating unnecessary frictional barriers in the labour market to those who will quite obviously be able to get jobs. The second is skilled workers - and they require an employee sponsorship already, so this doesn't affect them. The third is temporary workers - and, quite obviously, they're temporary, and aren't affected by benefits. The minor categories are: domestic worker in a private household - which is also temporary, and contract seaman - again, temporary, representative of overseas business.

In other words, this Bill doesn't actually affect a single immigrant, except high-skilled workers and students. All other categories of immigrant are untouched. The worst part is, high-skilled workers are the ones who bring actual benefit to the UK! All you are doing is deterring them and making it harder for us to attract overseas talent. This bill has absolutely no relation to real life and reads like the product of a Daily Mail reader gone wild.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/vi...ation/working/

That makes no sense, the only immigrant this bill doesn't effect is high-skilled immigrants.

I am not a Daily Mail reader and never propose starting to be one.

I will create another reading concerning students.

This is my first bill and I wasn't expecting perfection.

[TopHat]

It does affect high-skilled immigrants, though, as many high-skilled immigrants move to the UK without actually having acquired a job before-hand.

It doesn't affect any of the other categories, because skilled workers already require evidence of a job placement (so you're simply proposing the status quo as far as they are concerned) and because all of the other categories are temporary and aren't eligible for benefits anyway.

I don't see how you can simply deny which immigrants this bill would and wouldn't affect, I've even linked you to the government's own explanation showing you why this bill will not achieve any of the things you intend it to.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by TopHat)
It does affect high-skilled immigrants, though, as many high-skilled immigrants move to the UK without actually having acquired a job before-hand.

It doesn't affect any of the other categories, because skilled workers already require evidence of a job placement (so you're simply proposing the status quo as far as they are concerned) and because all of the other categories are temporary and aren't eligible for benefits anyway.

I don't see how you can simply deny which immigrants this bill would and wouldn't affect, I've even linked you to the government's own explanation showing you why this bill will not achieve any of the things you intend it to.

The current system states nothing about how much these people are being paid.

[toronto353]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
That makes no sense, the only immigrant this bill doesn't effect is high-skilled immigrants.

I am not a Daily Mail reader and never propose starting to be one.

I will create another reading concerning students.

This is my first bill and I wasn't expecting perfection.

Though I know we rarely actually communicate at all in the HoC, I thought that I would congratulate you on your first Bill.

It appears as if we no longer have a Labour party opposing the Government for the sake of opposing, but we have a Labour party under TopHat's stewardship which opposes any other party for the sake of opposing. A weak strategy for a weak party.

Well done though!

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by toronto353)
Though I know we rarely actually communicate at all in the HoC, I thought that I would congratulate you on your first Bill.

It appears as if we no longer have a Labour party opposing the Government for the sake of opposing, but we have a Labour party under TopHat's stewardship which opposes any other party for the sake of opposing. A weak strategy for a weak party.

Well done though!

Thanks. I'm going to get off now and I'll answer more questions in the morning.

I will be putting forward a second reading.

[Birchington]

(Original post by TopHat)
In fact, this bill just generally displays a total misunderstanding of how the immigration system works. There are three main categories to being able to immigrate to the UK. The first is high-value migrants - these are those with the skills and qualifications that mean they are capable of working at the higher end of the job market immediately. You have to meet a stringent points qualification to be able to meet this. By requiring them to have a job before they can get in, all you're doing is creating unnecessary frictional barriers in the labour market to those who will quite obviously be able to get jobs. The second is skilled workers - and they require an employee sponsorship already, so this doesn't affect them. The third is temporary workers - and, quite obviously, they're temporary, and aren't affected by benefits. The minor categories are: domestic worker in a private household - which is also temporary, and contract seaman - again, temporary, representative of overseas business.

In other words, this Bill doesn't actually affect a single immigrant, except high-skilled workers and students. All other categories of immigrant are untouched. The worst part is, high-skilled workers are the ones who bring actual benefit to the UK! All you are doing is deterring them and making it harder for us to attract overseas talent. This bill has absolutely no relation to real life and reads like the product of a Daily Mail reader gone wild.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/vi...ation/working/

Agreed. I can see the noble intentions behind this bill but it ends up looking extremely reactionary.

[rogger_frogger]

Why don't we just copy Australia's immigration laws, as someone wanting to move there at some point in the future they really are rock solid.

[TopHat]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
The current system states nothing about how much these people are being paid.

Yes it does?

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/vi...l/eligibility/

You have to receive 70 points to be available for a skilled workers immigration qualification. 10 is compulsory and requires the ability to speak English, 10 is compulsory and requires the ability to support yourself.

That leaves 30 points left, which you can get from one of:

the job has an annual salary of £150,000 or more;
the job is on the shortage occupation list;
your sponsor has completed a resident labour market test (or an exemption applies); or
you want to extend your stay and continue working in the same job for the same employer

The remaining 20 points come from how much salary would you receive. If it is less than £20,000, you get no points, and don't qualify.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/vi...priate-salary/


As it happens, the existing cap is already higher than the one you propose.

[Maddog Jones]

(Original post by TopHat)
Wait, so they have to have a job before they even arrive here? That just sounds silly. Large amounts of highly skilled and valuable workers end up enriching the UK via finding a job once they've arrived.

Yeah, this.

I'll be voting no.

Especially as this is likely to infuriate our European counterparts - something I'm sick of the right wing doing for petty reasons.

[Aj12]

I support this. At the same time though you would need ot make sure companies are actively recruiting and giving job offers to people in other nations. Otheriwse the UK will lose out on highly skilled workers

[toronto353]

(Original post by Maddog Jones)
Yeah, this.

I'll be voting no.

Especially as this is likely to infuriate our European counterparts - something I'm sick of the right wing doing for petty reasons.

It is not about infuriating our European partners, this Bill is about standing up for British interests. Other EU countries have done this (for example France (well Sarkozy) considering stopping their membership of the Schengen Zone). Why can we not do the same and stand up for our own interests? What is wrong with that?

[D.R.E]

The best I can give you with this one is an abstention.