[MacDaddi]

(Original post by mevidek)
Many people are refused asylum and still try to come into Britain because they've got nowhere to go. Many of these people have little to no money whatsoever, so it's harder for them to come in because of this bill.

Thousands of people in THIS country are being persecuted for being a different race or sexuality. THEY have nowhere to go and as citizens of the UK they have a right to be protected.

People from the international community should be accepted as well, as it is our duty as members of the UN to protect them as well.

Besides, I am releasing a second reading which will clarify that due to EU and UN regulation, I am unable to stop them from coming here.

[RoryS]

I'm abstaining.

[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.


Reposting this so you don't ignore it.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by TopHat)
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 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.


Reposting this so you don't ignore it.

Seems very complicated to me - that's why I have done this bill.

[TopHat]

So you've literally made a bill that doesn't actually affect skilled workers at all, in the slightest, but does affect high-valued workers in a bad way, as pointed out by myself and now Cyclops Rock, purely for the sake of a simplification? If you at least amended all mentions of "immigrant" to "Tier 2 immigrant applications" so it leaves high-valued workers untouched, and amended it so students aren't included, I'd abstain on the grounds it would do absolutely nothing and therefore there's no point in voting, but as it is, I'm a strong Nay.

[MacDaddi]

As I have said, I will be releasing a second reading.

This is one of the major problems of the house. I am 15, been here for 1 term and I did this bill independently, I would appreciate a bit of understanding. Yes I have missed out some important issues but they can easily be addressed in another reading.

I am also after some comments raising the amount that skilled workers need to be paid before they can enter.

[TopHat]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
This is one of the major problems of the house. I am 15, been here for 1 term and I did this bill independently, I would appreciate a bit of understanding. Yes I have missed out some important issues but they can easily be addressed in another reading.

I am also after some comments raising the amount that skilled workers need to be paid before they can enter.

Understood. I await the second reading eagerly.

[DebatingGreg]

Nay to this, but look forward to the 2nd reading.

[toronto353]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
As I have said, I will be releasing a second reading.

This is one of the major problems of the house. I am 15, been here for 1 term and I did this bill independently, I would appreciate a bit of understanding. Yes I have missed out some important issues but they can easily be addressed in another reading.

I am also after some comments raising the amount that skilled workers need to be paid before they can enter.

(Original post by TopHat)
Understood. I await the second reading eagerly.

No first reading is ever perfect, but I think that he has made a valiant effort and I look forward to seeing this Bill develop.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by toronto353)
No first reading is ever perfect, but I think that he has made a valiant effort and I look forward to seeing this Bill develop.

Thanks

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by mevidek)
Many people are refused asylum and still try to come into Britain because they've got nowhere to go. Many of these people have little to no money whatsoever, so it's harder for them to come in because of this bill.

But the country isn't a sanctuary for those refused asylum. If a person is refused asylum and can't pay their way in the lowest form of tax, we shouldn't feel or be obliged to accept them.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
But the country isn't a sanctuary for those refused asylum. If a person is refused asylum and can't pay their way in the lowest form of tax, we shouldn't feel or be obliged to accept them.

Hear! Hear!

[mevidek]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
But the country isn't a sanctuary for those refused asylum. If a person is refused asylum and can't pay their way in the lowest form of tax, we shouldn't feel or be obliged to accept them.

Surely we should be doing all we can to help them, however?

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by mevidek)
Surely we should be doing all we can to help them, however?

why is someone who has been refused asylum, and therefore deemed in no immediate danger by the british government, the responsibility of the british tax payer? If they have been refused asylum, the situation in their own country is stable enough for them and they should seek work there. The UK is a state, not a charity.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by mevidek)
Surely we should be doing all we can to help them, however?

Our duty to help them ends when we refuse their application.

[CyclopsRock]

My job is on the shortage occupation list. There are tons of people that do it, they're just mostly all really bad.

[mevidek]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
why is someone who has been refused asylum, and therefore deemed in no immediate danger by the british government, the responsibility of the british tax payer? If they have been refused asylum, the situation in their own country is stable enough for them and they should seek work there. The UK is a state, not a charity.

What if the country is 'stable' but people are persecuted for, say, their religion? With this increase in strictness on immigration, it's harder for them to immigrate here if they've been refused asylum elsewhere.

[mevidek]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
Our duty to help them ends when we refuse their application.

Even if they have nowhere else to go at all?

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by mevidek)
What if the country is 'stable' but people are persecuted for, say, their religion? With this increase in strictness on immigration, it's harder for them to immigrate here if they've been refused asylum elsewhere.

then they'll have been granted asylum by the government. We're a small country as it is, we're getting overpopulated and we need people who are going to contribute only. Im confident that if their situation demanded it, we'd have granted them asylum, and if this isn't true then the issue lies with reforms to asylum seeking, not immigration laws.

[mevidek]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
then they'll have been granted asylum by the government. We're a small country as it is, we're getting overpopulated and we need people who are going to contribute only. Im confident that if their situation demanded it, we'd have granted them asylum, and if this isn't true then the issue lies with reforms to asylum seeking, not immigration laws.

From family experience (my Dad was a customs officer), many people are rejected even if they have good reasons to be accepted here.