[Metrobeans]

B426 - Securing Our Borders Bill 2012, internetguru

An act securing our borders from individuals who will likely be a burden to our society.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Part I: How to Qualify for Emigration to the United Kingdom
(a) For Qualification, Immigrants must have a job placement in the United Kingdom or one of her Crown Dependencies.
(b) This job must pay at least £25000 per year.
(c) The job must be permenant.
(d) If this individual loses their job within 2 years of arriving in the UK they have a 1 month period to find a new job paying above £25000.
(e) If they fail to find a job paying above £25000 they will be deported back to their country of origin along with their family.

Part II: Enforcement
(a) The enforcement of this Act should be the responsibility of the Police forces of the UK and The UK Border Agency.
(b) Those found entering the country without a job placement are doing so on illegal grounds and will be subsequently arrested and deported back to their country of origin.

Part III: Exemptions
(a) The Immigrant is eligible to take 2 children with him/her.
(b) The Immigrant will be able to take a partner. This partner will be ineligible for any government benefits for 2 years.

Part IV: Important extra information
(a) This act will also apply to those residing with the EU.
(b) Refugees who have passed by other safe countries on their way to the UK will not be allowed in.

Part IV: Commencement
(a) This bill shall extend to the United Kingdom; and shall come into force immediately following Royal Assent

[Morgsie]

Nothing you can do regarding the EU, Freedom of Movement is a fundamental principle

[Birchington]

(Original post by Metrobeans)

B426 - Securing Our Borders Bill 2012, internetguru

Part IV: Important extra information
(a) This act will also apply to those residing with the EU.
(b) Refugees who have passed by other safe countries on their way to the UK will not be allowed in.

Essentially ending Britain's proud commitment to helping refugees and asylum seekers. How do you define 'safe countries'? A terrible, terrible bill.

[TopHat]

Firstly, this is nonsensical. 1.(c) is literally impossible, as no job is "permanent". Secondly, it directly contradicts existing legislation without actually repealing it - this would prove a contradiction to the points system which it has not repealed. Thirdly, you've actually made it easier, not harder, to get into the UK. At the moment, low-skilled workers can only get in if they have already got a job placement with a salary of £20,000 that is on the "shortage jobs" list. Now, while you've upped the salary cap, given I'm assuming the intention was for this to remove the points system, you've now removed the shortage jobs list, which means immigrants can get in with any job - so you'll see more immigrants than before, not less. Fourthly, you've given no exception to students. Fifthly, you've given no exception to high value immigrants, the ones we want to attract regardless of whether they find a job immediately - this bill would shut out eminent foreign scientists immigrating here, for example. Sixthly, there are typos throughout this bill - 1.(c)'s "permenant", for example. Seventhly, what about families with more than two children? Currently the UKBA is allowed discretion in such cases, but now you're blocking people on a fairly arbitrary factor. Eighthly, if we ignore EU law we'll get fined on every incident where we apply this law in practice, which means cough up approximately E40,000 for every EU citizen we ignore. Ninethly, I will not stand be and see the UK ignore the duty it has to the international community to take on some of the burden to asylum seekers. We do not have to take all of them, but we do have to take our fair share. Tenthly, I wanted a list of ten so this'll have to do.

This is a terrible piece of legislation. I'm willing to abstain on MacGuishy's, as it is effectively neutral and doesn't really change the existing system other than adding a minor two-year window of application, which seems reasonable enough, but this gets a definite No from me.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

This is a poor bill.

It may lead to a short term financial gain due to the lack of new immigrants requiring welfare, but in the long term in will be a loss for the country in both economic terms and cultural terms by restricting highly-skilled workers on whether they have a job prior to coming.
It also blocks foreign students and large families (3 kids or more), which again could prove detrimental to the country in years to come. As for the asylum question - to block people depending on your definition of a safe country is, as far as I'm concerned, wrong - the only person to determine whether a country is safe for them is the asylum seeker them self.

A definite noe from me.

[tufc]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
This is a poor bill.

It may lead to a short term financial gain due to the lack of new immigrants requiring welfare, but in the long term in will be a loss for the country in both economic terms and cultural terms by restricting highly-skilled workers on whether they have a job prior to coming.
It also blocks foreign students and large families (3 kids or more), which again could prove detrimental to the country in years to come. As for the asylum question - to block people depending on your definition of a safe country is, as far as I'm concerned, wrong - the only person to determine whether a country is safe for them is the asylum seeker them self.

A definite noe from me.

What on Earth is wrong with reducing the number of socio-economically deprived children in the UK?

As for asylum: We are subject, I believe, to exactly the same asylum law as every other ECHR country. Your average asylum seeker has to travel through a lot of ECHR countries to get to the UK. This is just about stopping people from abusing their situation so that they can 'shop around' for the best country.

And if the only person deciding whether a country is 'safe' or not is the asylum seeker, that militates against any country ever turning down an asylum claim.

One month to find a new job after potentially 23 months of productive employment seems a bit harsh, but I'll roll with it.

I agree with part of what the Rt. Hon. TopHat says though, in that it means that anyone with a £25k job offered to them can come. We should keep it restricted to the shortage jobs list, but raise the salary requirement to £25k.

Aye.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Morgsie)
Nothing you can do regarding the EU, Freedom of Movement is a fundamental principle

TSR law overrides EU law and so this doesn't matter.

[tufc]

(Original post by Birchington)
Essentially ending Britain's proud commitment to helping refugees and asylum seekers. How do you define 'safe countries'? A terrible, terrible bill.

This is what international asylum law currently says anyway - that an asylum seeker is afforded refuge in the first safe country they pass through. The problem is that we've taken a far too soft approach to this, and asylum seekers now abuse the system, and 'shop around' for the best country (which is invariably Britain).

[DebatingGreg]

Poor bill for all the reasons outlined. Nay.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by tufc)
What on Earth is wrong with reducing the number of socio-economically deprived children in the UK?

As for asylum: We are subject, I believe, to exactly the same asylum law as every other ECHR country. Your average asylum seeker has to travel through a lot of ECHR countries to get to the UK. This is just about stopping people from abusing their situation so that they can 'shop around' for the best country.

And if the only person deciding whether a country is 'safe' or not is the asylum seeker, that militates against any country ever turning down an asylum claim.

One month to find a new job after potentially 23 months of productive employment seems a bit harsh, but I'll roll with it.

I agree with part of what the Rt. Hon. TopHat says though, in that it means that anyone with a £25k job offered to them can come. We should keep it restricted to the shortage jobs list, but raise the salary requirement to £25k.

Aye.

Nothing is wrong with it, what is wrong is stopping families with more than two children from bringing all of their children into the country. If a parent has found a job that provides a wage suitable for raising, say 3 children, in relative comfort, they should not be stopped from bringing all their children with them when emigrating.

As for the 1 month to find a new job bit, valid enough reason on it's own to reject the bill. It focuses entirely on that one point in time. If they have been earning, and contributing to the GDP over those 23 months, then 1 month out of work should not be reason for deportation.

[barnetlad]

What about pets? They cannot earn £25k per year and cannot be classed as children. If pets can have passports, then they should be included.

So a no.

[RoryS]

I agree with my Labour colleagues, this is a poorly written bill. Nay

[D.R.E]

I abstained from the other bill because it was introduced by a Libertarian party member, this is a no from me.

[internetguru]

(Original post by TopHat)
Firstly, this is nonsensical. 1.(c) is literally impossible, as no job is "permanent". Secondly, it directly contradicts existing legislation without actually repealing it - this would prove a contradiction to the points system which it has not repealed. Thirdly, you've actually made it easier, not harder, to get into the UK. At the moment, low-skilled workers can only get in if they have already got a job placement with a salary of £20,000 that is on the "shortage jobs" list. Now, while you've upped the salary cap, given I'm assuming the intention was for this to remove the points system, you've now removed the shortage jobs list, which means immigrants can get in with any job - so you'll see more immigrants than before, not less. Fourthly, you've given no exception to students. Fifthly, you've given no exception to high value immigrants, the ones we want to attract regardless of whether they find a job immediately - this bill would shut out eminent foreign scientists immigrating here, for example. Sixthly, there are typos throughout this bill - 1.(c)'s "permenant", for example. Seventhly, what about families with more than two children? Currently the UKBA is allowed discretion in such cases, but now you're blocking people on a fairly arbitrary factor. Eighthly, if we ignore EU law we'll get fined on every incident where we apply this law in practice, which means cough up approximately E40,000 for every EU citizen we ignore. Ninethly, I will not stand be and see the UK ignore the duty it has to the international community to take on some of the burden to asylum seekers. We do not have to take all of them, but we do have to take our fair share. Tenthly, I wanted a list of ten so this'll have to do.

This is a terrible piece of legislation. I'm willing to abstain on MacGuishy's, as it is effectively neutral and doesn't really change the existing system other than adding a minor two-year window of application, which seems reasonable enough, but this gets a definite No from me.

A permanent job is any job that isn't listed as temporary.

We do not have to pay EU fines, just like foreign diplomats refuse to pay our congestion charge we can refuse to pay their fines.

We don't want people with more than two children as they will drain the state's resources and lead to population growth.

Britain has no duty to the international community. Each country only has the duty to serve its citizens.

[Mr Dangermouse]

No.


Aside from the EU part, I don't like the 2 children part, because many families will have 3+.


I don't like the 1 month part. Frankly it's unrealistic. Make it 6.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
No.


Aside from the EU part, I don't like the 2 children part, because many families will have 3+.


I don't like the 1 month part. Frankly it's unrealistic. Make it 6.

These aren't British citizens they have no right to live here or claim welfare. We let them in for our gain only not theirs.

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by internetguru)
These aren't British citizens they have no right to live here or claim welfare. We let them in for our gain only not theirs.

I'm supportive of free movement within the EU because I plan to take advantage of it.

[mevidek]

No, an awful bill. 1 month to find a job paying over £25,000? You do realise there's a shortage of jobs?

[internetguru]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
I'm supportive of free movement within the EU because I plan to take advantage of it.

So you are letting your own situation in real life influence your political decisions that can impact on the entire country. How would you react if Mr Rich said "I am voting for 0% tax for all people earning over £200k per year because I earn over that and plan to take advantage of it"

[internetguru]

(Original post by mevidek)
No, an awful bill. 1 month to find a job paying over £25,000? You do realise there's a shortage of jobs?

Nobody wants immigrants here that gives us justification to throw them out but still doesn't take their hope of staying here entirely.