[obi_adorno_kenobi]

So unemployment is now but you want to ban immigration in the name of scarcity of jobs in 2015? What kind of logic is that?

[SciFiRory]

(Original post by toronto353)
Thank you for actually expanding, but what specific parts do you disagree with?

all of it.

freezing immigration is stupid, many of these people benefit the economy when they come here and tbh I have no issue with them doing so.

the 2nd part is barbaric even, we are going to turn away asylum seekers because Uganda is closer to Spain are we? they didn't go to Spain they came here, tbh the reasoning for that is almost irrelevant to me, to refuse someone asylum here, unless they are a criminal (and even then sometimes it may be better to detain them here) is just immoral imo.

4a) sorry, so any crime and they get deported? so say one of them get's caught smoking weed, are you going to send them back somewhere they might be in danger or have much lower quality of life? your lack of compassion is disgusting.

b) 10 years is far too long, 10 months maybe, if people come here and they find themselves in need we have a moral duty to help them imo.

c) this is the worst kind of capitalist xenophobia imaginable, bleed for the economic machine or **** off basically, charming again, no doubt will cost us a fair bit as well to deport them ironically for your lot.

this bill represents just about everything I despise about the right, it's almost impressive you manage to fit so much barbarism in to one piece of statute.

[internetguru]

(Original post by stanlas)

The main reason why I oppose this Bill is that it is consistently advancing the idea that less immigration = less unemployment. That's an inaccurate assumption to make, and I'd like the Home Sec to explain to try and explain the economic theory linking migration to unemployment.

10 people 9 jobs.

suddenly

11 people and still only 9 jobs

More people does not guarantee more jobs just look at other countries with plenty of people but with even higher unemployment.

[stanlas]

(Original post by internetguru)
10 people 9 jobs.

suddenly

11 people and still only 9 jobs

Except that's using the lump of labour fallacy. It could go like this:

10 people 9 jobs.
suddenly
11 people and 10 jobs (as an increasing labour supply and/or skill increases the amount of investment and jobs)

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Metrobeans)

B447 - Immigration Bill 2012, TSR Government

Immigration Act 2012

An act to tackle high levels of unemployment by drastically reducing the level of immigration and then opening it slightly after three years to allow the best of the best into the country. Rewards hard working immigrants and stops others taking the urine.

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:-

1. Immigration Freeze
a) All immigration to the United Kingdom from countries outside of the European Union is frozen for three years.
b) The Secretary of State will review this freeze at the end of each year, and shall reduce or extend the freeze if appropriate.
c) Immigrants who are educated to PHD level, and have an offer of employment in the United Kingdom will be exempt from this freeze.

2. Asylum Seekers
a) Citizens from other countries who claim asylum, are only successful with their claim, provided that the United Kingdom is their nearest safe country and/or that the United Kingdom is actively involved in a military conflict in their country of origin.

3. Points-Based Immigration
Tier 3 - Low skilled migrants
a) Applications for Tier 3 visas are only accepted when unemployment in the United Kingdom is less than two million.
b) Immigrants are only successful in their application for a Tier 3 visa, provided that they can prove their competence in the English language.
Tier 2 - Skilled workers with an offer of employment
a) Applications for Tier 2 visas are successful provided that the offer of employment is greater than £21,000 p.a
b) Applications for Tier 2 visas are rejected if the applicant cannot prove their competence in the English language.
c) Candidates for Tier 2 visas are eligible to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain or permanent residence after eight years in the United Kingdom
d) Residents with Tier 2 visas are required to obtain employment paying greater than £20,000 p.a within six months, in the event of being made redundant, dismissed or voluntarily resigned. After six months, a Tier 2 visa will expire and the candidate will be deported, if they fail to obtain alternative employment.

4. Other Restrictions
a) Immigrants who commit a criminal offence are deported to their country of origin irrespective of their immigration status.
b) Immigrants are eligible to receive state benefits (excluding access to the National Health Service and State Education) after working in the United Kingdom for ten non-consecutive years and have been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain or permanent residence.
c) Immigrants are expected to obtain employment within six months of entering a state of unemployment; failure to comply with this regulation results in deportation. This restriction is lifted after working in the United Kingdom for ten non-consecutive years and has been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain or permanent residence.

5. Other Information
a) This act shall come into force after Royal Assent (Section 1 & 2)
b) This act shall come into force on 01 January 2015
c) This act may be cited as the Immigration Act 2012
d) This act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom

Several issues with this bill

1.

An act to tackle high levels of unemployment by drastically reducing the level of immigration and then opening it slightly after three years to allow the best of the best into the country. Rewards hard working immigrants and stops others taking the urine.

As pointed out by many people, immigration does NOT lead to unemployment

2.

Immigrants who are educated to PHD level, and have an offer of employment in the United Kingdom will be exempt from this freeze.

Ruling out ALL immigrants who have Bachelors/Masters/ other important/necessary skills that may be difficult to obtain in the UK

3.

Residents with Tier 2 visas are required to obtain employment paying greater than £20,000 p.a within six months, in the event of being made redundant, dismissed or voluntarily resigned. After six months, a Tier 2 visa will expire and the candidate will be deported, if they fail to obtain alternative employment.

The amount of money being made is not synonymous with the value of the immigrant. It makes little sense to deport someone simply because they haven't found a job earning over £20,000 p.a.

[internetguru]

(Original post by stanlas)
Except that's using the lump of labour fallacy. It could go like this:

10 people 9 jobs.
suddenly
11 people and 10 jobs (as an increasing labour supply and/or skill increases the amount of investment and jobs)

Why would more immigrants = more investment in the UK. There is 20% unemployment in a number of European countries who are more educated than asylum seekers and other people we want to stop coming in, so why aren't their economies growing?

The face is the immigrants that we have coming to the UK have no skills or education they are misfits who couldn't cut it back home.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by internetguru)
10 people 9 jobs.

suddenly

11 people and still only 9 jobs

More people does not guarantee more jobs just look at other countries with plenty of people but with even higher unemployment.

Wrong.

This extra person spends money

They have to rent/buy accommodation. Pay for food, buy clothes, use the bus, the railway system, partake in entertainment at the movies, etc.

Every person in the country spends money in said same country, which then goes to help the economy, and thus helping to ensure that more jobs are created from the income that is generated

[toronto353]

(Original post by stanlas)
That's quite a reasonable point. And I'm not in favour of unlimited migration either, as I obviously agree that some sort of cap is needed (though I suspect my ideal cap on immigration would be higher than yours).

Oh I wasn't saying you were, but immigration is an issue where we have to balance society's needs vs. society's wants i.e. we need to balance what helps society (balanced migration) against the public perception (e.g. too much migration) to ensure that one does not have too much of an effect on the other, but that both are balanced. I suspect that your cap would be higher than mine though I would like to look at some form of immigration controls on new EU states and perhaps even slight ones on EU migration because it reduces the potential cuts needed to non-EU migration. Though of course my stance is very difficult to achieve and fraught with major problems so I'm not deluding myself into thinking that it's an easy path to take.

Thank you for thinking that my point is reasonable. As you can see, occasionally you will agree with TSR UKIP. . Bear in mind though that this is a personal stance and that my view won't be the case for every TSR UKIP member that you ask.

[toronto353]

(Original post by stanlas)
I believe that this is the first time I have agreed with UKIP on something

Just to obviously note that this is my personal view and given the culture within TSR UKIP, this may not be the view of other members. Also note that this may not correlate to RL UKIP's view.

[Life_peer]

As I have already written, I fully support this bill. The country needs to sort out the mess made by the Labour governments and the freeze along with the other countermeasures is a sensible start, I think.

To pick one section to discuss, I choose the second one. Asylum seekers often travel from the Far or Middle East via the whole of Europe to seek asylum in the UK based on ridiculous claims of a life threat or similar. The same is true with Nigerian and other African immigrants who clearly seek benefits at the expense of the British people, rather than try to escape from persecution.

People were able to inhabit some of the most demanding places on Earth, adapt themselves and live through extreme changes. Why do you want to support those otherwise eliminated by natural selection so much? Many people who do not contribute to the society are being artificially supported to survive to another morning instead of introducing systematic changes on a basic cultural level, which I think is simply bad. I know that many of my fellow working nationals, mostly young families, are practically squeezed for taxes while the gypsies do whatever they like (mostly stealing) and still get money for absurdities such as going to school (which is positive discrimination, but no one seems to care). From what I have seen, the situation with unskilled immigrants in the UK is similar.

This legislation offers a chance to try another approach. I am not buying that after hundreds of years of self-sufficiency, this country can not exist and prosper without immigrants or the totalitarian European union of bank clerks.

Aye!

[stanlas]

(Original post by internetguru)
Why would more immigrants = more investment in the UK. There is 20% unemployment in a number of European countries who are more educated than asylum seekers and other people we want to stop coming in, so why aren't their economies growing?
The face is the immigrants that we have coming to the UK have no skills or education they are misfits who couldn't cut it back home.

The 20% unemployment figure in some EU countries has got nothing to do with immigration; it is because of the Euro crisis and debt problems. And increasing the labour supply can increase jobs availability; just look at the US, which was essentially created through immigration.

As for your labelling of many immigrants as 'misfits': the people who come to the UK are often some of the most hard working people in their origin country. The very fact that they have often come thousands of miles to seek a better life shows that they are not lazy, and are ready to seize opportunities.

(Original post by toronto353)
Thank you for thinking that my point is reasonable. As you can see, occasionally you will agree with TSR UKIP. .

I believe that this is officially the first time I have agreed with UKIP on something

[MacDaddi]

It is wrong to freeze all immigration outside of the UK for 3 years, companies need to import specialist employees.

[toronto353]

(Original post by stanlas)
I believe that this is the first time I have agreed with UKIP on something

Just to obviously note that this is my personal view and given the culture within TSR UKIP, this may not be the view of other members. Also note that this may not correlate to RL UKIP's view.

[jesusandtequila]

Crossing a border is search of a better life should not be a crime. No.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by stanlas)
"tackle high levels of unemployment by drastically reducing the level of immigration"

This seems to be dangerously close to the lump of labour fallacy. Reducing immigration per se will not neccesarily reduce unemployment; in fact, it might even increase if our labour force's competivity falls due to more restrictions.

Again, this. I'm impressed by you - I didn't think we'd agree much based on your Research position, but I've seen myself agreeing on economic issues here and in the Carbon Tax Bill.

[stanlas]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Again, this. I'm impressed by you - I didn't think we'd agree much based on your Research position, but I've seen myself agreeing on economic issues here and in the Carbon Tax Bill.

Thanks. This is the reason why I still haven't joined a party yet; I seem to agree with different parties over various issues, and its hard to find one I could fit comfortably in.

As a general rule I'm against intervention in industry with any forms of subsidies or protectionism, though I made an exception on research (and I really dislike it when people start calling for re-industrialization and government support for manufacutring- that always annoys me).

[Life_peer]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Crossing a border is search of a better life should not be a crime. No.

Why not? Why is it not better to first solve our own problems and only then allow more people in, if necessary? There are seven billion people on Earth and rising, almost all of them want the best possible living conditions. Would you support the public transport employees who organised a protest and demanded new jobs in another sector just because they were not satisfied? We are not living in an ideal society so people, as a matter of fact, are usually not satisfied, which however does not give them the right to seek benefits at the expense of others.

Then, why do they need to cross a border to find a better life? Why not built it on their homeland just as we have been able to do? European nations send ridiculous aid to Africa instead of progressively developing their own poor areas only because it is fashionable and politically profitable, not because it ever solves anything.

[Birchington]

No.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Birchington)
No.

Once again wonderfully constructive. I've got no problem with anyone opposing any Bill, but if you're not going to say why, then why bother debating? We might as well skip readings which aim to improve Bills and put everything straight to vote.

So, you're the third person I've had to say this to, why no?

[Birchington]

(Original post by toronto353)
Once again wonderfully constructive. I've got no problem with anyone opposing any Bill, but if you're not going to say why, then why bother debating? We might as well skip readings which aim to improve Bills and put everything straight to vote.

So, you're the third person I've had to say this to, why no?

Apologies if my answer was too vague, but I disagree with this bill and previous criticisms have been raised which I didn't feel the need to repeat. My primary concern about this bill is the economic impact of imposing a zero-access approach to non-EU immigration.

I didn't feel the need to elaborate as my position is already clear, but I can if you wish.