[Metrobeans]

B447 - Immigration Bill 2012, TSR Government

Immigration Act 2012

An Act to reform our immigration system in order to make it fairer and more organised.

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. 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.

2. 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 twelve months, in the event of being made redundant, dismissed or voluntarily resigned. After twelve months, a Tier 2 visa will expire and the candidate will be deported, if should they fail to obtain alternative employment.

3. Other Restrictions

a) Immigrants who commit a serious 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 twelve 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.

4. Other Information

a) This act shall come into force after Royal Assent

b) This act may be cited as the Immigration Act 2012

c) This act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom

The Government is aware that immigration can benefit a country when controlled in a proportionate manner.

This bill will continue to accept immigrants into the United Kingdom who are highly skilled and have an offer of employment; we recognise that these immigrants help our economy grow. The Government recognises that during these tough economic times, it can be very easy for people to reach a state of unemployment due to a variety of factors; this bill gives 12 months for immigrants who have reached this state of unemployment to find alternative work.

A report published earlier this year, proves that non-EU immigration is linked to the employment levels of 'native workers'. In light of this report, the Government will not accept applications for Tier 3 visas when UK unemployment levels reach 2 million. Tier 3 visas are for those who wish to come to the UK and undertake temporary unskilled labour work; the Government recognises the absurdity in accepting Tier 3 visas when unemployment is high.

The Government believes, that through the implementation of this bill, we can reward hard-working skilled immigrants who are contributing to the economy, whilst ensuring that the flow of immigration does not become uncontrollable.

[Birchington]

Still no, for the reasons I have mentioned in the first and the second reading.

[jesusandtequila]

Ditto above.

[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by Birchington)
Still no, for the reasons I have mentioned in the first and the second reading.

How? Comments that you made in the other readings of this bill highlighted your concern at the link that was established in this bill between unemployment and immigration. There is only one clause which makes reference to this link.

For the Third Reading I have attached a link to a recent report which proves there is a link between non-EU immigration and unemployment.

The measures that we have taken in this bill in relation to this link are mild, in order to satisfy as many as possible. We have gone from freezing immigration for three years, to implementing a more progressive method which freezes only Tier 3 visa applications when unemployment in the UK is over 2 million.

[SciFiRory]

no.

[JPKC]

A massive big fat 'no' from me. Mainly for how this bill treats asylum seekers, though I'm pretty sure I'd find something else to find dreadful even if that were removed. I did raise my concern in the Second Reading, or maybe the First.

[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by JPKC)
A massive big fat 'no' from me. Mainly for how this bill treats asylum seekers, though I'm pretty sure I'd find something else to find dreadful even if that were removed. I did raise my concern in the Second Reading, or maybe the First.

What's wrong with the asylum seeker part?

[JPKC]

(Original post by Ham and Cheese)
What's wrong with the asylum seeker part?

As I said:

The United Kingdom is one of the richest nations there are, why should poorer nations closer to disaster zones bare the burden of more refugees simply because we're further away?

[stanlas]

Immigrants are expected to obtain employment within twelve 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.

Really depends on what you mean by immigrants. For example, I came to Britain when I was about one year old and don't have British nationality (and never will). In the eyes of some, that makes me an immigrant.

Now, I know that my own case would be exempt from this (as I'm from the EU), but imagine someone who has exactly the same situation as me, only difference is that he/she hasn't had the luck of being born in an EU country. Will that person be deported after one year of unemployment and won't be able to claim benefits until he/she is 31? (after 10 years of consecutive work after uni).

By the way, by ten 'consecutive' years do you mean that if someone works for nine consecutive years, and is then unemployed for a month, he/she will have to start again?

[xXedixXx]

Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders should all have freedom of movement.

[JPKC]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders should all have freedom of movement.

Why more so than other Commonwealth nations? Because they're predominantly white, eh?

[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by JPKC)
The United Kingdom is one of the richest nations there are, why should poorer nations closer to disaster zones bare the burden of more refugees simply because we're further away?

Simply because claiming asylum is a last resort and not a choice. Why should someone in Somalia be able to claim asylum in the UK when they pass so many 'safe countries' on the way? Spain? France?

[Ham and Cheese]

(Original post by stanlas)
Really depends on what you mean by immigrants. For example, I came to Britain when I was about one year old and don't have British nationality (and never will). In the eyes of some, that makes me an immigrant.

Now, I know that my own case would be exempt from this (as I'm from the EU), but imagine someone who has exactly the same situation as me, only difference is that he/she hasn't had the luck of being born in an EU country. Will that person be deported after one year of unemployment and won't be able to claim benefits until he/she is 31? (after 10 years of consecutive work after uni).

By the way, by ten 'consecutive' years do you mean that if someone works for nine consecutive years, and is then unemployed for a month, he/she will have to start again?

I'd start off by thanking you for the interesting points that you have made.

In that situation, the child would be entitled to use state education and the National Health Service. I believe that immigrants under the age of eighteen should be exempt from these rules, given they will travel here with their parents. In this scenario, you would be able to claim benefits after one of your parents has worked for ten years or you have worked ten years after the age of eighteen; whichever comes sooner.

I agree with your last point and shall amend the bill for the vote so that it reads 'ten non-consecutive years.'

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Ham and Cheese)
How? Comments that you made in the other readings of this bill highlighted your concern at the link that was established in this bill between unemployment and immigration. There is only one clause which makes reference to this link.

For the Third Reading I have attached a link to a recent report which proves there is a link between non-EU immigration and unemployment.

The measures that we have taken in this bill in relation to this link are mild, in order to satisfy as many as possible. We have gone from freezing immigration for three years, to implementing a more progressive method which freezes only Tier 3 visa applications when unemployment in the UK is over 2 million.

Other reports say otherwise, and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) says immigration has had little impact.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16484918

However, this bill is definitely an improvement over the previous bills at least.

[toronto353]

(Original post by dgeorge)
Other reports say otherwise, and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) says immigration has had little impact.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16484918

However, this bill is definitely an improvement over the previous bills at least.

However, immigration has an impact on infrastructure. Mass immigration means that more money needs to be found to increase the amount of school places available for example. Even if the economic links are dubious and I agree with this to an extent since unemployment has a lot to do with attitudes to work as it does with immigration.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by toronto353)
However, immigration has an impact on infrastructure. Mass immigration means that more money needs to be found to increase the amount of school places available for example. Even if the economic links are dubious and I agree with this to an extent since unemployment has a lot to do with attitudes to work as it does with immigration.

Also means more taxes to pay for infrastructure. And some immigrants do not come here with children.

I'm not trying to say immigration is all rainbows and kittens. Just saying that the debate is probably more nuanced than can easily be imagined. Simply putting a blanket ban on any group is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Ham and Cheese)
Simply because claiming asylum is a last resort and not a choice. Why should someone in Somalia be able to claim asylum in the UK when they pass so many 'safe countries' on the way? Spain? France?

Because we're bloody loaded compared to most 'safe' countries. A humanitarian disaster occurs in Somalia, why should Kenya (the safest country nextdoor) have to handle all the refugees? Britain has a moral responsibility to act within its means to alleviate suffering, and letting people take refuge here is a part of that.

[SciFiRory]

(Original post by JPKC)
Because we're bloody loaded compared to most 'safe' countries. A humanitarian disaster occurs in Somalia, why should Kenya (the safest country nextdoor) have to handle all the refugees? Britain has a moral responsibility to act within its means to alleviate suffering, and letting people take refuge here is a part of that.

can't agree more with this

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by JPKC)
Because we're bloody loaded compared to most 'safe' countries. A humanitarian disaster occurs in Somalia, why should Kenya (the safest country nextdoor) have to handle all the refugees? Britain has a moral responsibility to act within its means to alleviate suffering, and letting people take refuge here is a part of that.

Quite right - just because Kenya is classed as safe doesn't mean it's fine for refugees to just go there in this scenario, the country can't sustain such an influx to the extent we could.

[Mechie]

Let's just say that this bill isn't morally reprehensible and xenophobic for a second. Let's say someone moves to the UK and earns £21,000 in the first year they stay here, then they're made redundant. As far as I can tell, they wouldn't be entitled to any benefits. How the hell are they going to live without money?