Is UK government taking the "right" groups of immigrants in?

I live in manchester, I found that in the China town and curry mile here, there are plenty of residence who are not well educated if not uneducated at all (mostly first generation immigrants though, their children are mostly educated), and because of the lack of education and skills, some of them have no choice but stick to the community which they belong to and somehow refuse to embrace the value of the society outside.

Obviously the government would want someone who comes into their country adapt better to the way they live, accept the values they hold and actually mix with the majority of people, by that I don't mean they should give up their own culture and heritage, I mean they are willing to blend into this society, and intuitively you would think those international students are a better choice than those who come into this country with nothing but seeks a better life.

I don't really understand the immigration policy the UK government made which makes it so hard for non EU students to get a job after graduation but same time issuing residence card to those who lives nowhere outside their own community?

(And please don't get me wrong, I am not saying these people deserve less rights, I am just talking from the government's perspective)

so what is the reason?

I do think you have a point OP. If it were my choice then I'd stop all non-EU immigration from nations which don't have a GDP per capita above $30k. The exceptions would be those who are willing to serve a decade in the military and those who can prove they have a job offer paying in excess of 30k. I would give international students 12 months to find employment after their degree. I would also stop spouses gaining citizenship.

What would that achieve? More soldiers certainly aren't at all what this country needs, nor would be worth paying for. Surely a better requirement would be if they can fill a public sector vacancy that a Brit couldn't, or could do the job more cheaply for the same quality of service?

Also, why would the salary have to be £30k - that seems completely arbitrary, especially as salary varies by age, as well as regionally - your policy implies that a teacher or nurse etc from abroad can get a job in the UK in London, but not in the North-east where there is a relative shortage, and it also implies that an immigrant taking a more senior role (who then may have more dependents, more healthcare requirements and use up more public resources) who will likely be paid £30k should come at the expense of someone taking an entry level role but will be paid below your magic threshold.

A subjective view presumably based on your aversion to an active foreign policy. I personally view somebody willing to give a decade and potentially their life as somebody deserving of permanent citizenship. I was open to them filling public sector vacancies however looking at medicine for example, their are 100,000 applicants for 20,000 training places so in many of these cases it's a funding training issue rather than needing more labour. While i do support spending cuts in the public sector, those jobs that remain should be reasonably compensated and between UK nationals and EU nationals (still eligible to come) i think we have a more than adequate supply.

The average salary is £26k, to be a net contributor to the state you need to be earning ~£15k already so £30k seems a good mark. I should add actually though that i want to make it easier for those from countries with a high GDP per capita (likely more educated and skilled) to immigrate so i'm not purely going for lower immigrant numbers. As i say above, we will still have EU immigration as well.

QFA

Ok, point taken on the foreign policy, but even if you only enlisted a fraction of those immigrants into the army, chances are they'd be sitting unproductively in the reserves costing the taxpayer money until something came for them to do. Secondly, wouldn't language and/or cultural differences potentially endanger British troops who serve alongside the foreigners on the frontline?

The problem with a high threshold is that it's pretty static - someone coming in and earning £30k straight off may be older and contribute less over their working life and reitre in the UK compared to a much younger immigrant earning less,but contributing more over their working life, as well as probably end up in London, where housing and some public services are most under pressure.

Given that the vast majority of the world's high income countries are already in the EU, surely those who are coming from outside should either meet skill shortages aren't met from within the EU or domestically (a reason why lots of South African and carribean nurses are recruited).

In fact, importing healthcare labour is a great way to save money - if you need say 30,000 nurses a year, and you know you'll have to pay them £23k when they qualify, and you have to pay the cost of their training, then if you import 10,000 you'll still save on the training even if you pay them the same. Likewise with doctors etc.

It seems silly to target only high income countries from outside the EU when in reality there are only a handful, yet there is plenty of talented labour in countries like India, China, Indonesia that could contribute to the UK economy.

I do think you have a point OP. If it were my choice then I'd stop all non-EU immigration from nations which don't have a GDP per capita above $30k. The exceptions would be those who are willing to serve a decade in the military and those who can prove they have a job offer paying in excess of 30k. I would give international students 12 months to find employment after their degree. I would also stop spouses gaining citizenship.

What about people who simply want to improve their lot without depending on the state?

Unfortunately we can only help so many. They may not wish to depend on the state but if they fail to find a high paying job we're hardly going to let them starve or die from disease.