E.U Leave or Remain: limiting E.U migration to the U.K

Original post by james813

Right, thanks - I can see where you are coming from now. I personally disagree massively and feel that the poorest should be earning a living wage.

I agree people should be paid enough to live on, the dramatic rise in food banks is an embarrassment to the country. But it is a fact increasing wages will increase inflation.

Reply 42

Numero Uno

14

Will there be a reduction of immigration if we leave the EU or is it like every other subject about leaving or staying, and no one knows any hard facts? :chaplin:

Reply 43

Original post by plstudent

It depends on what you are comparing them to.

Well what are you comparing it to? The scope of these exclusion areas is wide - there is no question about that. They run right across the gamut of EU law.

The burden of evidence is very high, in any case, and officials have come out and claimed it is nearly impossible to prevent EU nationals from entering.

Please cite some evidence. Otherwise your post has as much value as Farage and Boris - it's just propaganda.

At any rate, the number of people that have been prevented from coming in doesn't speak for the criteria for exclusion being very forgiving.

I think the problem you are having is that you are wondering why honest travellers/tourists/workers are not excluded. The real question is why should they be? Why should you be refused entry to the USA or Australia?

So less than 1% of EU nationals coming in have been stopped. I only used 600,000 as a safe minimum based on the number of new insurance numbers but thanks for looking up the actual figures.

These are overall visitors to the UK, not just people taking advantage of the free movement rules to find work. The larger figure is total visitors from all over the world - so is no use on its own in having any debate about the EU.

The BBC post above says that the total number of exclusions in six years is approximately 100,000. In the same period we've nearly 200 million foreigners through our borders. To put the whole thing into perspective something like 0.05% of all visitors are excluded (ie five in every 10,000). The majority of those excluded are going to be those who are suspected of working in the UK illegally, or not complying with their student visa requirements. These are not issues that apply to EU citizens.

Reply 44

Original post by Numero Uno

Will there be a reduction of immigration if we leave the EU or is it like every other subject about leaving or staying, and no one knows any hard facts? :chaplin:

Good question.

I think the answer is that no one really has any idea - one reason for this is no one has any idea of what the UK's relationship with the EU will be, and no one knows what the UK relationship with the rest of the world will be.

Here are some things to think about: Farage has been quite noisy about how EU immigration rules (ie free movement of people) are unfair against the families of immigrants from Commonwealth countries. His effective argument to black and Asian 1st/2nd/3rd/etc generation immigrants is that their families outside the UK are at a disadvantage against EU migrants. ie EU migrants come and go as they please and the group Farage is talking about find it difficult to get visas merely to visit the UK, let alone stay and work.

I don't think Farage really wants to replace EU migrants with Commonwealth migrants, he is just being politically opportunist in trying to set one group of potential immigrants (and their UK-based families, who can vote in the referendum) against another set of potential immigrants. This has led to the farcical appearance of various non-white UKIP/OUT supporters complaining about EU migrants, and telling interviewers how their families were different because they all came to the UK to work (with the implication that the EU migrants did not). This is a particularly distasteful part of the debate about the UK's relationship with the EU.

At the same time the Conservative government's line, since 2010, has been that it is going to reduce nett immigration to the low tens of thousands (clue: it is well over 300,000, so the government is failing on a massive scale). Something like 55% of all immigration is from outside the EU. If the government cannot control this (because we need the skilled workers this brings in, familial or other reasons), then how is it ever going to get down to its stated target? Remember, this is the immigration the government claims it is able to control. And this is the position (at least some in) the OUT campaign aspire to, ie that all migrants have to meet the same requirements - they don't have automatic rights of entry, like EU citizens currently do.

The problem I see for the OUT campaign is that if all these EU migrants are coming over to the UK and nicking our jobs, how come we need so many more migrants from outside the EU too? Their answer is that the migrants from outside the EU are "skilled". I find this answer less than satisfactory - are they really saying that the EU nationals entering the UK do not bring skills that the UK wants? Even if that is just their labour and a willingness to work hard?

About the best data I can find on this, in which about 11.5% of the data is "unknown" shows that of NHS staff with clinical qualifications 4.4% are from the EU and 5.4% are Commonwealth nationals:

https://fullfact.org/health/immigration-and-nhs-how-many-staff-are-eu-and-commonwealth/

What you might notice is that these proportions are close to the balance of nett migration for the two groups (ie 55% of immigrants are from outside the EU). This data does not include GPs. So, in this particular case, it looks like the EU nationals coming to the UK are of the same skilled value as those from the rest of the world.

I think the logical position on this is that EU nationals are our basic labour pool. What we are seeming to find is that we are not attracting enough of them, so in order to fulfil the needs of our labour market we need to top this up with "filtered" immigration from the rest of the world. What I think that means is that the UK labour market requires something like the number of migrants we are currently getting each year - and that will be the requirement whether we are in the EU or not. So, my personal feeling is that the level of immigration will not change very much.

However, I do believe there is one benefit in EU migration, that does not apply to other migrants. If there is a downturn in the UK economy EU migrants can fairly easily choose to take their labour back to their home state, or to another EU member state. Knowing that at some point in the future, should the market change again, they can return to the UK.

For other migrant workers the decisions are not so simple. If they leave the UK for any period of time their visas may lapse, and the will have problems getting back into the UK. So there is less incentive for them to move outside the UK when their labour is not in as high demand.

Finally, we have the those campaigning for an exit from the EU, but who want the UK to remain part of the single market - you have probably seen the "Norway" or "Switzerland" models mentioned in the media. The problem with these models, for those wanting to control EU migration, is that Norway and Switzerland are EEA/EFTA member states, and a requirement of membership is the free movement of people. So this model most definitely does not work for those whose focus is migration, or migration control if you like.

So, to go back to how I started this answer - no one really knows what will be the outcome with regard to immigration. But the indicators are that actually reducing immigration to the levels the government is aiming for is a task with a lot of problems, and the EU is probably not the crux of these - even if we end up with a deal to completely stop migration by EU nationals.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 45

The ridiculous issue is students are included in the migration figures and the universities are actively recruiting students from overseas because they pay more than home students.

The government wants this to happen because the taxpayer can then pay less and it keeps down the tuition fees paid by home students.

If the migration figure was reduced to tens of thousands, many universities will lose out and go to the government for more money or increase tuition fees neither of which the government wants.

Reply 46

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/eu-referendum#

Original post by Maker

The ridiculous issue is students are included in the migration figures and the universities are actively recruiting students from overseas because they pay more than home students.

The government wants this to happen because the taxpayer can then pay less and it keeps down the tuition fees paid by home students.

If the migration figure was reduced to tens of thousands, many universities will lose out and go to the government for more money or increase tuition fees neither of which the government wants.

I don't really know what the financial benefits to universities/students are in having non-EU students - ie do they subsidise EU students (just because they pay more doesn't mean that this is the case, because government provides some of the funding for EU students).

it must be possible to find some stats on the number of students within the overall immigration figures (both EU and non-EU)…

Perhaps I'm misreading it but these stats seem to say that there were nearly 437,000 foreign students in the UK in 2014/15 - which is far higher than the nett migration figures!?

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/stats

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 47

plstudent

2

This is a very good article on EU migration and the referendum.

Spoiler

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 48

Libtardian

15

What the Tories will do is largely unknown, they may just have a red tape bonfire and let the market sort out immigration.

The economy will be facing another crisis by Spring next year though regardless of whether we leave or remain, expect Brexit to be blamed though.

Reply 49

Original post by typonaut

I don't really know what the financial benefits to universities/students are in having non-EU students - ie do they subsidise EU students (just because they pay more doesn't mean that this is the case, because government provides some of the funding for EU students).

it must be possible to find some stats on the number of students within the overall immigration figures (both EU and non-EU)…

Perhaps I'm misreading it but these stats seem to say that there were nearly 437,000 foreign students in the UK in 2014/15 - which is far higher than the nett migration figures!?

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/stats

A EU citizen could come to Britain then become a student afterwards or they are in Britain for less than a year so they are not classed as a migrant. EU students can also be in Britain for more than one year so would be more than 300,000/

Reply 50

Original post by plstudent

This is a very good article on EU migration and the referendum.

It's a good article if you want a one-sided debate about migration, for sure.

Reply 51

plstudent

2

Original post by typonaut

Well what are you comparing it to? The scope of these exclusion areas is wide - there is no question about that. They run right across the gamut of EU law.

Convicted murderers can get in. Convicted rapists can get in. According to people who know about it, the only way to stop them in practice is to show they are clear and PRESENT danger.

I think it is fair to say that you don't have a lot of control when you are forced to accept convicted murderers and rapists. Now contrast this with your claim that EU nationals can be excluded "for any number of reasons".

[video]https://www.facebook.com/voteleave/videos/596919840484944/[/video]

I think the problem you are having is that you are wondering why honest travellers/tourists/workers are not excluded. The real question is why should they be? Why should you be refused entry to the USA or Australia?

That is not what I was doing at all. I was examining a claim from you that, in my view, was clearly misleading.

These are overall visitors to the UK, not just people taking advantage of the free movement rules to find work. The larger figure is total visitors from all over the world - so is no use on its own in having any debate about the EU.

Of course they are not but that's the point- that an insignificant number of them are denied entry. Dangerous criminals are not too likely to care if they have migration rights anyway.
I am not saying that nearly enough non-EU nationals are denied entry either, mind you.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 52

Original post by plstudent

I am not saying that nearly enough non-EU nationals are denied entry either, mind you.

And that is the point I am trying to make to you. You cant really say that the conditions under which each group are excluded, aside from visa requirements, are very different. You can't say whether a convicted murderer or rapist (or whatever) is allowed in from outside the EU.

Reply 53

plstudent

2

Original post by typonaut

And that is the point I am trying to make to you. You cant really say that the conditions under which each group are excluded, aside from visa requirements, are very different. You can't say whether a convicted murderer or rapist (or whatever) is allowed in from outside the EU.

Even if that was true, leaving assures that Westminster has the possibility to come up with a lower threshold for keeping out undesirables.

Reply 54

democracyforum

4

Immigration will continue if we leave the EU.

It's not an argument.

Reply 55

james813

18

Original post by democracyforum

Immigration will continue if we leave the EU.

It's not an argument.

Of course it will continue. The point is we can control the quantity and quality by leaving, to reduce pressure on public services and wage compression

Reply 56