Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Immigration? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Is UK immigration too high?
    Yes
    28
    66.67%
    It's more or less just right
    10
    23.81%
    No it should be higher
    4
    9.52%

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    That's not true- there are people who will grab ANY job ...anyone who says otherwise is lying to be frank
    Looking at TSR alone, this seems to be true : /
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I think we are the only two to vote for more so far.

    I'd be quite against levying a fee i think because it's ultimately another stumbling block to coming here and getting a job but perhaps we could have a different tax regime for them at least before there entitled to any welfare (i.e. you'd get a 35% flat tax for all immigrants with no threshold but after a year you'd move to the standard tax rates and be entitled to certain things). This could actually draw more wealthy immigrants though the danger you have is that rather than paying 45% after a period they'd just keep emigrating and immigrating potentially. Not one I've thought through.
    The advantage of an immigration tariff is that it confers direct fiscal benefits on the UK which greatly increases the political feasibility of immigration. Could be used to pay for infrastructure, training for low-skilled Brits or just rebated to citizens. It would be good because it could *replace* the current system where you have to prove all kinds of stuff - you have to have a job lined up, or a place at university, or prove that you have the income to support yourself, or whatever. Instead of the horrific bureaucracy that we currently have, you'd just pony up your £10k or whatever, and you'd be allowed in.

    This would also allow immigration levels to respond to forces of supply and demand, unlike the de facto quotas of the current system.

    An immigration tariff wouldn't be overly burdensome to immigrants, either. Look at the fees paid to Mexican 'coyotes' and Russian people-smugglers. Plus, charities and banks could and would step in.

    (Original post by a729)
    Why on earth do you want dramatically higher immigration?

    The South East is increasingly overcrowded and is facing a major water crisis! London has a much higher % of foreign born citizens

    I'm not saying immigration should be higher- and you know it!
    I say we should be really discerning about who we let into the country-we shouldn't let people into this country who solely want to milk the welfare system.
    London has a much higher percentage of foreign-born citizens - and do you notice how it's also the most prosperous reason by a long way?

    My point was that it's possible to keep out people who want to 'milk the welfare system' while ALSO increasing immigration to, say, Australian levels.

    I've written a lot about why I want higher immigration, but basically it makes the vast majority of British people better off while also - and this is too often ignored - doing far more to lift people out of poverty than spending 0.7% of our GDP ever could.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dapperatchik)
    The advantage of an immigration tariff is that it confers direct fiscal benefits on the UK which greatly increases the political feasibility of immigration. Could be used to pay for infrastructure, training for low-skilled Brits or just rebated to citizens. It would be good because it could *replace* the current system where you have to prove all kinds of stuff - you have to have a job lined up, or a place at university, or prove that you have the income to support yourself, or whatever. Instead of the horrific bureaucracy that we currently have, you'd just pony up your £10k or whatever, and you'd be allowed in.

    This would also allow immigration levels to respond to forces of supply and demand, unlike the de facto quotas of the current system.

    An immigration tariff wouldn't be overly burdensome to immigrants, either. Look at the fees paid to Mexican 'coyotes' and Russian people-smugglers. Plus, charities and banks could and would step in.



    London has a much higher percentage of foreign-born citizens - and do you notice how it's also the most prosperous reason by a long way?

    My point was that it's possible to keep out people who want to 'milk the welfare system' while ALSO increasing immigration to, say, Australian levels.

    I've written a lot about why I want higher immigration, but basically it makes the vast majority of British people better off while also - and this is too often ignored - doing far more to lift people out of poverty than spending 0.7% of our GDP ever could.
    London has a high number of unemployed people - it has a big private sector which can absorb people milking the system more than any other part of the UK can

    No it doesn't , when you bring in low skilled people who push undermine the working class

    We don't have enough jobs as it is-bringing in more people (who aren't highly skilled) will make it worse

    Look in Oldham - community relations are breaking point
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think that we would have to limit the immigration level somewhat. There is clearly a strain on infrastructure, particularly housing. Yes we could build more and increase our stock but I don't want this to be a country of housing estates and motorways. I'm no huge green campaigner but I don't want to see our countryside diminish just to comply with EU laws. But that's another factor, Brussels enforce these regulations and currently we can't change them ourselves. The benefits of being in the EU are clear and I'm certainly no euro-sceptic but this is a particular disadvantage. Hopefully David Cameron can negotiate with the EU to gain us the right enforce our own immigration laws and I'm a fan of the Australian system. This would be difficult though but Angela Merkel said there would have to be a compromise so I am optimistic.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    This. Immigration is used as scapegoat in this country and it shouldn't be. Only about 0.1% of people who come to the UK as immigrants claim benefits.

    I've said this many a time and I'll say it again, don't blame the immigrants who are willing to come here and work hard. Blame the scumbags in the lower working class who make it necessary to have immigration by either turning their noses at the poor jobs that immigrants do (despite only having a GCSE...) or being happy to sit on the shambles of a benefit system that this country provides.
    Thank you!:-)
    Personally though, I don't even think we should blame the 'scumbags' who are "happy to sit on the benefit system", I think we should blame the people who have put this inefficient benefit system into place, and allowed this to happen.


    Also, EU Immigrants have to work in Britain for a year before they can claim any benefits from the state. Why does no one know this?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    London has a high number of unemployed people - it has a big private sector which can absorb people milking the system more than any other part of the UK can
    Unemployment is much, much lower in London than it is in other parts of the UK with far lower levels of immigration.

    (Original post by a729)
    No it doesn't , when you bring in low skilled people who push undermine the working class
    Even if there is a small effect on the wages of the low-skilled, pretty much all of the academic research on immigration suggests that it has no effect on unemployment and positive effects on overall average wages. And obviously if you own a house in the UK then you're going to win from higher immigration because land values will go up. So is there a special reason why we can't redistribute some fraction of these benefits from the many people who gain from higher immigration to the few who lose?

    (Original post by a729)
    We don't have enough jobs as it is-bringing in more people (who aren't highly skilled) will make it worse
    In the long run the number of jobs basically depends on the number of workers. We have a serious demand-side problem in the UK at the moment but it's far from clear that immigrants are making it worse. If we had higher immigration, employers would build lots of factories to accomodate the new labour and lots of new houses would also be built, potentially jumpstarting economic activity. Immigration doesn't just increase the supply of labour, it also increases the demand.

    (Original post by a729)
    Look in Oldham - community relations are breaking point
    Are social problems really that much worse in Inner London, where 42% of the population is foreign-born, than they are on, say, Merseyside (where 6% is)? And do the temporary issues caused by assimilation teething problems justify preventing British people from hiring foreign workers and renting their houses to foreign tenants and selling their goods to foreign consumers and so forth, with the enormous benefits thereof?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benevansben)
    I think that we would have to limit the immigration level somewhat. There is clearly a strain on infrastructure, particularly housing. Yes we could build more and increase our stock but I don't want this to be a country of housing estates and motorways. I'm no huge green campaigner but I don't want to see our countryside diminish just to comply with EU laws. But that's another factor, Brussels enforce these regulations and currently we can't change them ourselves. The benefits of being in the EU are clear and I'm certainly no euro-sceptic but this is a particular disadvantage. Hopefully David Cameron can negotiate with the EU to gain us the right enforce our own immigration laws and I'm a fan of the Australian system. This would be difficult though but Angela Merkel said there would have to be a compromise so I am optimistic.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What are the benefits of being in the EU exactly?

    And negotiation is out of the question. Cameron's a yes-man; he'll accept whatever Hollande and Merkel tell him.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dapperatchik)
    Unemployment is much, much lower in London than it is in other parts of the UK with far lower levels of immigration.


    Not in Oxfordshire or a lot of the home counties
    Even if there is a small effect on the wages of the low-skilled, pretty much all of the academic research on immigration suggests that it has no effect on unemployment and positive effects on overall average wages. And obviously if you own a house in the UK then you're going to win from higher immigration because land values will go up. So is there a special reason why we can't redistribute some fraction of these benefits from the many people who gain from higher immigration to the few who lose?


    High property prices are bad- causing poverty and homelessness
    In the long run the number of jobs basically depends on the number of workers. We have a serious demand-side problem in the UK at the moment but it's far from clear that immigrants are making it worse. If we had higher immigration, employers would build lots of factories to accomodate the new labour and lots of new houses would also be built, potentially jumpstarting economic activity. Immigration doesn't just increase the supply of labour, it also increases the demand.
    The UK is a rather expensive place to open a factory compared to other countries where wage costs are MUCH lower

    It depends on the immigrant who come in -we do not have enough jobs by far- even poundland has people queueing round the block to apply for even the lowest paid jobs there-including graduates and somehow you think more people will solve that? Unless they are well skilled and will not take the jobs needed for the working class



    Are social problems really that much worse in Inner London, where 42% of the population is foreign-born, than they are on, say, Merseyside (where 6% is)? And do the temporary issues caused by assimilation teething problems justify preventing British people from hiring foreign workers and renting their houses to foreign tenants and selling their goods to foreign consumers and so forth, with the enormous benefits thereof?
    London is good but it's far from perfect!
    Immigration has been too much ,too fast ..schools are fulling up ,water supplies are stretched and infrastructure is overstretched and welfare costs in London through housing benefits are really high
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    What are the benefits of being in the EU exactly?

    And negotiation is out of the question. Cameron's a yes-man; he'll accept whatever Hollande and Merkel tell him.
    You can't be serious.

    1) The obvious benefits to British businesses and foreign firms locating here and their associated multiplier effects. The increase in competition also benefits consumers as prices fall.

    2) We might not like it but it benefits us to be part of a larger political bloc in a globalised world in which size matters. It also allows us a place at the top table of world trade talks.

    3) Access to the free market and largest trading bloc in the world (with 19.2% of world exports, before expansion) and 40% of our exports go to EU clients, three million jobs would be jeopardised by withdrawal.

    Here are just three benefits that, by themselves, outweigh the drawbacks that the EU produces.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    London is good but it's far from perfect!
    Immigration has been too much ,too fast ..schools are fulling up ,water supplies are stretched and infrastructure is overstretched and welfare costs in London through housing benefits are really high
    Imagine that we said anyone could come into the country as long as they paid, say, £10k or £20k or whatever (and they wouldn't be eligible for any out-of-work benefits for, say, ten years).

    Half of the money would go towards improving infrastructure, and half would go directly into the pockets of British citizens.

    Would you support such a proposal?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benevansben)
    You can't be serious.

    1) The obvious benefits to British businesses and foreign firms locating here and their associated multiplier effects. The increase in competition also benefits consumers as prices fall.

    2) We might not like it but it benefits us to be part of a larger political bloc in a globalised world in which size matters. It also allows us a place at the top table of world trade talks.

    3) Access to the free market and largest trading bloc in the world (with 19.2% of world exports, before expansion) and 40% of our exports go to EU clients, three million jobs would be jeopardised by withdrawal.

    Here are just three benefits that, by themselves, outweigh the drawbacks that the EU produces.
    Point one is unsubstantiated waffle.

    Point two is rubbish as France and Germany rule the union. We have little power over decisions and rulings made and we have a weak prime minister who'll accept anything they say.

    Point three is a myth that has been proven to be false countless times. Should Britain leave the EU, it would impose a UK/EU free trade agreement. In addition, the EU sells far more to us than we sell to them, it would be nonsensical for them not to trade with their biggest customer.

    So, I ask again, what are the benefits?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benevansben)
    You can't be serious.

    1) The obvious benefits to British businesses and foreign firms locating here and their associated multiplier effects. The increase in competition also benefits consumers as prices fall.

    2) We might not like it but it benefits us to be part of a larger political bloc in a globalised world in which size matters. It also allows us a place at the top table of world trade talks.

    3) Access to the free market and largest trading bloc in the world (with 19.2% of world exports, before expansion) and 40% of our exports go to EU clients, three million jobs would be jeopardised by withdrawal.

    Here are just three benefits that, by themselves, outweigh the drawbacks that the EU produces.
    We don't need to be in the EU or fund it
    There is the EEA , UN and WTO

    We are in a trade deficit so they have more to lose than us
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dapperatchik)
    Imagine that we said anyone could come into the country as long as they paid, say, £10k or £20k or whatever (and they wouldn't be eligible for any out-of-work benefits for, say, ten years).

    Half of the money would go towards improving infrastructure, and half would go directly into the pockets of British citizens.

    Would you support such a proposal?
    Hmm but that cut immigration massively as many people who come here for work are virtually penniless - having the reverse effect of what you wanted?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dapperatchik)
    Imagine that we said anyone could come into the country as long as they paid, say, £10k or £20k or whatever (and they wouldn't be eligible for any out-of-work benefits for, say, ten years).

    Half of the money would go towards improving infrastructure, and half would go directly into the pockets of British citizens.

    Would you support such a proposal?
    Preserving our culture, our race, and our language are much more important than the economy.

    But now with so many millions of people on the move, even the great-hearted are becoming edgy. Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species.

    - Gore Vidal
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not only do we need to halt immigration immediately we also need to ask ourselves whether its acceptable to have large parts of the country resembling Africa, Asia or the Middle East. Call me old fashioned but I believe that Britain should be the home of the ...erm... British. A sensible amount of immigration can genuinely be a good thing (and I'm not just saying that to appease the leftists), but what we've had is unlimited 3rd world immigration of the worst kind imaginable. I really would like to turn the clock back in this regard.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    Only about 0.1% of people who come to the UK as immigrants claim benefits.
    Do you have a source for this statistic or did you just make it up on the spot?




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Various threads on TSR are evident of why we are failing to have a sensible argument on immigration; the introduction of race.

    When we have nearly 1 million people 18-24 out of work, services and infrastructure never designed to cope with the numbers using it, a housing shortage, economic problems with a race to the bottom wage economy you have deep root problems which can be tied to immigration. OP you are wrong on all this non white vs white business. The majority of people that have come to this country in the last 15 years have been white European - 2.3 million of the 3 million that have arrived. Please remove this notion of race from your mentality. It muddies the waters of a clear debate.

    Personally I think Australia has it right and we should seek to emulate the model. You let people in if they fill a skills shortage. They must secure work and prove this will not be a burden to the health service by being fit and healthy. You have to speak English. Not only does this help with the basic communication it helps with integration. You must adopt Australian values, customs and norms and become part of an Australian way of life. It is basically the "when in Roman" approach which I am an advocate of. You do not move to a country to impose your way of life on them and alter their way of life and divide communities. You are going there because you want to. You should adjust to fit in with the home crowd. If you don't then you can expect hostility and frustration. I would never move to Germany without learning German and people should not move to Britain without learning to speak English.

    We are a small island which values the beauty of its land and do not like building in greenfield sites but increasingly do because we haven't the houses for people. We can not cope with an open door policy. This was outlined in the 60's when tight curbs were placed on the commonwealth because it effectively meant without them a third of the world had the right to settle in Britain.

    People have seen their communities change quickly, their neighbours change and trust breaks down when you have large numbers of immigrants over a prolonged period. You end up with segregated communities within larger cities and riots as was the case in Bradford in 2001. Also Oldham in 2004

    As I said I think the Aussies have the policy right. We'll let you in if we need you but if you decide to come here you play by our rules and we will get on just fine.

    Another big problem is illegal immigration in Britain. If an illegal can't or wont provide documents to tell us where they are from we can't ship them back so they stay here. They can't legally work, they can't do anything. There are an estimated 280,000 of these people in the country plus a further 11,000 foreign criminals. Now personally I would find them and deport them all, if they refused to give us documents we detain them until they tell us where they are from to get rid of them.
    Firstly I can't see anywhere where the OP mentioned race or white people. Perhaps I am just being blind, if he mentioned this, please show me where.

    Secondly what is wrong with mentioning race. There is nothing wrong with any race but there is something wrong if there is a covert plan to remove European identity an this is done intentionally as per the statement that Labour made.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    Point one is unsubstantiated waffle.

    Point two is rubbish as France and Germany rule the union. We have little power over decisions and rulings made and we have a weak prime minister who'll accept anything they say.

    Point three is a myth that has been proven to be false countless times. Should Britain leave the EU, it would impose a UK/EU free trade agreement. In addition, the EU sells far more to us than we sell to them, it would be nonsensical for them not to trade with their biggest customer.

    So, I ask again, what are the benefits?
    Point one is not unsubstantiated, its a basic economic principle. Increase in competition = decrease in prices = better for the consumer. So too is the multiplier effect. Increase in the size of the market so an increase in demand, therefore firms produce more. This generates extra income for suppliers and employees who go on to spend a portion of this extra income on other goods and services which increases the demand in those industries and the cycle continues.

    Can you give us a few examples of Cameron 'accepting whatever they say' He has vetoed past rulings and has threatened to veto the EU budget today. The fact that Angela Merkel has admitted there needs to be a compromise is evidence against your unsubstantiated point.

    I don't understand why people believe this UK/EU free trade agreement would actually work. Many EU officials have said it would not be possible including Francois Hollande, president of one of the countries that you said yourself 'rules the union'. He said he would roll out the red carpet for any business that would flee Britain should they leave. Can you also provide a source of when point three was proven wrong? It should not prove too difficult seeing as it has been proven false countless times.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I almost considered voting for the 'needs to be higher' option just for the laughs! In all seriousness, our infrastructure development doesn't match our population expansion, and immigration is a serious contributor to our numbers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benevansben)
    Point one is not unsubstantiated, its a basic economic principle. Increase in competition = decrease in prices = better for the consumer. So too is the multiplier effect. Increase in the size of the market so an increase in demand, therefore firms produce more. This generates extra income for suppliers and employees who go on to spend a portion of this extra income on other goods and services which increases the demand in those industries and the cycle continues.

    Can you give us a few examples of Cameron 'accepting whatever they say' He has vetoed past rulings and has threatened to veto the EU budget today. The fact that Angela Merkel has admitted there needs to be a compromise is evidence against your unsubstantiated point.

    I don't understand why people believe this UK/EU free trade agreement would actually work. Many EU officials have said it would not be possible including Francois Hollande, president of one of the countries that you said yourself 'rules the union'. He said he would roll out the red carpet for any business that would flee Britain should they leave. Can you also provide a source of when point three was proven wrong? It should not prove too difficult seeing as it has been proven false countless times.
    Cameron promised a referendum on Britain's EU membership; he reneged due to pressure from senior European figures. He also travelled to Brussels to get a better deal for Britain; what he actually did was ensure we'll be paying more in future.

    As for point three, it's stipulated in the Lisbon Treaty that the EU must set up a free-trade agreement with any country leaving the EU.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 18, 2013
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.