Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

What are the arguments against controlled immigration and a point-based system? watch

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Whether mass Immigration is the main cause or a factor we all agree the public services in the UK are under constraint (our schools, NHS services, transport system).

    Surely reducing immigration would help reduce the strain on our services. A system where the skilled come in and the number of non-skilled is heavily limited to reduce immigration, similar to that of Australia. I will not deny that immigration is vital to our public services as they make up a lot of our nurses and doctors and our engineers but a net migration of 300,000 people every year is unsustainable.

    Let me explain to you more about how a point based system would work because it has been extremely successful in Australia and one that many politicians use to showcase controlled immigration.
    In Australia every year the government sets a target of how much migrants they will let in, depending on economic growth or a shortage of jobs. In 2014-15 this number was 190,000 people and they also decide how much of the migrants they let in will be skilled workers, again using 2014-15 as an example it was 68%. All migrants must take a test half of their points would be on an exam testing very basic knowledge of the English language and the other half on qualifications and education. This is a good model that surely would work in the UK, it balances the need for skilled-workers and non-skilled workers.

    Source:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-system-brexit

    I ask you what are the arguments against controlled immigration and a point-based system?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    This should be interesting.🙂
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    The arguments against points-based immigration are going to be made by the same people who benefit from having to pay lower wages ie those at the top chasing profit. They love perpetuating the stereotype that native people won't do the jobs, or don't do them well enough.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    Whether mass Immigration is the main cause or a factor we all agree the public services in the UK are under constraint (our schools, NHS services, transport system).

    Surely reducing immigration would help reduce the strain on our services. A system where the skilled come in and the number of non-skilled is heavily limited to reduce immigration, similar to that of Australia. I will not deny that immigration is vital to our public services as they make up a lot of our nurses and doctors and our engineers but a net migration of 300,000 people every year is unsustainable.

    Let me explain to you more about how a point based system would work because it has been extremely successful in Australia and one that many politicians use to showcase controlled immigration.
    In Australia every year the government sets a target of how much migrants they will let in, depending on economic growth or a shortage of jobs. In 2014-15 this number was 190,000 people and they also decide how much of the migrants they let in will be skilled workers, again using 2014-15 as an example it was 68%. All migrants must take a test half of their points would be on an exam testing very basic knowledge of the English language and the other half on qualifications and education. This is a good model that surely would work in the UK, it balances the need for skilled-workers and non-skilled workers.

    Source:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-system-brexit

    I ask you what are the arguments against controlled immigration and a point-based system?
    The aim of mass immigration is White Genocide. EVERY White country and ONLY White countries are expected to accept millions of immigrants and to interbreed with them.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    A points-based system could work, if the government was willing to invest properly in the civil service to sort out the necessary levels of bureaucracy - it'll need a lot of work to sort out exactly what the UK economy needs and to continually adjust the system to suit that. Unfortunately, investment in public services is basicaly anathema to the Tories, and Labour would probably not be interested in a policy which could disrupt the economy.

    Plus It'd be plain stupid to even think of attempting something like this until Brexit is well out of the way. One major economic upheaval at a time please.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by shawn_o1)
    The arguments against points-based immigration are going to be made by the same people who benefit from having to pay lower wages ie those at the top chasing profit. They love perpetuating the stereotype that native people won't do the jobs, or don't do them well enough.
    Do you know many people who want to work cleaning The *****er?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Do you know many people who want to work cleaning The *****er?
    There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it, I would certainly do it if I had to. Depending on personal preferences I suspect there are far worse jobs for most people. Working in a mortuary for example.

    But both you or I would clean the $hitter, or spend our days alongside dead bodies if there were an economic compulsion. But there isn't for any "native." Millions of our fellow citizens would rather live off the state than clean the $hitter. It is beneath them. But actually there is a dignity in labour, any labour, a feeling of self worth you get from maintaining yourself economically. Really living off others if you are perfectly fit and able to work ought to be beneath them, not working in a low status job.

    But that is where we are, and it isn't going to change. In consequence we suck in thousands of people each year from poor countries without our welfare state to clean our $hitters and serve us our coffees.

    They want to, they have to. It is not beneath them.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of the critique of a system - as is common in libertarian thought - is targeted towards its limitations, not the inherent 'worthiness' of its overall position or goal. So you can have a good idea that has been put into practice poorly.

    - The government may get the numbers wrong (particularly w.r.t. the lower end of the scale - demand for manual labour jobs in sectors such as construction and retail distribution may be underreported)
    - The government is unable to calculate to what extent the unemployed/underemployed 'native' workforce is in that state because of pay-undercutting immigrants, or because the native workforce is just unwilling to do tough jobs with little progression, security, or pay. This makes it likely that it will reduce the number of foreign toilet-cleaners by too great an amount.
    - The government may use the points allocation as a way to discriminate against people from certain countries (whether this is good or bad I leave to you)
    - The government is unable to predict whether demand for the immigrant it has let in will continue to exist several years down the line (even though this is non-comparative - the same issue of being unable to predict the future applies to a free market)
    - The government may underestimate the 'cultural value' of having more artists/humanities grads in the country by focusing on easily quantifiable metrics like having more researchers, teachers, etc (again, this is not necessarily a bad thing if the artist and the post-doc researcher are competing for one place)
    - The country will benefit unevenly - the SE and London are likely to benefit the most from high-skilled immigration (again, this is the same under a free market)

    Do also note that a protectionist system is overwhelmingly likely to result in a distribution of income from the middle and upper classes to the lower classes (who will be in a position to charge more for routine services such as cleaning and childcare). Whether this benefits you in particular will depend upon the category in which you sit.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    Whether mass Immigration is the main cause or a factor we all agree the public services in the UK are under constraint (our schools, NHS services, transport system).

    Surely reducing immigration would help reduce the strain on our services. A system where the skilled come in and the number of non-skilled is heavily limited to reduce immigration, similar to that of Australia. I will not deny that immigration is vital to our public services as they make up a lot of our nurses and doctors and our engineers but a net migration of 300,000 people every year is unsustainable.

    Let me explain to you more about how a point based system would work because it has been extremely successful in Australia and one that many politicians use to showcase controlled immigration.
    In Australia every year the government sets a target of how much migrants they will let in, depending on economic growth or a shortage of jobs. In 2014-15 this number was 190,000 people and they also decide how much of the migrants they let in will be skilled workers, again using 2014-15 as an example it was 68%. All migrants must take a test half of their points would be on an exam testing very basic knowledge of the English language and the other half on qualifications and education. This is a good model that surely would work in the UK, it balances the need for skilled-workers and non-skilled workers.

    Source:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-system-brexit

    I ask you what are the arguments against controlled immigration and a point-based system?
    Increased investment into education, the NHS and transport infrastructure will allow us to enjoy the benefits of a larger workforce whilst also not straining public services.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    What are the arguments against controlled immigration and a point-based system?
    - Higher business owners and company shareholder profits, due to cheaper workers, and overall wage stagnation.

    - Cheaper menial workers (nannies, housekeepers, gardeners, chauffeurs, cooks etc) for the affluent middle-classes / upper classes.

    - Maintaining a place of privilege in the social hierarchy, by suppressing upward social mobility of the uncouth plebs.

    What are the arguments for controlled immigration and a point-based system?
    - It enables us to control who we allow into the country!

    Letting qualified, skilled, competent people into the country, to fill the gaps we can't fill by better educating and training the native population fast enough. And preventing the situation, such as in Sweden, where while 16% of the population are non-EU foreign born, they claim 56% of the very generous, taxpayer funded, welfare state. The British taxpayer (regardless of any other identity) has no responsibility to pay for a global wealth-fare state, to fund anyone, from anywhere outside the EU, able to set foot in Europe.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JohanGRK)
    A lot of the critique of a system - as is common in libertarian thought - is targeted towards its limitations, not the inherent 'worthiness' of its overall position or goal. So you can have a good idea that has been put into practice poorly.

    - The government may get the numbers wrong (particularly w.r.t. the lower end of the scale - demand for manual labour jobs in sectors such as construction and retail distribution may be underreported)
    If the government were to invest properly in this procedure than they would most likely not get it wrong and even if they were too it would be by a very small margin because of the amount of influence the government has in employment scales and the manual work industry.

    The government is unable to calculate to what extent the unemployed/underemployed 'native' workforce is in that state because of pay-undercutting immigrants, or because the native workforce is just unwilling to do tough jobs with little progression, security, or pay. This makes it likely that it will reduce the number of foreign toilet-cleaners by too great an amount.
    Why will it reduce it? Your argument is flawed if you are referring to a unskilled migration shortage, that is up to the government to decide how much they wan't to let in. Not everyone wants to be toilet cleaners, you know?

    The government may use the points allocation as a way to discriminate against people from certain countries (whether this is good or bad I leave to you)
    Again this is up to the government, if they are purposely discriminating against certain countries than this is not an argument against a point-based system but an argument against authoritarian rule.

    The government is unable to predict whether demand for the immigrant it has let in will continue to exist several years down the line (even though this is non-comparative - the same issue of being unable to predict the future applies to a free market)
    - The government may underestimate the 'cultural value' of having more artists/humanities grads in the country by focusing on easily quantifiable metrics like having more researchers, teachers, etc (again, this is not necessarily a bad thing if the artist and the post-doc researcher are competing for one place)
    - The country will benefit unevenly - the SE and London are likely to benefit the most from high-skilled immigration (again, this is the same under a free market)
    That is why an estimation is made every year to examine the current economic stability and the amount of migrants needed for the calendar year and if the shortage of migration condenses at a certain point of the calendar year in what was an unexpected circumstance, than it is up to the government to change the cap.

    Do also note that a protectionist system is overwhelmingly likely to result in a distribution of income from the middle and upper classes to the lower classes (who will be in a position to charge more for routine services such as cleaning and childcare). Whether this benefits you in particular will depend upon the category in which you sit.
    This is absolute waffle, what you are saying makes no sense? Pleases clarify what you meant for me.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    First of all, I'm putting forward ideas. As much as I'm sure that you love proving your intellectual supremacy to a bunch of stangers on the internet, be aware that you're not as important to them as they are to you. So drop the edgy "oo I'm debating someone on the internetz" tone, sit back in your chair, and treat this as a detached exchange of ideas.


    Replies are in bold.


    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    If the government were to invest properly in this procedure than they would most likely not get it wrong and even if they were too it would be by a very small margin because of the amount of influence the government has in employment scales and the manual work industry.

    Ah yes, the 'throw money at it until it works' attitude. These industries are not responsive to that. The main reason is that they do prefer flexible labour (e.g. the Eastern European immigrants who come here looking for a living), and this flexible labour is the sort that you don't formally petition the government for. I doubt that the government will be able to have a consultation that reaches these self-employed businesses. Why? Because a lot of them are cash-in-hand. They're exploitative, and they're not going to go to the government to ask for open borders so that they may continue their exploitation.

    Why will it reduce it? Your argument is flawed if you are referring to a unskilled migration shortage, that is up to the government to decide how much they wan't to let in. Not everyone wants to be toilet cleaners, you know?

    You've missed my point. My point is that, in this political climate, it's far more convenient to think that **** jobs are taken up by immigrants because these horrible immigrants are stealing and undercutting the natives, than it is to understand that part of the reason why my stair-cleaner is a Romanian is because no native would want to do this job anyway.

    Hence, a government will likely overestimate the number of unemployed/underemployed natives that are willing to fill these jobs (and future ones that arise), because of its politically convenient but mistaken assumption that there's a reserve of native labour just waiting for the Romanians to leave so that they can take over

    This reserve of native labour doesn't exist. Far easier for you to sit on your bum all day than to work a gruelling job for similar pay and no statutory benefits.

    Again this is up to the government, if they are purposely discriminating against certain countries than this is not an argument against a point-based system but an argument against authoritarian rule.

    Nope, it's partly argument against the points based system. Such a system enables an authoritarian government to exclude undesirables more easily. A country with zero immigration control will have to let anyone in, even those from 'undesirable countries'. A country with a points system gains a highly customisable tool for selective exclusion of the people it doesn't want coming in. Whether this is done explicitly or implicitly is a matter of substance - it depends on how the system in used.



    That is why an estimation is made every year to examine the current economic stability and the amount of migrants needed for the calendar year and if the shortage of migration condenses at a certain point of the calendar year in what was an unexpected circumstance, than it is up to the government to change the cap.

    As you seem to have acknowledged, my point is about future stability/instability. This can be predicted to a degree by the government, but it can't be guaranteed. The cap can only be changed prospectively. So you can cut the future inflow, but you're still stuck with x many thousand unemployed immigrants who you weren't expecting to be lying around during a period of below-expectation growth.

    You could get around this by only issuing visas under your points scheme on an annual basis, which would then have to be renewed after the business + the government re-established the demand for your labour. However, we'd need an administration far larger than what we have now to be able to verify and renew these visas on this scale.


    This is absolute waffle, what you are saying makes no sense? Pleases clarify what you meant for me.

    Say I'm a middle class person, looking for a lower-class person who is able to provide services to me. The lower-class people who were willing to do them for the cheap have buggered off to Romania. I'm therefore stuck with expensive English natives. If I have to pay £10/hour for cleaning instead of £5/hour, and £30/hour for childcare instead of £15/hour, then, over the course of the year, a nice big sum of my money is being 'distributed' downwards to the English lower class through the higher prices I had to pay.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JohanGRK)

    Ah yes, the 'throw money at it until it works' attitude. These industries are not responsive to that. The main reason is that they do prefer flexible labour (e.g. the Eastern European immigrants who come here looking for a living), and this flexible labour is the sort that you don't formally petition the government for. I doubt that the government will be able to have a consultation that reaches these self-employed businesses. Why? Because a lot of them are cash-in-hand. They're exploitative, and they're not going to go to the government to ask for open borders so that they may continue their exploitation.
    I struggle to understand how this is an argument against a point-based system, this practice already exists in the current day's climate. Rich business owners exploit migrants to create a profit. Even if the government were to get the numbers wrong (which is something I highly doubt) because of the exploitation of self-employed migrants than nothing would change because the government will calculate the amount of unskilled migration needed based on unemployment levels and skills shortages which will have no existing effect on current living standards and wages for migrants.


    You've missed my point. My point is that, in this political climate, it's far more convenient to think that **** jobs are taken up by immigrants because these horrible immigrants are stealing and undercutting the natives, than it is to understand that part of the reason why my stair-cleaner is a Romanian is because no native would want to do this job anyway.

    Hence, a government will likely overestimate the number of unemployed/underemployed natives that are willing to fill these jobs (and future ones that arise), because of its politically convenient but mistaken assumption that there's a reserve of native labour just waiting for the Romanians to leave so that they can take over

    This reserve of native labour doesn't exist. Far easier for you to sit on your bum all day than to work a gruelling job for similar pay and no statutory benefits.
    That is parrtly true, natives don't want to do dirty jobs and this won't change unless there is a significant incentive such as high wages, for one that exists in the bin industry. I for one am for unskilled immigration (to a certain extent, which is what a point-based system will do) to do the dirty jobs because no capitalist society can work without immigration.

    However you are misunderstood on the basis that the government will divide people into natives and migrants, this is purely not the case. Surely the government will look at it on a whole and if a native person is unemployed then it is up to them to get a job. I would just like to say that a low wage economy is good for business and economic growth as long as inflation is down. If inflation rises then the UK would be a migrants last option and they would all leave.
    Again this is up to the government, if they are purposely discriminating against certain countries than this is not an argument against a point-based system but an argument against authoritarian rule.

    Nope, it's partly argument against the points based system. Such a system enables an authoritarian government to exclude undesirables more easily. A country with zero immigration control will have to let anyone in, even those from 'undesirable countries'. A country with a points system gains a highly customisable tool for selective exclusion of the people it doesn't want coming in. Whether this is done explicitly or implicitly is a matter of substance - it depends on how the system in used.


    Ok, if you wan't to phrase it like that, then it is a disadvantage of a point-based system but not one that would affect a lot of people, also it would be illegal for this practice to take place by the government and surely the point system will be well regulated so that this shall not take place.


    As you seem to have acknowledged, my point is about future stability/instability. This can be predicted to a degreeby the government, but it can't be guaranteed. The cap can only be changed prospectively. So you can cut the future inflow, but you're still stuck with x many thousand unemployed immigrants who you weren't expecting to be lying around during a period of below-expectation growth.

    You could get around this by only issuing visas under your points scheme on an annual basis, which would then have to be renewed after the business + the government re-established the demand for your labour. However, we'd need an administration far larger than what we have now to be able to verify and renew these visas on this scale.
    This could be countered by a similar visa to what Australia issue, that a migrant must be working for an x amount of years to stay in the country or too extend your visa/ to receive these benefits and if they were to fail in meeting these requirements then they would be kicked out of the country.

    I disagree our administration currently is far sufficient to deal with this such as shown with Australia

    Say I'm a middle class person, looking for a lower-class person who is able to provide services to me. The lower-class people who were willing to do them for the cheap have buggered off to Romania. I'm therefore stuck with expensive English natives. If I have to pay £10/hour for cleaning instead of £5/hour, and £30/hour for childcare instead of £15/hour, then, over the course of the year, a nice big sum of my money is being 'distributed' downwards to the English lower class through the higher prices I had to pay
    Why would the lower class "people bugger off to Romania"? They are looking for work and the UK is willing to accept them at a control rate. I very much doubt that we can perpetuate highly educated economic advisers and analysts mistakes,unless you are on of such.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    All ideas are good ideas when other countries do it; they only become racist or bad when Britain (or America) do them.

    Controlled migration in every part of the world - ok.

    Controlled migration in Britain- racist.


    Insurance based healthcare in Germany, France and Scandinavia? Clever, practical, value for money and with caring outcomes.

    Insurance based healthcare in UK? An evil Tory plot to privatise and destroy the NHS wit he the ultimate goal of murdering the poor.


    Counterterrorism in other countries-a smart way of defending themselves against threats.

    Counterterrorism in UK? Racism and Islamophobia
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by generallee)
    There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it, I would certainly do it if I had to. Depending on personal preferences I suspect there are far worse jobs for most people. Working in a mortuary for example.

    But both you or I would clean the $hitter, or spend our days alongside dead bodies if there were an economic compulsion. But there isn't for any "native." Millions of our fellow citizens would rather live off the state than clean the $hitter. It is beneath them. But actually there is a dignity in labour, any labour, a feeling of self worth you get from maintaining yourself economically. Really living off others if you are perfectly fit and able to work ought to be beneath them, not working in a low status job.

    But that is where we are, and it isn't going to change. In consequence we suck in thousands of people each year from poor countries without our welfare state to clean our $hitters and serve us our coffees.

    They want to, they have to. It is not beneath them.
    My point was not whether they could or would through economic neccessity [although i imagine most would try and hold out for something better or simply go on the dole] it was that very very few people would want to become a toilet cleaner through choice
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    Whether mass Immigration is the main cause or a factor we all agree the public services in the UK are under constraint (our schools, NHS services, transport system).

    Surely reducing immigration would help reduce the strain on our services.
    You have fallen into the trap. Correlation does not imply causation. Let us throw a few other things that might be crippling services like the NHS. Could it be an ageing population? Reduced financing compared to recent years? The reduction of social and mental health services meaning the NHS picks up the pieces?

    As for education - we white British folks were pretty busy 5-10 years or so ago. We have contributed to our own baby boom. That and continued cuts to funding in education, plus pressure from politicians to continue to reinvent the wheel hence putting off teachers; might have put a bit of a strain on education?

    But you are right. I am sure it is all the fault of Johnny Foreigner, coming here, doing our jobs and taking our women. Yep - definitely that. After all, we can hate something we fear, especially if it doesn't have a face or personality.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    You have fallen into the trap. Correlation does not imply causation. Let us throw a few other things that might be crippling services like the NHS. Could it be an ageing population? Reduced financing compared to recent years? The reduction of social and mental health services meaning the NHS picks up the pieces?

    As for education - we white British folks were pretty busy 5-10 years or so ago. We have contributed to our own baby boom. That and continued cuts to funding in education, plus pressure from politicians to continue to reinvent the wheel hence putting off teachers; might have put a bit of a strain on education?

    But you are right. I am sure it is all the fault of Johnny Foreigner, coming here, doing our jobs and taking our women. Yep - definitely that. After all, we can hate something we fear, especially if it doesn't have a face or personality.
    Is immigration a factor of the strain on our public services?
    Surely it is, common sense would show that more people using a service, the more people that will be needed to meet the demands of all the people, the more resources that are needed to meet the demands and that also means more money. Sadly that's not to say that the conservatives aren't funding our public services very well, that is a big factor to the strain but so is immigration.

    You have listed other factors that are leading to the strain on our public services and are denying the problem that mass immigration is.

    Surely common sense will show you that the less people using a service (which will be the direct consequence of reduced immigration), the less strain there will be on that service.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shawn_o1)
    The arguments against points-based immigration are going to be made by the same people who benefit from having to pay lower wages ie those at the top chasing profit. They love perpetuating the stereotype that native people won't do the jobs, or don't do them well enough.
    ... while the truth is that migrants are- for most menial jobs- simply better employees than natives. And pay discrimination (as well as paying below minimal wage) is illegal- so at least in theory there would be no obvious financial reasons to employ migrants- apart from fact they do actually make better employees (what were the numbers? 3x les likely to call a sick day in the first 2 years of job?). but ad rem- recent goverments could not control the non-EU migration (about which EU has no say- so don't blame Brussel for that!)- what would you make think that next goverment could do it?
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    All ideas are good ideas when other countries do it; they only become racist or bad when Britain (or America) do them.

    Controlled migration in every part of the world - ok.

    Controlled migration in Britain- racist.


    Insurance based healthcare in Germany, France and Scandinavia? Clever, practical, value for money and with caring outcomes.

    Insurance based healthcare in UK? An evil Tory plot to privatise and destroy the NHS wit he the ultimate goal of murdering the poor.


    Counterterrorism in other countries-a smart way of defending themselves against threats.

    Counterterrorism in UK? Racism and Islamophobia
    So true
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shawn_o1)
    The arguments against points-based immigration are going to be made by the same people who benefit from having to pay lower wages ie those at the top chasing profit. They love perpetuating the stereotype that native people won't do the jobs, or don't do them well enough.
    Because they don't.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ruit-winemaker

    And brexit hasnt even happened yet. And that's 1 example.

    I guess the right wing love to be politically correct too.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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

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