richard10012
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
What are your views on immigration? Is it a positive or negative thing? I understand that people want to move for a better life but if more and more people come then house prices rise, doctor waiting lines get bigger. The U.K. is already at 60 million which is the basically the same as France.
0
reply
JOSH4598
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
Immigration is good, but only if the people coming are needed in our economy and society. For example qualified professionals from across the world who can add value to our country and are willing to fully integrate are great! But economic migrants, who have no skills and are not interested in becoming 'British', who likely have every intention of disappearing and working in the black economy, should not be granted entry.

I also feel there should be a rule in place, where migrants must have paid at least 5 or 10 years of National Insurance contributions before they have any access to non-emergency healthcare/housing services/mental health services/welfare system. This would disincentivise those who are coming to take advantage of the fantastic services we have in place.

All illegal migrants in the UK, who either entered in an unregulated way or who have overstayed on their Visa should be deported (where place of origin can be established) without question. Any appeals can take place after the deportation, and if successful they will have to be brought back. The current issue we have is that illegal migrants instantly appeal any deportation orders and more than often disappear again while the appeal is considered, which can take many months.

The UK is late to the party when it comes to regulating immigration - the Home Office is bound by so much red tape (and unwilling leaders), which has enabled decades of migration into Britain without much knowledge of where these people end up or how valuable they are to our country.
2
reply
Xeryxer
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
I find this interesting because people always seem to focus on the increase in demand immigrants create with regards to the NHS, Policing etc without mentioning that they create demand for pretty much every other industry too.

For most industries i'd argue that immigration helps them as more immigration means more people in their market; when immigrants are forced to live illegally they don't contribute to national services.

There is also this myth of immigrants stealing jobs? I don't know if anyone has heard of Cubans fleeing to Miami in 1980 but in that case a study found that the increase in immigration created more jobs for locals due to the increase in demand mentioned above. In fact, migrants coming from war zones or fleeing danger often actually increases the number of locals in a managerial position because they are more experienced.

To be honest I would suggest that the lack of social housing, access to efficient healthcare and all these other things are problems created by the UK system. Isn't the whole point that if someone needs support from the government that they get it? surely if immigrants can't access these vital services despite being British that suggests there is something wrong with those systems?

Coming on to the point about policy, I totally agree - some of the things currently in place are ridiculous. Why does someone seeking asylum in the UK (for a perfectly good reason) have to be in the country to apply for it?? The reason people cross the channel is out of desperation: fathers looking for their children, for example. If we give those who deserve to be here a valid system of being able to do so, it makes it easier to figure out who shouldn't be.

About deporting everyone, why would someone fleeing from a war zone be sent back? they would have to make the whole journey again; I see your point but perhaps there should be some questions asked first?

Also, on a human level. I certainly don't mind spending 10 minutes longer waiting for my broken arm to be fixed in A&E if it means a family can have access to healthcare. We are global citizens just as much as we are British ones - that's just my opinion.
1
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
Immigration is fantastic for this country. Absolutely no doubt about it. However, only if it is backed up by a system which rewards everyone, not just immigrants for hard work and abiding the law, which in this country, we don't have.
0
reply
Kitten in boots
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by JOSH4598)
I also feel there should be a rule in place, where migrants must have paid at least 5 or 10 years of National Insurance contributions before they have any access to non-emergency healthcare/housing services/mental health services/welfare system. This would disincentivise those who are coming to take advantage of the fantastic services we have in place.
That would produce a bizarre situation whereby Jimmy no-GCSEs gets free healthcare despite barely contributing anything in terms of taxation yet Dr Johnny Foreigner is denied access to NHS services despite saving the lives of British people and contributing more than the average person to the Treasury.
1
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by JOSH4598)
Immigration is good, but only if the people coming are needed in our economy and society. For example qualified professionals from across the world who can add value to our country and are willing to fully integrate are great! But economic migrants, who have no skills and are not interested in becoming 'British', who likely have every intention of disappearing and working in the black economy, should not be granted entry.

I also feel there should be a rule in place, where migrants must have paid at least 5 or 10 years of National Insurance contributions before they have any access to non-emergency healthcare/housing services/mental health services/welfare system. This would disincentivise those who are coming to take advantage of the fantastic services we have in place.

All illegal migrants in the UK, who either entered in an unregulated way or who have overstayed on their Visa should be deported (where place of origin can be established) without question. Any appeals can take place after the deportation, and if successful they will have to be brought back. The current issue we have is that illegal migrants instantly appeal any deportation orders and more than often disappear again while the appeal is considered, which can take many months.

The UK is late to the party when it comes to regulating immigration - the Home Office is bound by so much red tape (and unwilling leaders), which has enabled decades of migration into Britain without much knowledge of where these people end up or how valuable they are to our country.
"the fantastic services we have in place" - You do realise that 25% of our secondary schools are failing?
2
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by richard10012)
What are your views on immigration? Is it a positive or negative thing? I understand that people want to move for a better life but if more and more people come then house prices rise, doctor waiting lines get bigger. The U.K. is already at 60 million which is the basically the same as France.
Immigration is generally good but it must be controlled for the benefit of migrants and natives alike.
0
reply
JOSH4598
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Kitten in boots)
That would produce a bizarre situation whereby Jimmy no-GCSEs gets free healthcare despite barely contributing anything in terms of taxation yet Dr Johnny Foreigner is denied access to NHS services despite saving the lives of British people and contributing more than the average person to the Treasury.
I take your point, and potentially there could be a list of professions where this rule is exempt. For example the phrase 'key workers' to be defined to employees in the health and social care sector, education sector, food supply sector etc. Essentially roles which our economy needs the most.

The rule should be properly implemented as to prevent 'health tourists' or simply people taking advantage of the system. It should be no means penalise people coming to the UK who wish to work hard, pay their taxes and contribute to the state.

Also bear in mind I said this rule would (in theory) apply to non-emergency medical care. Of course if somebody is having a heart attack or has been stabbed, checking their NI contributions shouldn't be a priority! But expensive dental care, long-term cancer treatment, hip replacements or knee replacements should not be paid for by the 'British taxpayer' if the patient has migrated to the UK and has not paid into the system.
0
reply
JOSH4598
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
"the fantastic services we have in place" - You do realise that 25% of our secondary schools are failing?
They quite possibly are (I haven't seen the evidence for that but it is believable).

However education and health care which are free at the point of use are, in my mind, 'fantastic' given not many countries offer such quality services without the recipient paying directly for them. Even those 25% of schools (I'm quoting you here) which are failing, offer a standard of education that is likely far better than even the best schools in certain parts of Asia or Africa.

The UK's NHS is one of the world's best institutions, and free for all Britons. There's little dispute the public services we all enjoy in the UK are 'fantastic' when compared with public services in other countries.
0
reply
History98
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by JOSH4598)
I take your point, and potentially there could be a list of professions where this rule is exempt. For example the phrase 'key workers' to be defined to employees in the health and social care sector, education sector, food supply sector etc. Essentially roles which our economy needs the most.

The rule should be properly implemented as to prevent 'health tourists' or simply people taking advantage of the system. It should be no means penalise people coming to the UK who wish to work hard, pay their taxes and contribute to the state.

Also bear in mind I said this rule would (in theory) apply to non-emergency medical care. Of course if somebody is having a heart attack or has been stabbed, checking their NI contributions shouldn't be a priority! But expensive dental care, long-term cancer treatment, hip replacements or knee replacements should not be paid for by the 'British taxpayer' if the patient has migrated to the UK and has not paid into the system.
Migrants are already not eligible for free healthcare, they have to pay a health charge (this is on top of NI and Income Tax contributions) which is currently £400 a year per person (rising to £600 a year next month). Only health care workers and asylum seekers are exempt. Asylum seekers are exempt as they are not permitted to be economically active (i.e. they can't work or start businesses). Non-EU nationals who do not pay the annual health charge, like visitors, have to pay for their hospital care at the point of use at 150% of cost.
1
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
Immigration is generally a pretty good thing. We're getting workers into our economy without the need to pay to educate and raise them. Particularly skilled immigration has been the backbone of many sectors of our economy over the last 20 years.

There does have to be a sensible discussion about population growth though. Many advocates of immigration make the point that these young immigrants are paying for our elderly, because domestic population growth is relatively low. That, to me, has always been a pyramid scheme: we cannot keep expecting our population to grow exponentially to pay for the increasing costs of older people.

There's also the question of infrastructure. We simply do not invest enough in supporting a growing population. Hence the usual complaints about housing, growing waiting lists at the GP - stuff that actually should piss people off and that immigration is (to an extent, correctly) seen as causing. This is simply a lack of investment in these services, often caused for rather ridiculous reasons. Housing is the most vital component - and I've ranted enough on here about how poor we have been at housebuilding for well over a generation now. But housing must also be accompanied with real plans for provision of services.

I'm philosophically tempted by a 'let them come' argument, but equally I do think that the reality is that immigration should be managed in order to ensure that no detriment falls to the wider population. This can be done.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
It's not either good or bad. It all depends on who wants to move where and for what reason.
Surely, it's only beneficial for a country if the immigrations knows the local language, culture and law, their culture is compatible, and they have skills that are in demand.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
It's not either good or bad, its can be bad if its mismanaged and it can be fantastic if it correctly managed. It's as simple as that really, where it starts getting more complicated is deciding what's good and what's bad, purely as an example some people will see huge labour pools of low skilled migrants as good others as bad, horses for courses.
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 19
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
i used to work in (albeit Canadian) immigration and have personally lived on three sides of the planet under different immigration rules. what concerns me most about this issue is that it’s so misunderstood and often discussed too simplistically - it’s always ‘good vs bad’, and are you the ‘good kind’ of immigrant or the ‘bad kind’; when in reality immigration is a complex issue and not every immigration policy is going to suit every country and that country’s economic demands. it has to be personalised.

imo a good immigration policy is manageable and malleable to suit the specific economic climate at a specific time. it has to cater to both high skilled and low skilled workers because a successful economy doesn’t run on just doctors and bankers, and often immigrants do the jobs that natives don’t want and cannot be forced to do. countries with closed borders tend to favour the so-called ‘high’ skilled workers and those with money tho, and ngl immigration is often seen as racist but it’s mostly classest. my firm’s clientele at least was by far mostly upper class and millionaires who can buy their immigration rights. and on one hand i understand why this is desirable but on the other it makes one question their morals (at least it did for me).
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
I have no objection to high immigration rates per say (infrastructure issues can be solved via competent government) however monoculturalism is what is important. The decades long idea of allowing people to speak a foreign language, worship a foreign religion or cluster with their own has done great damage to social integration.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
I'm not sure you can call it either good or bad really, the terms being utterly subjective. What is a fact is it is completely and utterly necessary though.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Rakas21)
I have no objection to high immigration rates per say (infrastructure issues can be solved via competent government) however monoculturalism is what is important. The decades long idea of allowing people to speak a foreign language, worship a foreign religion or cluster with their own has done great damage to social integration.
In fairness this idea is as old as time itself, people like to be with there own.
On the first bit though, wouldnt forcibly converting people to a specific religion and banning discourse in a foreign language do an equal, if not disproportionate, amount of harm?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Napp)
In fairness this idea is as old as time itself, people like to be with there own.
On the first bit though, wouldnt forcibly converting people to a specific religion and banning discourse in a foreign language do an equal, if not disproportionate, amount of harm?
I guess i'm supportive of immigration for economic reasons largely but for fairly selfish reasons. I care about the benefit to the UK, not to the immigrant.

As much as i don't associate myself with modern liberalism even i am not that autocratic. No, so far as i am concerned one can do and believe what they wish in the privacy of their own home, i would simply restrict the ability (outside of say restaurants) to advertise or publish things in a language other than English (sorry Polish shops) and ban the creation of new Mosques ect..

And yes it is an old idea however i have had the misfortune of growing up on the outskirts of Bradford, a place that now feels like a foreign city. To feel such a way in your country is horrific in my opinion.
1
reply
iNeed2p
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Rakas21)
I guess i'm supportive of immigration for economic reasons largely but for fairly selfish reasons. I care about the benefit to the UK, not to the immigrant.

As much as i don't associate myself with modern liberalism even i am not that autocratic. No, so far as i am concerned one can do and believe what they wish in the privacy of their own home, i would simply restrict the ability (outside of say restaurants) to advertise or publish things in a language other than English (sorry Polish shops) and ban the creation of new Mosques ect..

And yes it is an old idea however i have had the misfortune of growing up on the outskirts of Bradford, a place that now feels like a foreign city. To feel such a way in your country is horrific in my opinion.
Lol, why ban mosques only thou? Why not others like, synagogue, churches, temples and etc?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by iNeed2p)
Lol, why ban mosques only thou? Why not others like, synagogue, churches, temples and etc?
Mosques were just an example. Bar churches and Jewish synagogues all would be impacted.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you confident you could find support for your mental health if you needed it in COVID-19?

Yes (75)
21.49%
No (274)
78.51%

Watched Threads

View All