The Student Room Group

Should the U.K. have Open borders

Would this solve the current immigration problem? Anyone that wants to come into the U.K. can. The U.K. is set to have the biggest population in Europe. Where will everyone live? Do we have enough schools? Hospitals? Etc

Scroll to see replies

No.

London.

No, but we didn't anyway.
Having open borders is not the solution, unlike what the Green Party thinks. That would only make the population overflow and put existing citizens at risk of large-scale attacks. However, I do believe the application should be more than, 'How much will you benefit this country if we let you in?'
Nope. I don’t think it’ll ever be a thing thr uk populace wants either. I’d guess it’s a island nation thing
Reply 4
I broadly support free (ish) movement of labour between states that have a per capita wealth higher than our own.

Albeit I say 'ish' because I'd still impose limited requirements sorrounding capital and language
No.
Original post by Rakas21
I broadly support free (ish) movement of labour between states that have a per capita wealth higher than our own.

Albeit I say 'ish' because I'd still impose limited requirements sorrounding capital and language


Would you also impose restrictions connected to age, criminal record, health and family size?
Or just restrict require employees to accept full liability for all their overseas citizen staffs healthcare and legal costs.
Reply 7
Original post by londonmyst
Would you also impose restrictions connected to age, criminal record, health and family size?
Or just restrict require employees to accept full liability for all their overseas citizen staffs healthcare and legal costs.

Age - No, capital requirements mean I don't much care.

Criminal record - Yes. No criminals.

Health - No. Recent changes mean immigrants need to pay for NHS access or require private insurance.

Family - Children yes subject to private education or home schooling. Spouce, yes. Subject to double capital requirement.

Basically, if you don't have 200k in advance along with a clean criminal record and a satisfactory education then your not coming in but essentially I support golden visas in an extended manner.

I should say that I basically support golden visas so I would require immigrants to purchase a property in the UK and prove that they have funds in advance (I'd set the level around 200k).
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Rakas21
Age - No, capital requirements mean I don't much care.

Criminal record - Yes. No criminals.

Health - No. Recent changes mean immigrants need to pay for NHS access or require private insurance.

Family - Children yes subject to private education or home schooling. Spouce, yes. Subject to double capital requirement.

Basically, if you don't have 200k in advance along with a clean criminal record and a satisfactory education then your not coming in but essentially I support golden visas in an extended manner.

I should say that I basically support golden visas so I would require immigrants to purchase a property in the UK and prove that they have funds in advance (I'd set the level around 200k).

The age element also includes those under 18 years old.
Particularly those underage individuals who may not have living parents but do have income from trust funds or significant savings and still require some adult supervision until they are adults.
Health including transmissible illnesses (hep b/hiv/aids) or incurable serious chronic and genetic conditions that could lead to frequent medical emergencies at work or when travelling.
No for one reason that it is completely incompatible with the environmental and sustainable development goals that have been set. Mass immigration is the leading cause of the loss of habitats and ecosystems in the UK and increases the carbon footprint far greater than a few folks eating a few extra slices of meat or driving to work. The UK has some of the fastest dwindling forested areas in Europe as a result.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by NiechZyjeZycie
No for one reason that it is completely incompatible with the environmental and sustainable development goals that have been set. Mass immigration is the leading cause of the loss of habitats and ecosystems in the UK and increases the carbon footprint far greater than a few folks eating a few extra slices of meat or driving to work. The UK has some of the fastest dwindling forested areas in Europe as a result.

Do you have evidence of the later point. I'm sure I saw recently that UK forest cover was slowly increasing.
Reply 11
If any politician proposed this theyd find their head on a pike.
Ridiculous idea, we want immigration of skilled and useful workers not the world riffraff... it might not be nice, warm and humane but immigration policy iosnt meant to be, its cold hard and calculated to benefit Britain, not as a sop to would be economic migrants.
Original post by Napp
If any politician proposed this theyd find their head on a pike.
Ridiculous idea, we want immigration of skilled and useful workers not the world riffraff... it might not be nice, warm and humane but immigration policy iosnt meant to be, its cold hard and calculated to benefit Britain, not as a sop to would be economic migrants.

Wow! I can just see all of those "skilled useful" workers queuing up to enter a country such as ours knowing they are going to be so warmly welcomed by folks like yourself. You are a great ambassador.
Reply 13
Original post by hotpud
Wow! I can just see all of those "skilled useful" workers queuing up to enter a country such as ours knowing they are going to be so warmly welcomed by folks like yourself. You are a great ambassador.

Why thank you :smile:
Alas, if you really dont understand immigration politics, that ignorance is solely on your head though.
Original post by Napp
Why thank you :smile:
Alas, if you really dont understand immigration politics, that ignorance is solely on your head though.

You are quite right. I am totally ignorant of immigration politics... as are the thousands of EU nationals who used to live in the UK but went home following Brexit as a result of the anti-EU sentiment.

And now we find ourselves in that enviable situation (not predicted at all) where businesses can no longer grown because there are not enough workers to fill job vacancies. #progress #stagflation
(edited 1 year ago)
uhm. i don't even know why we're asking the question tbh. we literally just left the EU because the majority of voters, that being 3.8% (if i did the maths right), are against free movement. should the UK government have made a deal with the EU that didn't stop that? :lol: twould not be presenting the democratic will of the people i would say. not that those voters will stop complaining about immigrants and immigration law; average person has no idea how immigration works.
(edited 1 year ago)
To be honest I think every country should have open borders.

It would make it easy for employers to find the best employee for the job, and for employees to find the job that suits them best. It would make it easier for consumers to buy products from anywhere in the world, and for businesses to sell in whichever markets they like. It would make all economies far more competitive.

I don't really see the point in putting arbitrary barriers around arbitrary pieces of land.
Original post by tazarooni89
To be honest I think every country should have open borders.

It would make it easy for employers to find the best employee for the job, and for employees to find the job that suits them best. It would make it easier for consumers to buy products from anywhere in the world, and for businesses to sell in whichever markets they like. It would make all economies far more competitive.

I don't really see the point in putting arbitrary barriers around arbitrary pieces of land.

But it's not just about the economy, is it?
Original post by tazarooni89
To be honest I think every country should have open borders.

It would make it easy for employers to find the best employee for the job, and for employees to find the job that suits them best. It would make it easier for consumers to buy products from anywhere in the world, and for businesses to sell in whichever markets they like. It would make all economies far more competitive.

I don't really see the point in putting arbitrary barriers around arbitrary pieces of land.


Given the pre-existing wealth disparities that exist, it would in all likelihood destroy the ethno-cultural identity of states like the UK. If even 1% of the third world decides to move here it would be disastrous given our (i.e. white, Christian/atheist countries) low numbers.

Importing people from states which are not market democracies could also ironically destroy the very thing that attracts them.
Original post by Rakas21
Given the pre-existing wealth disparities that exist, it would in all likelihood destroy the ethno-cultural identity of states like the UK. If even 1% of the third world decides to move here it would be disastrous given our (i.e. white, Christian/atheist countries) low numbers.

Importing people from states which are not market democracies could also ironically destroy the very thing that attracts them.

But if the entire world had open borders I don't particularly envisage that "1% of the third world" would particularly want to move here. In fact there may no longer even be such a thing as "the third world". The whole reason why some countries are "third world" and others aren't is precisely because of the borders that exist between them, with economic advantages and opportunities being available to people on one side that aren't available to people on the other.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending