Politics, politics, politics

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

Ardent remainers do themselves no favours with this disingenuous argument. You cannot simply come here from a non-EU country, sign up with an employment agency and compete for minimum wage jobs. To come here as a non-EU migrant, you need to either meet criteria for your employment visa (which has minimum levels of income as part of the criteria) or you are coming here as the dependent of a British national, who in turn has to meet criteria for income, housing etc. Currently, non-EU migrants have no recourse to public funds (benefits) for 5 years after arrival. That's not to mention language tests, "life in the uk" tests etc.

Equating someone coming here from India as a doctor to someone coming here from Poland who might get work as a cleaner or in a warehouse is a poor argument when it comes to comparing EU/Non-EU migration and that is, in effect, what you are doing when you talk of the absolute numbers with no context.

Also, where is the fairness in British citizens having to jump through hoops and meet criteria re. wages, housing etc. just to live in their own country with a spouse who happens to be a non-EU migrant, when EU migrants with no connection to this country at all can freely come here and crack on with life, even if all they will do is minimum wage work? If you are poor and British, you can get phucked if you fall in love with someone from outside of the EU -- that's the current system. If you are poor and from the EU, hey, no problem.

It is taking people for fools to compare the two types of immigration as if they are the same. If you are from a poor part of England on low wages and you voted leave with immigration at the forefront of your thinking, then it wasn't Indian doctors that you were thinking of, but the large amount of unskilled workers that come from EU countries, often competing for the same jobs as you. (note, when I say 'you' I am talking generally, not to you personally).

No worries at all.

Perhaps it's not strictly apples with apples, but as an overall "mass immigration" number I think it's a valid comparison when much of the argument was based around quantity.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Aside from that, its also something of a red herring when the difference in numbers is an almighty 7%

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

EU = 248,000 the year ending March 2017, non-EU = 266,000.

The way the non-EU is greater argument is phrased is as if its by a significant value. Its not.

AND it also misses the fundamental point - We can control the non EU numbers. If we choose to reject people we can.

 

[the dza]

No worries at all.

Perhaps it's not strictly apples with apples, but as an overall "mass immigration" number I think it's a valid comparison when much of the argument was based around quantity.

I agree in part, "mass immigration" was a simple sound-bite and countered with the simple argument of non-EU migration being higher. I think both sides should have moved away from such simple arguments and had a proper debate, but too late now.

I've said many times before that I voted remain. For me, immigration was not a big issue, but I still acknowledge the unfairness of the current system as well as economic arguments from the point of view of people on low wages (of which I am one). Despite that, I'd still have preferred to remain part of the EU because imo, the pros outweigh the cons.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Aside from that, its also something of a red herring when the difference in numbers is an almighty 7%

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

EU = 248,000 the year ending March 2017, non-EU = 266,000.

The way the non-EU is greater argument is phrased is as if its by a significant value. Its not.

AND it also misses the fundamental point - We can control the non EU numbers. If we choose to reject people we can.

I expect those numbers include the 104,000 non-EU students and 42,000 EU students, because for some bizarre reason the home office include them in migration numbers

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Quite possible, I havent found somewhere that breaks the numbers down further yet.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I expect those numbers include the 104,000 non-EU students and 42,000 EU students, because for some bizarre reason the home office include them in migration numbers

this is the reason they give:

International students are a component of net migration because not all students depart the UK when they have completed their studies

Previously published Home Office analysis of non-EU students’ journeys through the immigration system shows that around 1 in 5 non-EU former students had valid leave to remain up to 5 years after their arrival to study as students or by switching visa routes. In addition, a small proportion (1%) had achieved settlement in 5 years.

Further evidence from the Survey of Graduating International Students shows that around a quarter of non-EU students responding to the survey state that they intend to work in the UK after completing their studies.

 

[Gutter Boy]

this is the reason they give:

International students are a component of net migration because not all students depart the UK when they have completed their studies

Previously published Home Office analysis of non-EU students’ journeys through the immigration system shows that around 1 in 5 non-EU former students had valid leave to remain up to 5 years after their arrival to study as students or by switching visa routes. In addition, a small proportion (1%) had achieved settlement in 5 years.

Further evidence from the Survey of Graduating International Students shows that around a quarter of non-EU students responding to the survey state that they intend to work in the UK after completing their studies.

But you should count them when they are given work visas, not when they turn up as 18 year olds

Also graduates are the skilled workers you want to keep, rather than the unskilled ones who are imported by big business to undercut wages.

 

[r-u-s-x]

But you should count them when they are given work visas, not when they turn up as 18 year olds

Also graduates are the skilled workers you want to keep, rather than the unskilled ones who are imported by big business to undercut wages.

"But you should count them when they are given work visas, not when they turn up as 18 year olds"

Why? we should count them but also realise on average that 4/5 will leave within the next 5 years.

"Also graduates are the skilled workers you want to keep, rather than the unskilled ones who are imported by big business to undercut wages"

Whats that got to do with counting immigration? Should we not count any skilled workers coming into the country?

 

[Gutter Boy]

"But you should count them when they are given work visas, not when they turn up as 18 year olds"

Why? we should count them but also realise on average that 4/5 will leave within the next 5 years.

"Also graduates are the skilled workers you want to keep, rather than the unskilled ones who are imported by big business to undercut wages"

Whats that got to do with counting immigration? Should we not count any skilled workers coming into the country?

Because they only come on 3 year study visa. They have no entitlement to stay, unless they are issued additional visas. By the same logic you could add tourists to the net migration figures too but realise that 99.8% of them will leave with the next 2 weeks.

And just we should be designing a fair immigration system that prioritises skilled workers and spouses, while disincentivising unskilled migration. So students should be welcomed, while Mike Ashley's sweatshops should have to offer decent pay and conditions to local Nottinghamshire people, and the overall UK population managed into a slight decline.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Because they only come on 3 year study visa. They have no entitlement to stay, unless they are issued additional visas. By the same logic you could add tourists to the net migration figures too but realise that 99.8% of them will leave with the next 2 weeks.

And just we should be designing a fair immigration system that prioritises skilled workers and spouses, while disincentivising unskilled migration. So students should be welcomed, while Mike Ashley's sweatshops should have to offer decent pay and conditions to local Nottinghamshire people, and the overall UK population managed into a slight decline.

1 in 5 are staying longer than 5 years - it says it just there and I also said "Why? we should count them but also realise on average that 4/5 will leave within the next 5 years."

On the second point counting immigration has nothing to do with policy they are two different things.

 

[DeleHarry]

Because they only come on 3 year study visa. They have no entitlement to stay, unless they are issued additional visas. By the same logic you could add tourists to the net migration figures too but realise that 99.8% of them will leave with the next 2 weeks.

And just we should be designing a fair immigration system that prioritises skilled workers and spouses, while disincentivising unskilled migration. So students should be welcomed, while Mike Ashley's sweatshops should have to offer decent pay and conditions to local Nottinghamshire people, and the overall UK population managed into a slight decline.

too right

the same can apply to Asos in Barnsley, Amazon in Wales, Scotland, Lancashire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire, Yorkshire, the north of London home counties, Ocado in Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Warwickshire and South London. These and other sweatshops whose workforces are 80% or more from the EU and all on between 7.50-8.50 pounds per hour. Its ok for the EU workers to work at that rate because they come over and stay in rented 3/4 bed houses with up to 10 or more colleagues in the each house.

 

[Gutter Boy]

too right

the same can apply to Asos in Barnsley, Amazon in Wales, Scotland, Lancashire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire, Yorkshire, the north of London home counties, Ocado in Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Warwickshire and South London. These and other sweatshops whose workforces are 80% or more from the EU and all on between 7.50-8.50 pounds per hour. Its ok for the EU workers to work at that rate because they come over and stay in rented 3/4 bed houses with up to 10 or more colleagues in the each house.

Freedom of movement is currently big business' greatest weapon in destroying workers' rights and undermining quality of life expectations. It's simple exploitation, to the harm of everyone bar the shareholders

 

[r-u-s-x]

Freedom of movement is currently big business' greatest weapon in destroying workers' rights and undermining quality of life expectations. It's simple exploitation, to the harm of everyone bar the shareholders

I know you don't agree but I think Brexit is the greatest weapon to destroy worker's rights. Regardless of FOM I doubt very much that importation of low cost labour will go down.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I know you don't agree but I think Brexit is the greatest weapon to destroy worker's rights. Regardless of FOM I doubt very much that importation of low cost labour will go down.

It depends who is in charge come 2022. Brexit is about ending the past. The future can be written lots of different ways. I think Corbyn and the Labour left would very much put the brakes on to protect the interests of the native working class.

The banks and financial services getting twitchy is already a sign that we're heading the right direction IMO.

I'm not actually bothered about net migration per se. I'm bothered about net population. We need our net population to start shrinking (like it was in the early 00s), and have to curb economic migration a bit to start achieving that.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Its longer term than that - over the last 40 years we have been moving towards the US market place and even if Corbyn wins I would guess this is just a small blip. I believe that BREXIT was mainly diven by some Tories and big businesses (including media) not wanting to give low cost labour the same rights as the native labour force and in the longer term removing some of the rights given to us by the EU. I do not think we will reduce net migration just we will not have to pay them working tax credits or any other benefits that we need to give the native voting population.

This is what I believe will happen not what I want to happen,

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

I expect those numbers include the 104,000 non-EU students and 42,000 EU students, because for some bizarre reason the home office include them in migration numbers

Quite possible, I havent found somewhere that breaks the numbers down further yet.

I found this...

Seven out of ten international students came from non-EU countries in 2016, and 60% were female in 2015.

According to IPS estimates, international students come primarily from non-EU countries. In 2016, about 70% of students moving to the UK came from non-EU countries (92,000 out of 132,000).

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

Aside from that, its also something of a red herring when the difference in numbers is an almighty 7%

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

EU = 248,000 the year ending March 2017, non-EU = 266,000.

The way the non-EU is greater argument is phrased is as if its by a significant value. Its not.

AND it also misses the fundamental point - We can control the non EU numbers. If we choose to reject people we can.

Correct me if I read wrong, but I'm sure there was info a few weeks back that we could have and can send EU migrants home if they haven't found work within three months.

We either don't have the infrastructure to manage it or choose not to.

(Happy to be corrected, sure I read that).

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

First Ive seen of it.

 

[Seedy Ron]

It's something like if they haven't got work, aren't in education or haven't got enough savings to support themselves.

We just couldn't be arsed to keep track of them because it's cheaper not to (they bring in more than they cost).

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

First Ive seen of it.

Some detail here.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/13120104